Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D4 / Finland / Baltic Sea
Report type | Member State report to Commission |
MSFD Article | Art. 8 Initial assessment (and Art. 17 updates) |
Report due | 2018-10-15 |
GES Descriptor | D4 Food webs/D1 Ecosystems |
Member State | Finland |
Region/subregion | Baltic Sea |
Reported by | Finnish Environment Institute |
Report date | 2019-04-10 |
Report access | msfd2018-ART8_GES_8Jan2019update_24_.xml |
National part of Baltic Sea (BAL-FI)
GES component |
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Element |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
Element code |
TrophicGuildsAll |
TrophicGuildsAll |
TrophicGuildsAll |
TrophicGuildsAll |
TrophicGuildsAll |
TrophicGuildsAll |
TrophicGuildsAll |
TrophicGuildsAll |
TrophicGuildsAll |
TrophicGuildsAll |
TrophicGuildsAll |
TrophicGuildsAll |
TrophicGuildsAll |
TrophicGuildsAll |
TrophicGuildsAll |
TrophicGuildsAll |
Element code source |
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Element 2 |
||||||||||||||||
Element 2 code |
||||||||||||||||
Element 2 code source |
||||||||||||||||
Element source |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
Criterion |
D4C1
|
D4C1
|
D4C1
|
D4C1
|
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
D4C3
|
D4C4
|
Parameter |
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Parameter other |
Benthic species community (BQI) in offshore
|
Benthic species richness (beta diversity) in offshore |
Coastal benthic species community
|
Phytoplankton assmeblage
|
Abundance of breeding waterbirds
|
Abundance of coastal cyprinid fish
|
Abundance of coastal piscivore fish
|
Abundance of grey seals
|
Abundance of ringed seals
|
Abundance of wintering waterbirds
|
Cod spawning stock biomass
|
Herring spawning stock biomass
|
Sprat spawning stock biomass
|
Zooplankton mean size and total abundance
|
Zooplankton mean size and total abundance
|
Blubber thickness of grey seal (nutritional status) |
Threshold value upper |
75.0 |
10000.0 |
10000.0 |
75.0 |
1.0 |
40.0 |
||||||||||
Threshold value lower |
||||||||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
Sub-basin specific thresholds
|
Sub-basin specific thresholds
|
Inner coastal waters 0,57/0,55 (0-10 m / >10 m); Outer coastal waters 0,56/0,55 (0-10 m / >10 m); |
The community has species indicating a well-balanced food web and species indicative of eutrophication are not dominating. |
Area specific thresholds
|
Area specific thresholds
|
Stock specific thresholds.
|
Sub-basin specific thresholds for mean size and total abundance |
Sub-basin specific thresholds
|
Sub-basin specific thresholds
|
||||||
Threshold value source |
Helsinki Convention
|
National
|
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
|||
Threshold value source other |
||||||||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
83.0 |
30000.0 |
20000.0 |
81.0 |
1.51 |
42.0 |
||||||||||
Value achieved lower |
||||||||||||||||
Value unit |
percentage
|
Catch-Per-Unit-Effort
|
Catch-Per-Unit-Effort
|
(number of) individuals
|
(number of) individuals
|
percentage
|
tonne
|
ratio
|
millimetre
|
|||||||
Value unit other |
||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value |
50.0 |
|||||||||||||||
Proportion value achieved |
26.0 |
|||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
|||||||||||||||
Trend |
Unknown |
Improving |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Improving |
Stable |
Improving |
Improving |
Stable |
Improving |
Stable |
Improving |
Improving |
Stable |
Parameter achieved |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes, based on low risk |
Description parameter |
Offshore benthic communities are in good status (HELCOM indicator: http://www.helcom.fi/Core%20Indicators/State%20of%20the%20soft-bottom%20macrofauna%20community%20HELCOM%20core%20indicator%202018.pdf). The HELCOM assessment was made under D5 for benthic macrofauna, but here the indicator is used for the entire Finnish sea area. |
The indicator has sub-basin specific thresholds but here the indicator is used for the entire Finnish marine area.Offshore benthic communities are in good status in terms of regional species richness (beta diversity). |
Coastal water benthic communities are not in good state: only 25% of inner and 30% of outer coastal waters are in GES. |
All the four phytoplankton indicators were used to support the assessment. They gave similar results: phytoplankton species composition has changed and diversity declined. |
HELCOM indicator gives the status for the Baltic Sea and its sub-regions and the national indicator gives some extra information abut the species trends in the Finnish marine area. |
The indicator for the coastal cyprinid fish meets the area-specific thresholds in 1 of 8 assessment areas in Finland.
See HELCOM indicator: http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/indicators/abundance-of-coastal-fish-key-functional-groups/ |
The indicator for the coastal piscivore fish meets the area-specific thresholds in 8 of 8 assessment areas in Finland.
See HELCOM indicator: http://www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/indicators/abundance-of-coastal-fish-key-functional-groups/ |
HELCOM indicator gives the Baltic wide result and the national indicator gives additional results and trends over the Finnish marine area. |
HELCOM indicator gives the assessment result for the region. The national indicator gives additional information from the Finnish marine area. |
HELCOM indicator gives the status for the Baltic Sea and its sub-regions and the national indicator gives some extra information abut the species trends in the Finnish marine area. |
Cod SSB is in good status in the eastern stock area (ICES SD 25-32).
See HELCOM assessment: http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/biodiversity-and-its-status/fish/#commercial-fish-species-in-the-open-sea.
The indicator refers to the ICES stock assessment but is calculated as annual ratios with the threshold over the assessment period following the HELCOM biodiversity assessment (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/HELCOM_Thematic-assessment-of-biodiversity-2011-2016_pre-publication.pdf). |
Herring SSB is in GES in the Gulf of Bothnia stock (ICES SD 30-31) and the Baltic Proper Stock (ICES SD 25-29, 32) both indicate good status (see D3C2 outcomes in these assessment areas). The indicator is calculated from the ICES stock assessments as annual ratios with the stock thresold and then averaged following the HELCOM assessment: http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/biodiversity-and-its-status/fish/#commercial-fish-species-in-the-open-sea. |
Sprat SSB is in good status in the stock area (entire Baltic Sea). The indicator refers to the ICES stock assessment but is calculated as annual ratios with the threshold over the assessment period following the HELCOM biodiversity assessment (http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/HELCOM_Thematic-assessment-of-biodiversity-2011-2016_pre-publication.pdf). |
The HELCOM indicator has threshold values ofr each sub-basin. For food webs it is used for the entire Finnish Marine area. |
The HELCOM indicator gives subbasin specific results but these are looked under this criterion for the entire Finnish marine area. |
The risk is indicated as the HELCOM core indicator has high variability for unknown reasons. This assessment results is based on the HELCOM data but assessed by the Finnish indicator which calculated through a model and thus it differs sligthly from the HELCOM result. |
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Criteria status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good, based on low risk |
Description criteria |
The zooplankton indicator includes the size distribution variable which is used to assess this criterion). |
|||||||||||||||
Element status |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Description element |
||||||||||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Integration rule description parameter |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used.
|
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used. |
Integration rule type criteria |
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Integration rule description criteria |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
No integration rule agreed. Expert judgement is used among 13 indicators. |
GES extent threshold |
||||||||||||||||
GES extent achieved |
||||||||||||||||
GES extent unit |
||||||||||||||||
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
GES achieved |
Description overall status |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
The Finnish marine area is entirely considered as 'coastal ecosystem'. |
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|