It can be said that the good environmental status for D6 as a whole cannot yet be determined, but the minimum requirement is that the good environmental status has been achieved if: - the coastal waters are in a good ecological status in accordance with the WFD and the entire coastal sea area is in a good chemical condition. - the habitat types relevant for the marine area of ​​the Baltic Sea in Annex I (LRT 11xx) of the Habitats Directive are in a favorable conservation status. - those for the marine area of ​​the Baltic Sea relevant species of Annex II of the Habitats Directive as well as the species of the Birds Directive relevant to the marine area of ​​the Baltic Sea are in a favorable conservation status due to the quality of their foraging habitat. - the objectives of individual species or species group-specific conventions (e.g. ASCOBANS, Jastarnia-Plan) have been achieved. - According to HELCOM, biological diversity is in good condition. To assess the good environmental status with regard to D1 / D6 benthos, the following criteria are used in accordance with the decision of the Commission (EU) 2017/848: D6C1, D6C2, D6C3, D6C4, D6C5. Explanation: In this reporting round, Germany does not update the general description of good environmental status from 2012 at descriptor level. In the reporting period, Germany worked together with the countries bordering the Baltic Sea as part of the EU's MSFD-CIS process and in HELCOM to develop methodological standards (indicators, assessment procedures). Specific concretizations of criteria and indicators that contribute to a quantitative assessment of the good environmental status are reported in the reporting scheme Art. 8_GES. For the evaluation of the criteria of the decision of the Commission (EU) 2017/848 under Art. 8_GES, where relevant, the evaluations according to other EU directives are included, as far as possible the regional evaluations agreed so far are taken into account and supplemented by national evaluations in individual cases.

The integrity of the seabed is at a level where the structure and functions of ecosystems are preserved and where benthic ecosystems in particular are not adversely affected. The description also covers D6C1, D6C2 and D6C3.

The occurrence or quality of the habitat is not endangered by human activities that cause loss or disturbance to the seabed, and the magnitude of the disturbance must be commensurate with the ecological importance of the habitat and its threat. The integrity of the seabed is assessed for broad habitat types by marine area, with each broad habitat assessed according to the weakest status of the relevant indicators.

Extent of adverse effects of physical disturbance on each habitat type in each assessed area. The condition is assessed according to the indicator "Area of soil dumping (sanding) and sand excavation area in the habitat".


Extent of adverse effects of physical disturbance on each habitat type in each assessed area. The status is assessed according to the indicator "Size of bottom trawling area in the habitat"


For each habitat type that is adversely affected by physical disturbance causing changes in its biotic and abiotic structure and functions (e.g. changes in species composition and relative abundance of species, disappearance of highly sensitive, vulnerable and key function species, changes in size structure of species), spatial scale. The condition is assessed according to the indicator - the area of the soil dumping (sanding) and sand excavation area in the habitat.


For each habitat type that is adversely affected by physical disturbance causing changes in its biotic and abiotic structure and functions (e.g. changes in species composition and relative abundance of species, disappearance of highly sensitive, vulnerable and key function species, changes in size structure of species), spatial scale. The condition is assessed by the indicator - the size of the bottom trawling area in the habitat.

The assessment must consider whether the physical disturbance in question has a negative impact. This assessment must be made for the various physical disturbances that could potentially have a negative impact on the seabed. Whether a physical disturbance will cause a negative impact depends on the seabed's vulnerability and tolerance to the disturbance and how quickly the seabed ecosystem regenerates after the disturbance. For example, a sandy type is exposed to high current and wave influence is expected to be less vulnerable to certain disturbances than a type of habitat that is not normally affected by natural agitation of the water bodies. The extent of each adversely affected habitat type must be calculated in km2 or as a percentage (percent) of the total natural extent of the habitat in the assessment area. The results of the assessment of criterion D6C2 are used for the further assessment in criterion D6C3.

The distribution of benthic habitats is equivalent to their natural range and losses are identified only at local level.
The state of the integrity of the seabed shall be evaluated for quality habitats by sea basin, so that each broad habitat is assessed according to the weakest status of the relevant indicators.

Extent of loss per habitat type does not exceed a certain proportion of the habitat type's natural extent.

Seabed habitat plant and animal communities contain habitat-specific species that are sensitive to eutrophication and clouding and / or non-predominant species. The integrity of the seabed is assessed for large habitat types by marine region, with each broad habitat assessed according to the weakest status of the indicators that characterize them.


