Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D5 / Baltic
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art. 8 Initial assessment (and Art. 17 updates) |
| Report due | 2018-10-15 |
| GES Descriptor | D5 Eutrophication |
| Region/subregion | Baltic |
| Reported by | Member state |
| Member state | Finland |
Estonia |
Latvia |
Lithuania |
Poland |
Germany |
Denmark |
Sweden |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Member state report | |||||||||
| Marine reporting units | MRUs used |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Features | Chemical |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Element | Transparency |
|
|||||||
| Element | Dissolved oxygen |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Element | Angiosperms |
|
|||||||
| Element | Benthic habitats - macrobenthic communities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Element | Benthic habitats - macrophyte communities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
| Element | Benthic habitats - opportunistic macroalgae |
|
|
|
|||||
| Element | Benthic invertebrates |
|
|||||||
| Element | Chlorophyll-a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Element | Cyanobacteria surface accumulations combining information of volume, length of bloom period and severity of surface accumulations estimated from remote sensing observations |
|
|||||||
| Element | Cyanobacterial bloom index: Cyanobacterial biomass+cyanobacteria surface accumulations |
|
|
|
|||||
| Element | DIN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Element | DIP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Element | Nutrients (integrated) |
|
|||||||
| Element | Photic limit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Element | Phytoplancton biomass |
|
|
||||||
| Element | Phytoplankton |
|
|
||||||
| Element | TN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Element | TP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Element2 | |||||||||
| Element sources | No. of elements per level |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Criteria and parameters used (number of parameters) | D5 Eutrophication | ||||||||
| Criteria and parameters used (number of parameters) | D5C1 Nutrient concentrations (5.1, 5.1.1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Criteria and parameters used (number of parameters) | D5C2 Chlorophyll-a concentration (5.2.1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Criteria and parameters used (number of parameters) | D5C3 Harmful algal blooms (5.2.4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
| Criteria and parameters used (number of parameters) | D5C4 Photic limit (5.2.2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Criteria and parameters used (number of parameters) | D5C5 Dissolved oxygen concentration (5.3.2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Criteria and parameters used (number of parameters) | D5C6 Opportunistic macroalgae of benthic habitats (5.2.3) |
|
|
|
|||||
| Criteria and parameters used (number of parameters) | D5C7 Macrophyte communities of benthic habitats (5.3.1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Criteria and parameters used (number of parameters) | D5C8 Macrofaunal communities of benthic habitats |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Criteria and parameters used (number of parameters) | 5.1.2 Nutrient ratios (silica, nitrogen and phosphorus) | ||||||||
| Criteria and parameters used (number of parameters) | 5.2 Direct effects of nutrient enrichment | ||||||||
| Criteria and parameters used (number of parameters) | 5.3 Indirect effects of nutrient enrichment | ||||||||
| Threshold values | % of parameters with values (no. of parameters) | 100% (95) |
90% (216) |
100% (51) |
100% (20) |
100% (191) |
48% (39) |
62% (35) |
98% (299) |
| Threshold value sources | D5 Eutrophication | ||||||||
| Threshold value sources | D5C1 Nutrient concentrations (5.1, 5.1.1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Threshold value sources | D5C2 Chlorophyll-a concentration (5.2.1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Threshold value sources | D5C3 Harmful algal blooms (5.2.4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
| Threshold value sources | D5C4 Photic limit (5.2.2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Threshold value sources | D5C5 Dissolved oxygen concentration (5.3.2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Threshold value sources | D5C6 Opportunistic macroalgae of benthic habitats (5.2.3) |
|
|
|
|||||
