Member State report / Art8-2024 / 2024 / D4 / Sweden / NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art8 |
| Report due | 2024-10-15 |
| GES Descriptor | D4 Food webs/D1 Ecosystems |
| Member State | Sweden |
| Region/subregion | NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea |
| Report date | 2025-10-30 08:59:20 |
ANS-SE-AA-B_Kattegatt
Regional assessment area |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
|||
GES component |
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
Feature |
Shelf ecosystem
|
Shelf ecosystem
|
Shelf ecosystem
|
Element |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
Element extent |
|||
Trend element |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Element 2 |
|||
Element source |
National |
National |
National |
Criterion |
D4C1
|
D4C3
|
D4C4
|
Parameter |
|||
Threshold value upper |
|||
Threshold value lower |
|||
Threshold value operator |
|||
Threshold qualitative |
|||
Threshold value source |
|||
Value achieved upper |
|||
Value achieved lower |
|||
Value unit |
|||
Proportion threshold value |
|||
Proportion value achieved |
|||
Proportion threshold value unit |
|||
Trend parameter |
|||
Parameter achieved |
|||
Description parameter |
|||
Related indicator |
|||
Criteria status |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description criteria |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. We included in the qualitative description of D4C1 indicators describing abundance for both top-predators (seals), producers (phytoplankton) and different consumer levels (birds, fish). There is no common trend for the different trophic levels. However, it is obvious that for both the North Sea and Baltic Sea demersal fish and benthic feeding birds do not achieve GES as a group. On the opposite, most pelagic species or pelagic system dependent species, achieve GES. |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. For D4C3, two one indicators wasere used to describe the size distribution through the indicator of age distribution of commercially-exploited populationsof both zooplankton and fish in the North Sea along the coast. The information is too fragmented to draw conclusions. However, it is obvious from long term studies of fish populations in both the Baltic Sea and North Sea that size distribution of the fish communities has shifted towards small individuals and that this might have effects on the food webs. There are, to some degree, signs of recovery in the North Sea. |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. It has not been possible to describe general patterns in the food web for D4C4 in the North Sea as the underlying indicators are representative for the Baltic Sea. |
Element status |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description element |
|||
Source assessment feature |
|
|
|
Reporting method feature |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Trend feature |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
|||
Integration rule type criteria |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. |
GES extent threshold |
|||
GES extent achieved |
|||
GES extent unit |
|||
GES achieved |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description overall status |
It was not possible to assess GES for D4 quantitatively and GES is not yet defined at criteria level. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. Information is provided under the element “All trophic guilds” for criteria D4C1, D4C3 and D4C4 where indicators from descriptor 1 and descriptor 3 have been used for a qualitative assessment. For D4C2 only one indicator was used describing the variation of functional fish species groups in coastal waters. This assessment was only done in the Baltic Sea.
During the current assessment cycle, it is only possible to describe different parts of the food web qualitatively (chapter Marina näringsvävar, sid 50). Both regionally and nationally, there is no agreed method for assessing food webs. A qualitative description has been carried out based on 1) thematic descriptions from HELCOM and OSPAR 2) a pilot study in the North Sea of a model-based assessment of the food web. In addition, certain indicators for the assessment of biodiversity under descriptor 1 have been taken into account in order to qualitatively describe the state and effects of food webs at certain trophic levels. The descriptions show imbalances in nutrient webs both in the North Sea and the Baltic.
As a complement to the qualitative description, the text report also presents a method for setting the status of relevant ecosystem components in relation to each other (""""Baltic Sea Health Index"""") which shows a slightly poorer normalized state for ecosystem components in the Baltic Sea, compared to the North Sea, even if these threshold values are not reached in any of the areas.
The description of the North Sea (OSPAR) points to a downward trend in both phytoplankton and zooplankton in recent decades, and that populations of pelagic or demersal fish species do not achieve good status in the North Sea. Overall, the food web in the North Sea is not described as reaching good status. In a pilot assessment of food webs in the Kattegat with ecosystem models carried out in 2023 (HELCOM 2023g; Safi et al. 2019; Scotti et al. 2022), the Kattegat is assessed to have undergone a radical change during the period 1992–2008, from a pelagically dominated food web to a benthically dominated one, but with positive signs as a result of reduced fishing pressure. |
It was not possible to assess GES for D4 quantitatively and GES is not yet defined at criteria level. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. Information is provided under the element “All trophic guilds” for criteria D4C1, D4C3 and D4C4 where indicators from descriptor 1 and descriptor 3 have been used for a qualitative assessment. For D4C2 only one indicator was used describing the variation of functional fish species groups in coastal waters. This assessment was only done in the Baltic Sea.