The concentration of dissolved oxygen on the seabed does not fall below the monthly average of 4 mg L-1. The seabed integrity status is assessed for broad habitat types by sea area, with each broad habitat being assessed according to the weakest status of the indicators that characterize them.


The lower limit of the bladder wrack zone (5% coverage in 6 m2 area; ELS values in brackets) is 3.0 / 3.5 m (0.75 / 0.7) (in shelter / open) in the coastal waters of the Gulf of Finland, in the outer coastal waters of the Gulf of Finland 4.0 / 5 , 0 m (0.73 / 0.77) (sheltered / open), in the southwestern archipelago 3.2 / 4.0 m (0.76 / 0.73) (sheltered / open), in the southwestern archipelago 4.0 / 4 , 5 m (0.73 / 0.75) (shelter / open), in the southwestern archipelago 5.5 / 6.0 m (0.79 / 0.75) (sheltered / open), in the coastal waters of the North Sea 3.0 / 5.2 m (0.76 / 0.74) (sheltered / open), in the outer waters of the Bothnian Sea (not determined), in the Kvarken Inner Archipelago 3.7 m (0.74) (open), in the outer archipelago of Kvarken 4.4 m (0 , 74) (open). There is no species in the Bothnian Bay. The seabed integrity status is assessed for broad habitat types by sea area, with each broad habitat being assessed according to the weakest status of the indicators that characterize them.


The lower limit of the red algae (the lowest individual) for the species Furcellaria lumbricalis, Rhodomela confervoides, Polysiphonia fucoides and Phyllophora pseudoceranoides is 9.1 m, 7.7 m, 7.7 m and 8.8 m in the inland coastal waters of the Gulf of Finland, 10.2 m in the outer coastal waters of the Gulf of Finland 8.8 m, 8.8 m and 16.5 m, in the southwestern archipelago 10.2 m, 8.8 m, 8.8 m and 11.7 m, in the southwestern archipelago 11.25 m, 9.7 m, 9.7 m and 13.5 m, in the southwestern archipelago 14.2 m, 11.8 m, 11.8 m and 16.5 m, in the coastal waters of the Bothnian Sea 7.0 m, 6.1 m, 6.1 m and 8.5 m, in the northern coastal waters of the Bothnian Sea (not specified), in the Kvarken Inner Archipelago 9.0 m, 7.5 m, 7.5 m and 10.5 m, in the outer archipelago of Kvarken 10.9 m, 9.0 m, 9.0 m and 12.6 m. The seabed integrity status is assessed for broad habitat types by sea area, with each broad habitat being assessed according to the weakest status of the indicators that characterize them.


The regional species abundance index of the high seas exceeds 3,91 in the Gulf of Finland, 3,0 in Northern Baltic Sea, 2,3 in the Bothnian Sea and 1,37 in the Bay of Bothnia.
The state of the integrity of the seabed shall be evaluated for quality habitats by sea basin, so that each broad habitat is assessed according to the weakest status of the relevant indicators.


The value of BQI in the benthic communities in the open sea above the halocline (< 60m in depth) is 0,93 in the Gulf of Finland, 4,0 in the Northern Baltic Sea, 4,0 in the Åland Sea, 4,0 in the Bothnian Sea, 1,5 in the Quark and 1,5 in the Bay of Bothnia.
Seabed integrity status shall be evaluated for broad habitat types per sea basin, so that each broad habitat is assessed according to the weakest status of the relevant indicators.


The water management thresholds (ELS) for coastal benthic communities in the BBI Index are 0.52 / 0.51 (0-10 m /> 10 m) in the Gulf of Finland and 0.56 / 0.56 (0-10 m /> in the outer Gulf of Finland). 10 m), In the southwestern inner archipelago 0.53 / 0.57 (0-10 m /> 10 m), In the southwestern intermediate archipelago 0.56 / 0.53 (0-10 m /> 10 m), In the southwestern outer archipelago 0.55 / 0.54 (0-10 m /> 10 m), 0.56 / 0.57 (0-10 m /> 10 m) in the inland coastal waters of the Bothnian Sea, 0.53 / 0.55 (0-10 m) in the outer coastal waters of the Bothnian Sea /> 10 m), Inner Kvarken Archipelago 0.57 / 0.58 (0-10 m /> 10 m), Outer Kvarken Archipelago 0.56 / 0.59 (0-10 m /> 10 m), Inland Gulf Coast 0 , 57 / 0.55 (0-10 m /> 10 m) and 0.56 / 0.55 (0-10 m /> 10 m) in the outer Gulf of Bothnia. The integrity of the seabed is assessed for large habitat types by marine region, with each broad habitat assessed according to the weakest status of the indicators that characterize them.

