Good environmental status for the descriptor "non-indigenous species" is achieved "when the introduction and transfer of new species approaches zero, and if non-indigenous species do not have a negative impact on populations of native species and habitats. As with the WFD, non-indigenous species should not be an exclusion criterion for achieving the good status (GES) as a whole.

Currently, only criterion D2C2, as set out in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848, is used to determine GES for D1. Future use of criteria D2C2 and D2C3 is dependent on scientific progress.
For a MSFD specific assessment of the specific effects on populations of native species (secondary criterion D2C2) and natural habitats (secondary criterion D2C3), existing assessment methods are insufficient. There is a need for research.

Explanation: Germany does not update the general description of good environmental status (GES) from 2012 at descriptor level in this reporting exercise. During the reporting period, Germany has worked with the countries bordering the Baltic Sea in the framework of the EU's MSFD CIS process and with HELCOM to develop methodological standards (indicators, evaluation procedures). Specific aspects of criteria and indicators that contribute to a quantitative assessment of good environmental status are reported in the reporting scheme Art. 8_GES. For the assessment of the criteria set out in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848, the relevant assessments under other EU directives shall be taken into account under Article 8_GES, taking into account, as far as possible, the regional assessments that have been coordinated so far and, on a case-by-case basis, supplemented by national assessments.

No new non-indigenous species are introduced in the Baltic Sea.

During the assessment period (six years), the number of new non-native species introduced into the wild as a result of human activities, calculated from the beginning of the reference year (referred to in the initial assessment under Article 8 (1) of Directive 2008/56 / EC), has been reduced to a minimum and, if possible, to zero. . The indicator “New non-native species for the Baltic Sea” is used, which estimates the number of new non-native species for the Baltic Sea that have appeared in the Baltic Sea waters under Lithuanian jurisdiction during the observed period.

The introduction of non-native species via human activities has been minimized and, as far as possible, reduced to zero.

Abundance and spatial distribution of established non-native species, in particular invasive species, which contribute significantly to adverse effects on certain species groups or predominant habitat types. The condition is assessed according to the indicator “Species abundance and distribution in space”. According to the D2C2 criterion, the condition of the marine area was assessed according to 2 invasive species. The situation in terms of the prevalence of these species deteriorated compared to the first period. The disadvantage of applying the criterion is that there is no list of species at regional or sub-regional level for the assessment of the state of the marine environment.

The geographical distribution of non-native species, especially invasive species, introduced through human activities is, as far as possible, at a level that does not cause adverse effects on marine species and habitats.

Part of the group of species in which the adverse changes have occurred or the spatial extent of the predominant habitat type in which the adverse changes have occurred, if those adverse changes relate to non-native species, in particular invasive non-native species. The assessment of the marine area according to the D2C3 criterion was performed using the Biological Pollution Assessment Method (BPL index) for the two species included in the national list of invasive species: Dikerogammarus villosus and Neogobius melanostomus. However, the method has drawbacks that require additional targeted research. The BPL method was used in the initial assessment for the period 1990-2010. Evaluation according to the D2C3 criterion, applying the BPL method, showed that in 2012-2017. During the period, negative changes took place in the predominant type of habitats in the Lithuanian sea area. The level of biocontamination caused by the invasive species N. melanostomus increased from low (BPL = 1) to extreme (BPL = 4) from the initial assessment. In order to analyze the need for status assessment for the D2C3 criterion, other methods for assessing the impact of invasive species that were developed after 2007 were selected.

The geographical distribution of non-native species, especially invasive species, introduced through human activities is, as far as possible, at a level that does not cause adverse effects on marine species and habitats.

D2: For D2C1, a threshold value of max. 1, which differs from HELCOM, was defined because, in line with the North Sea, a pragmatic threshold has been set at less than 25 % of the entry rate determined through constant monitoring. However, the environmental objective (Article 10 of the MSFD) aims to completely prevent new introduction.

D2: During the reporting period, regional cooperation focused on the development of methodological standards to assess the various aspects of stress and resilience on the basis of Commission Decision 2010/477/EU. The indicators vary in their level of maturity and require further development or testing. Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 gives, for the first time, an explicit obligation on the part of the EU Member States to agree on evaluation elements, thresholds and integration rules in the framework of the EU MSFD CIS process and through regional or subregional cooperation. Germany is actively working with the countries bordering the Baltic Sea in the framework of the ongoing work programmes of the EU MSFD and the HELCOM bodies to establish where a coordinated definition is still missing.

D2C1: HELCOM's threshold value for non-resident species in the Baltic Sea area means that no new introductions of non-resident species per assessment area are conducted via human activities over a six-year assessment period. However, by extension of the threshold, HELCOM mentions that a mid-term target for a decline in new introductions should be considered. OSPAR has not set a threshold, and therefore there is not a sufficient basis for assessing when good environmental conditions can be achieved in the North Sea. It is not expected that a decrease in new introductions of non-native species can be achieved until, among other things, international efforts, such as the UN Ballast Convention, for example, are beginning to take effect. Data is generally lacking, but it is immediately estimated that a good environmental condition has not been achieved in the Baltic Sea or the North Sea, nor is it expected in 2020.


D2C2: When a non-resident species is established in the marine environment, it is almost impossible to eradicate why prevention or early action is considered the most cost-effective means of limiting non-resident and potentially invasive species. The monitoring of non-native species is subject to some uncertainty, so monitoring should be targeted and further developed.


D2C3: When a non-resident species is established in the marine environment, it is almost impossible to eradicate why prevention or early action is considered the most cost-effective means of limiting non-resident and potentially invasive species. The monitoring of non-native species is subject to some uncertainty, so monitoring should be targeted and further developed.