During the current assessment cycle, it is only possible to describe different parts of the food web qualitatively (chapter Marina näringsvävar, sid 50). Both regionally and nationally, there is no agreed method for assessing food webs. A qualitative description has been carried out based on 1) thematic descriptions from HELCOM and OSPAR 2) a pilot study in the North Sea of a model-based assessment of the food web. In addition, certain indicators for the assessment of biodiversity under descriptor 1 have been taken into account in order to qualitatively describe the state and effects of food webs at certain trophic levels. The descriptions show imbalances in nutrient webs both in the North Sea and the Baltic.
As a complement to the qualitative description, the text report also presents a method for setting the status of relevant ecosystem components in relation to each other (""""Baltic Sea Health Index"""") which shows a slightly poorer normalized state for ecosystem components in the Baltic Sea, compared to the North Sea, even if these threshold values are not reached in any of the areas.
The description of the North Sea (OSPAR) points to a downward trend in both phytoplankton and zooplankton in recent decades, and that populations of pelagic or demersal fish species do not achieve good status in the North Sea. Overall, the food web in the North Sea is not described as reaching good status. In a pilot assessment of food webs in the Kattegat with ecosystem models carried out in 2023 (HELCOM 2023g; Safi et al. 2019; Scotti et al. 2022), the Kattegat is assessed to have undergone a radical change during the period 1992–2008, from a pelagically dominated food web to a benthically dominated one, but with positive signs as a result of reduced fishing pressure. |
It was not possible to assess GES for D4 quantitatively and GES is not yet defined at criteria level. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. Information is provided under the element “All trophic guilds” for criteria D4C1, D4C3 and D4C4 where indicators from descriptor 1 and descriptor 3 have been used for a qualitative assessment. For D4C2 only one indicator was used describing the variation of functional fish species groups in coastal waters. This assessment was only done in the Baltic Sea.
During the current assessment cycle, it is only possible to describe different parts of the food web qualitatively (chapter Marina näringsvävar, sid 50). Both regionally and nationally, there is no agreed method for assessing food webs. A qualitative description has been carried out based on 1) thematic descriptions from HELCOM and OSPAR 2) a pilot study in the North Sea of a model-based assessment of the food web. In addition, certain indicators for the assessment of biodiversity under descriptor 1 have been taken into account in order to qualitatively describe the state and effects of food webs at certain trophic levels. The descriptions show imbalances in nutrient webs both in the North Sea and the Baltic.
As a complement to the qualitative description, the text report also presents a method for setting the status of relevant ecosystem components in relation to each other (""""Baltic Sea Health Index"""") which shows a slightly poorer normalized state for ecosystem components in the Baltic Sea, compared to the North Sea, even if these threshold values are not reached in any of the areas.
The description of the North Sea (OSPAR) points to a downward trend in both phytoplankton and zooplankton in recent decades, and that populations of pelagic or demersal fish species do not achieve good status in the North Sea. Overall, the food web in the North Sea is not described as reaching good status. In a pilot assessment of food webs in the Kattegat with ecosystem models carried out in 2023 (HELCOM 2023g; Safi et al. 2019; Scotti et al. 2022), the Kattegat is assessed to have undergone a radical change during the period 1992–2008, from a pelagically dominated food web to a benthically dominated one, but with positive signs as a result of reduced fishing pressure. |
Assessments period |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
Test TV |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Test results |
False |
False |
False |
ANS-SE-AA-B_Oresund
Regional assessment area |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
|||
GES component |
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
Feature |
Shelf ecosystem
|
Shelf ecosystem
|
Shelf ecosystem
|
Element |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
Element extent |
|||
Trend element |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Element 2 |
|||
Element source |
National |
National |
National |
Criterion |
D4C1
|
D4C3
|
D4C4
|
Parameter |
|||
Threshold value upper |
|||
Threshold value lower |
|||
Threshold value operator |
|||
Threshold qualitative |
|||
Threshold value source |
|||
Value achieved upper |
|||
Value achieved lower |
|||
Value unit |
|||
Proportion threshold value |
|||
Proportion value achieved |
|||
Proportion threshold value unit |
|||
Trend parameter |
|||
Parameter achieved |
|||
Description parameter |
|||
Related indicator |
|||