The species composition and relative abundance of macrofauna communities reach values indicating that the increase in nutrients and organic matter does not cause adverse effects. The indicator is assigned to criterion D5C8.

Biodiversity has been maintained and the extent of adverse effects (D6C5) per habitat type does not exceed future EU thresholds for changes in biotic and abiotic structures and functions.

D6C1: Seabed loss includes effects due to changes in the seabed substrate or morphology and the extraction of the seabed substrate, after which the natural properties of the seabed can only be restored by additional measures, as they are not restored in the course of natural processes. During the assessment period, no seabed infrastructure works were carried out to replace the seabed substrate. The criterion is not relevant.


D6C2: The spatial extent and distribution of pressures associated with physical disturbance to the seabed within the predominant seabed habitat types were assessed. Impacts assessed: bottom trawling, excavation and burial, sanding to replenish beaches. The size of the physical disturbance area in square kilometers and the percentage of the physical disturbance area ratio were estimated. As both trawling and dumping and sand excavation take place in the same circalitoral habitats (although not spatially overlapping), it is proposed to establish a common indicator for all impacts. This is planned for the next phase of MSFD implementation.


D6C3: The spatial extent and distribution of pressures associated with physical disturbance to the seabed within the predominant seabed habitat types were assessed. Impacts assessed: bottom trawling, excavation and burial, sanding to replenish beaches. The size of the physical disturbance area in square kilometers and the percentage of the physical disturbance area ratio were estimated. As both trawling and dumping and sand excavation take place in the same circalitoral habitats (although not spatially overlapping), it is proposed to establish a common indicator for all impacts. This is planned for the next phase of MSFD implementation.


D6C4: Due to the lack of data, a comprehensive assessment has not been carried out. Monitoring is planned for 2020-2023. Indicator in the HELCOM region under development. However, it is tentatively estimated that the extent of habitat type degradation due to anthropogenic pressures does not exceed a certain proportion of the natural size of the habitat type in the assessed area.

D6/D1: For the Habitats Directive habitat types sandbanks (EU code 1110) and reefs (EU code 1170), which are rated as particularly protected benthic habitats, the conservation status of the HD assessment 2013 that applies to them in the continental biogeographical region is adopted. There is no assessment of the individual criteria D6C3, D6C4 and D6C5.

D6C2: The spatial extent and distribution of pressures associated with physical disturbance to the seabed within the predominant seabed habitat types were assessed. Impacts assessed: bottom trawling, excavation and burial, sanding to replenish beaches. The size of the physical disturbance area in square kilometers and the percentage of the physical disturbance area ratio were estimated. As both trawling and dumping and sand excavation take place in the same circalitoral habitats (although not spatially overlapping), it is proposed to establish a common indicator for all impacts. This is planned for the next phase of MSFD implementation.


D6C3: The spatial extent and distribution of pressures associated with physical disturbance to the seabed within the predominant seabed habitat types were assessed. Impacts assessed: bottom trawling, excavation and burial, sanding to replenish beaches. The size of the physical disturbance area in square kilometers and the percentage of the physical disturbance area ratio were estimated. As both trawling and dumping and sand excavation take place in the same circalitoral habitats (although not spatially overlapping), it is proposed to establish a common indicator for all impacts. This is planned for the next phase of MSFD implementation.


D6C4: Due to the lack of data, a comprehensive assessment has not been carried out. Monitoring is planned for 2020-2023. Indicator in the HELCOM region under development. However, it is tentatively estimated that the extent of habitat type degradation due to anthropogenic pressures does not exceed a certain proportion of the natural size of the habitat type in the assessed area.


D6C5: Not all habitat types are subject to macrozoobenthos monitoring, and the existing network of stations does not allow for spatial assessment of habitat status everywhere. Due to the lack of data, the assessment is not comprehensive according to the criteria.

D6/D1: 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.

D6/D1: None


D6C3: At regional or sub-regional levels, thresholds must be established for when a physical disturbance will have a negative effect on each habitat type. Such thresholds have not yet been set by HELCOM or OSPAR.


D6C4: Thresholds are expected to be set for the extent of losses and negative effects per year, respectively habitat type under EU auspices. These thresholds have not yet been set.


D6C5: Thresholds for negative effects on the state of each habitat type are also expected to be set in relation to the influence of other pressure factors (descriptors) as well as the extent of negative effects per year on habitat type under EU auspices. These thresholds have not yet been set.