| Threshold value sources | D5C7 Macrophyte communities of benthic habitats (5.3.1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
| Threshold value sources | D5C8 Macrofaunal communities of benthic habitats |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Threshold value sources | 5.1.2 Nutrient ratios (silica, nitrogen and phosphorus) | ||||||||
| Threshold value sources | 5.2 Direct effects of nutrient enrichment | ||||||||
| Threshold value sources | 5.3 Indirect effects of nutrient enrichment | ||||||||
| Value achieved upper | % of parameters with values (no. of parameters) | 98% (94) |
82% (199) |
100% (51) |
100% (20) |
100% (191) |
48% (39) |
62% (35) |
90% (275) |
| Value achieved lower | % of parameters with values (no. of parameters) | 0% (0) |
0% (0) |
0% (0) |
0% (0) |
0% (0) |
8% (7) |
0% (0) |
0% (0) |
| Value unit/Value unit other (count of use per criterion) | D5 Eutrophication | ||||||||
| Value unit/Value unit other (count of use per criterion) | D5C1 Nutrient concentrations (5.1, 5.1.1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Value unit/Value unit other (count of use per criterion) | D5C2 Chlorophyll-a concentration (5.2.1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Value unit/Value unit other (count of use per criterion) | D5C3 Harmful algal blooms (5.2.4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|||
| Value unit/Value unit other (count of use per criterion) | D5C4 Photic limit (5.2.2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Value unit/Value unit other (count of use per criterion) | D5C5 Dissolved oxygen concentration (5.3.2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
| Value unit/Value unit other (count of use per criterion) | D5C6 Opportunistic macroalgae of benthic habitats (5.2.3) |
|
|
|
|||||
| Value unit/Value unit other (count of use per criterion) | D5C7 Macrophyte communities of benthic habitats (5.3.1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
| Value unit/Value unit other (count of use per criterion) | D5C8 Macrofaunal communities of benthic habitats |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Value unit/Value unit other (count of use per criterion) | 5.1.2 Nutrient ratios (silica, nitrogen and phosphorus) | ||||||||
| Value unit/Value unit other (count of use per criterion) | 5.2 Direct effects of nutrient enrichment | ||||||||
| Value unit/Value unit other (count of use per criterion) | 5.3 Indirect effects of nutrient enrichment | ||||||||
| Proportion threshold values | Range of % values (no. of parameters) | Range: 50-100% (20 of 20 parameters) |
Range: 100-100% (185 of 191 parameters) |
Range: 100-100% (4 of 80 parameters) |
|||||
| Proportion values achieved | Range of % values (no. of parameters) | Range: 17-100% (7 of 20 parameters) |
Range: 100-100% (50 of 191 parameters) |
Range: 3-85% (13 of 80 parameters) |
Range: 0-79% (6 of 56 parameters) |
||||
| Proportion threshold value units | % area of MRU achieving threshold value % of stations achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
|||||
| Trends | No. of trends per category |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Parameters achieved | No. of parameters per category |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Related indicators |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Criteria status | No. of criteria per category |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Element status | No. of elements per category |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Integration rule type for parameters | MULTIMETRIC (95 or 100.0%) |
NHIE_WEI (240 or 100.0%) |
THRES (60 or 100.0%) |
OOAO (9 or 100.0%) |
HIE_WEI (191 or 100.0%) |
NHIE_WEI (44 or 55.0%) Not relevant (36 or 45.0%) |
OTH (7 or 100.0%) |
NHIE_WEI (299 or 98.0%) Not relevant (6 or 2.0%) |
|
| Integration rule description for parameters | the HELCOM HEAT tool |
Eutrophication Ratio between ES (indicator value during the period of the assessment),and ET (boundary of good environmental status) (for indicators with positive response to eutrophication) and ratio between ET and ES (for indicators with negative response to eutrophication) was calculated for each indicator. ER values of indicators were averaged (weighed average) evenly within the criteria group. |
At the level of the parameters and within the categories, weighted averaging was carried out. For the assessment in accordance with HELCOM, no weighting was applied to the units with a German share: Kiel Bay, Mecklenburg Bay, Arkona Basin and Bornholm Basin. Only a simple averaging of the individual parameters took place (weighting factor 1).