Criteria status |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description criteria |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. We included in the qualitative description of D4C1 indicators describing abundance for both top-predators (seals), producers (phytoplankton) and different consumer levels (birds, fish). There is no common trend for the different trophic levels. However, it is obvious that for both the North Sea and Baltic Sea demersal fish and benthic feeding birds do not achieve GES as a group. On the opposite, most pelagic species or pelagic system dependent species, achieve GES. |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. For D4C3, two one indicators wasere used to describe the size distribution through the indicator of age distribution of commercially-exploited populationsof both zooplankton and fish in the North Sea along the coast. The information is too fragmented to draw conclusions. However, it is obvious from long term studies of fish populations in both the Baltic Sea and North Sea that size distribution of the fish communities has shifted towards small individuals and that this might have effects on the food webs. There are, to some degree, signs of recovery in the North Sea. |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. It has not been possible to describe general patterns in the food web for D4C4 in the North Sea as the underlying indicators are representative for the Baltic Sea. |
Element status |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description element |
|||
Source assessment feature |
|
|
|
Reporting method feature |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Trend feature |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
|||
Integration rule type criteria |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. |
GES extent threshold |
|||
GES extent achieved |
|||
GES extent unit |
|||
GES achieved |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description overall status |
It was not possible to assess GES for D4 quantitatively and GES is not yet defined at criteria level. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. Information is provided under the element “All trophic guilds” for criteria D4C1, D4C3 and D4C4 where indicators from descriptor 1 and descriptor 3 have been used for a qualitative assessment. For D4C2 only one indicator was used describing the variation of functional fish species groups in coastal waters. This assessment was only done in the Baltic Sea.
During the current assessment cycle, it is only possible to describe different parts of the food web qualitatively (chapter Marina näringsvävar, sid 50). Both regionally and nationally, there is no agreed method for assessing food webs. A qualitative description has been carried out based on 1) thematic descriptions from HELCOM and OSPAR 2) a pilot study in the North Sea of a model-based assessment of the food web. In addition, certain indicators for the assessment of biodiversity under descriptor 1 have been taken into account in order to qualitatively describe the state and effects of food webs at certain trophic levels. The descriptions show imbalances in nutrient webs both in the North Sea and the Baltic.
As a complement to the qualitative description, the text report also presents a method for setting the status of relevant ecosystem components in relation to each other (""""Baltic Sea Health Index"""") which shows a slightly poorer normalized state for ecosystem components in the Baltic Sea, compared to the North Sea, even if these threshold values are not reached in any of the areas.
The description of the North Sea (OSPAR) points to a downward trend in both phytoplankton and zooplankton in recent decades, and that populations of pelagic or demersal fish species do not achieve good status in the North Sea. Overall, the food web in the North Sea is not described as reaching good status. In a pilot assessment of food webs in the Kattegat with ecosystem models carried out in 2023 (HELCOM 2023g; Safi et al. 2019; Scotti et al. 2022), the Kattegat is assessed to have undergone a radical change during the period 1992–2008, from a pelagically dominated food web to a benthically dominated one, but with positive signs as a result of reduced fishing pressure. |
It was not possible to assess GES for D4 quantitatively and GES is not yet defined at criteria level. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. Information is provided under the element “All trophic guilds” for criteria D4C1, D4C3 and D4C4 where indicators from descriptor 1 and descriptor 3 have been used for a qualitative assessment. For D4C2 only one indicator was used describing the variation of functional fish species groups in coastal waters. This assessment was only done in the Baltic Sea.
During the current assessment cycle, it is only possible to describe different parts of the food web qualitatively (chapter Marina näringsvävar, sid 50). Both regionally and nationally, there is no agreed method for assessing food webs. A qualitative description has been carried out based on 1) thematic descriptions from HELCOM and OSPAR 2) a pilot study in the North Sea of a model-based assessment of the food web. In addition, certain indicators for the assessment of biodiversity under descriptor 1 have been taken into account in order to qualitatively describe the state and effects of food webs at certain trophic levels. The descriptions show imbalances in nutrient webs both in the North Sea and the Baltic.
As a complement to the qualitative description, the text report also presents a method for setting the status of relevant ecosystem components in relation to each other (""""Baltic Sea Health Index"""") which shows a slightly poorer normalized state for ecosystem components in the Baltic Sea, compared to the North Sea, even if these threshold values are not reached in any of the areas.
The description of the North Sea (OSPAR) points to a downward trend in both phytoplankton and zooplankton in recent decades, and that populations of pelagic or demersal fish species do not achieve good status in the North Sea. Overall, the food web in the North Sea is not described as reaching good status. In a pilot assessment of food webs in the Kattegat with ecosystem models carried out in 2023 (HELCOM 2023g; Safi et al. 2019; Scotti et al. 2022), the Kattegat is assessed to have undergone a radical change during the period 1992–2008, from a pelagically dominated food web to a benthically dominated one, but with positive signs as a result of reduced fishing pressure. |
It was not possible to assess GES for D4 quantitatively and GES is not yet defined at criteria level. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. Information is provided under the element “All trophic guilds” for criteria D4C1, D4C3 and D4C4 where indicators from descriptor 1 and descriptor 3 have been used for a qualitative assessment. For D4C2 only one indicator was used describing the variation of functional fish species groups in coastal waters. This assessment was only done in the Baltic Sea.
During the current assessment cycle, it is only possible to describe different parts of the food web qualitatively (chapter Marina näringsvävar, sid 50). Both regionally and nationally, there is no agreed method for assessing food webs. A qualitative description has been carried out based on 1) thematic descriptions from HELCOM and OSPAR 2) a pilot study in the North Sea of a model-based assessment of the food web. In addition, certain indicators for the assessment of biodiversity under descriptor 1 have been taken into account in order to qualitatively describe the state and effects of food webs at certain trophic levels. The descriptions show imbalances in nutrient webs both in the North Sea and the Baltic.
As a complement to the qualitative description, the text report also presents a method for setting the status of relevant ecosystem components in relation to each other (""""Baltic Sea Health Index"""") which shows a slightly poorer normalized state for ecosystem components in the Baltic Sea, compared to the North Sea, even if these threshold values are not reached in any of the areas.
The description of the North Sea (OSPAR) points to a downward trend in both phytoplankton and zooplankton in recent decades, and that populations of pelagic or demersal fish species do not achieve good status in the North Sea. Overall, the food web in the North Sea is not described as reaching good status. In a pilot assessment of food webs in the Kattegat with ecosystem models carried out in 2023 (HELCOM 2023g; Safi et al. 2019; Scotti et al. 2022), the Kattegat is assessed to have undergone a radical change during the period 1992–2008, from a pelagically dominated food web to a benthically dominated one, but with positive signs as a result of reduced fishing pressure. |
Assessments period |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
Test TV |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Test results |
False |
False |
False |
ANS-SE-AA-B_Skagerrak
Regional assessment area |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
|||
GES component |
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
Feature |
Shelf ecosystem
|
Shelf ecosystem
|
Shelf ecosystem
|
Element |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
Element extent |
|||
Trend element |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Element 2 |
|||
Element source |
National |
National |
National |
Criterion |
D4C1
|
D4C3
|
D4C4
|
Parameter |
|||
Threshold value upper |
|||
Threshold value lower |
|||
Threshold value operator |
|||
Threshold qualitative |
|||
Threshold value source |
|||
Value achieved upper |
|||
Value achieved lower |
|||
Value unit |
|||
Proportion threshold value |
|||
Proportion value achieved |
|||
Proportion threshold value unit |
|||
Trend parameter |
|||
Parameter achieved |
|||
Description parameter |
|||
Related indicator |
|||
Criteria status |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description criteria |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. We included in the qualitative description of D4C1 indicators describing abundance for both top-predators (seals), producers (phytoplankton) and different consumer levels (birds, fish). There is no common trend for the different trophic levels. However, it is obvious that for both the North Sea and Baltic Sea demersal fish and benthic feeding birds do not achieve GES as a group. On the opposite, most pelagic species or pelagic system dependent species, achieve GES. |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. For D4C3, two one indicators wasere used to describe the size distribution through the indicator of age distribution of commercially-exploited populationsof both zooplankton and fish in the North Sea along the coast. The information is too fragmented to draw conclusions. However, it is obvious from long term studies of fish populations in both the Baltic Sea and North Sea that size distribution of the fish communities has shifted towards small individuals and that this might have effects on the food webs. There are, to some degree, signs of recovery in the North Sea. |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. It has not been possible to describe general patterns in the food web for D4C4 in the North Sea as the underlying indicators are representative for the Baltic Sea. |
Element status |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description element |
|||
Source assessment feature |
|
|
|
Reporting method feature |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Trend feature |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
|||
Integration rule type criteria |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. |
The assessment for D4 at criteria level is not done quantitatively due to lack of integration methods. |
GES extent threshold |
|||
GES extent achieved |
|||
GES extent unit |
|||
GES achieved |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description overall status |
It was not possible to assess GES for D4 quantitatively and GES is not yet defined at criteria level. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. Information is provided under the element “All trophic guilds” for criteria D4C1, D4C3 and D4C4 where indicators from descriptor 1 and descriptor 3 have been used for a qualitative assessment. For D4C2 only one indicator was used describing the variation of functional fish species groups in coastal waters. This assessment was only done in the Baltic Sea.