At the level of the parameters and within the categories, weighted averaging was carried out. For the assessment in accordance with HELCOM, no weighting was applied to the units with a German share: Kiel Bay, Mecklenburg Bay, Arkona Basin and Bornholm Basin. Only a simple averaging of the individual parameters took place. |
As used in WFD |
Integration rule applied to D5C1 and D5C2 when more than one parameter used, not relevant for other elements/criteria as only a single parameter is used per element/criterion |
||||
| Integration rule type for criteria | MULTIMETRIC (95 or 100.0%) |
OOAO (240 or 100.0%) |
OOAO_HIE (60 or 100.0%) |
OOAO (10 or 5.2%) OOAO_HIE (181 or 94.8%) |
Not relevant (36 or 45.0%) OTH (44 or 55.0%) |
OTH (56 or 100.0%) |
OOAO_HIE (305 or 100.0%) |
||
| Integration rule description for criteria | The status was assessed by the HELCOM HEAT tool. |
Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chl_a and Secchi depth. Indirect effects include minimal bottom oxygen concentration, macrophyte and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by the three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. The ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. Core indicators results were grouped into three criteria groups: 1. Nutrient levels, 2. Direct Effects, 3. Indirect Effects nutrient levels comprise of 4 nutrient indicators (HELCOM-DIN, HELCOM-DIP, HELCOM-TN, HELCOM-TP). Direct effects include HELCOM-Chla, Secchi depth and HELCOM Cya/Bl index. Indirect effects include deep bottom oxygen debt, macrophytes and macrozoobenthos. Indicators were normalized according to the method applied in the HELCOM second holistic assessment of the Baltic Sea (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/). Eutrophication status is assessed by three criteria groups described above. The criteria-specific eutrophication status is calculated as a weighted average of the eutrophication ratio (ER) of each indicator within the criteria group. The weight is evenly distributed. The lowest criteria-specific eutrophication determines the overall eutrophication status (one-out-all-out approach) of each assessment unit. ER values below 1 indicate good environmental status. |
For the assessment of the European status of the coastal waters < 1 nautical mile of the German Baltic Sea, the HELCOM HEAT 3.0 evaluation tool has been used. Heat 3.0 uses ?One-out? between the categories ?nutrient concentrations?, ?direct effects? and ?indirect effects?. The category ?nutrient concentrations? consists of criterion D5C1. The direct effects category consists of criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4. The indirect effects category consists of criteria D5C5, D5C6, D5C7 and D5C8.
For the overall assessment of the German Baltic Sea coastal waters, the overall assessments of the individual water bodies were aggregated. In order to evaluate the eutrophication state of the German Baltic Sea, the HELCOM HEAT 3.0 evaluation tool has been used. Heat 3.0 uses 'One-out-all-out' between the categories 'nutrient concentrations', 'direct effects' and 'indirect effects'. The category 'nutrient concentrations' consists of criterion D5C1. The direct effects category consists of criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4. The indirect effects category consists of criteria D5C5 and D5C8. In order to evaluate the state of eutrophication the German Baltic Sea, the HELCOM HEAT 3.0 evaluation tool has been used. Heat 3.0 uses 'One-out-all-out' between the categories 'nutrient concentrations', 'direct effects' and 'indirect effects'. The category 'nutrient concentrations' consists of criterion D5C1. The 'direct effects' category consists of criteria D5C2, D5C3 and D5C4. The 'indirect effects' category consists of criteria D5C5 and D5C8. |
As used in WFD Each assessment unit shows the result for the criteria group furthest away from good status. |
|||||
| GES extent threshold |
|
|
|
||||||
| GES extent achieved |
|
||||||||
| GES extent unit |
|
|
|
|
|
||||
| GES achieved | Eutrophication |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Assessment period | 2011-2016 (95 or 100.0%) |
2011-2016 (240 or 100.0%) |
2011-2016 (60 or 100.0%) |
2012-2017 (20 or 100.0%) |
2011-2016 (191 or 100.0%) |
2007-2012 (40 or 50.0%) 2007-2014 (4 or 5.0%) 2011-2016 (36 or 45.0%) |
2010-2016 (7 or 12.5%) 2011-2016 (49 or 87.5%) |
2011-2016 (305 or 100.0%) |
|
| Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Related targets | 6 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
9 |
4 |
2 |
1 |