During the current assessment cycle, it is only possible to describe different parts of the food web qualitatively (chapter Marina näringsvävar, sid 50). Both regionally and nationally, there is no agreed method for assessing food webs. A qualitative description has been carried out based on 1) thematic descriptions from HELCOM and OSPAR 2) a pilot study in the North Sea of a model-based assessment of the food web. In addition, certain indicators for the assessment of biodiversity under descriptor 1 have been taken into account in order to qualitatively describe the state and effects of food webs at certain trophic levels. The descriptions show imbalances in nutrient webs both in the North Sea and the Baltic.
As a complement to the qualitative description, the text report also presents a method for setting the status of relevant ecosystem components in relation to each other (""""Baltic Sea Health Index"""") which shows a slightly poorer normalized state for ecosystem components in the Baltic Sea, compared to the North Sea, even if these threshold values are not reached in any of the areas.
The description of the North Sea (OSPAR) points to a downward trend in both phytoplankton and zooplankton in recent decades, and that populations of pelagic or demersal fish species do not achieve good status in the North Sea. Overall, the food web in the North Sea is not described as reaching good status. In a pilot assessment of food webs in the Kattegat with ecosystem models carried out in 2023 (HELCOM 2023g; Safi et al. 2019; Scotti et al. 2022), the Kattegat is assessed to have undergone a radical change during the period 1992–2008, from a pelagically dominated food web to a benthically dominated one, but with positive signs as a result of reduced fishing pressure. |
It was not possible to assess GES for D4 quantitatively and GES is not yet defined at criteria level. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. Information is provided under the element “All trophic guilds” for criteria D4C1, D4C3 and D4C4 where indicators from descriptor 1 and descriptor 3 have been used for a qualitative assessment. For D4C2 only one indicator was used describing the variation of functional fish species groups in coastal waters. This assessment was only done in the Baltic Sea.
During the current assessment cycle, it is only possible to describe different parts of the food web qualitatively (chapter Marina näringsvävar, sid 50). Both regionally and nationally, there is no agreed method for assessing food webs. A qualitative description has been carried out based on 1) thematic descriptions from HELCOM and OSPAR 2) a pilot study in the North Sea of a model-based assessment of the food web. In addition, certain indicators for the assessment of biodiversity under descriptor 1 have been taken into account in order to qualitatively describe the state and effects of food webs at certain trophic levels. The descriptions show imbalances in nutrient webs both in the North Sea and the Baltic.
As a complement to the qualitative description, the text report also presents a method for setting the status of relevant ecosystem components in relation to each other (""""Baltic Sea Health Index"""") which shows a slightly poorer normalized state for ecosystem components in the Baltic Sea, compared to the North Sea, even if these threshold values are not reached in any of the areas.
The description of the North Sea (OSPAR) points to a downward trend in both phytoplankton and zooplankton in recent decades, and that populations of pelagic or demersal fish species do not achieve good status in the North Sea. Overall, the food web in the North Sea is not described as reaching good status. In a pilot assessment of food webs in the Kattegat with ecosystem models carried out in 2023 (HELCOM 2023g; Safi et al. 2019; Scotti et al. 2022), the Kattegat is assessed to have undergone a radical change during the period 1992–2008, from a pelagically dominated food web to a benthically dominated one, but with positive signs as a result of reduced fishing pressure. |
It was not possible to assess GES for D4 quantitatively and GES is not yet defined at criteria level. For integration of indicators, it is necessary to know more about food web dynamics in the respective assessment area. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. Information is provided under the element “All trophic guilds” for criteria D4C1, D4C3 and D4C4 where indicators from descriptor 1 and descriptor 3 have been used for a qualitative assessment. For D4C2 only one indicator was used describing the variation of functional fish species groups in coastal waters. This assessment was only done in the Baltic Sea.
During the current assessment cycle, it is only possible to describe different parts of the food web qualitatively (chapter Marina näringsvävar, sid 50). Both regionally and nationally, there is no agreed method for assessing food webs. A qualitative description has been carried out based on 1) thematic descriptions from HELCOM and OSPAR 2) a pilot study in the North Sea of a model-based assessment of the food web. In addition, certain indicators for the assessment of biodiversity under descriptor 1 have been taken into account in order to qualitatively describe the state and effects of food webs at certain trophic levels. The descriptions show imbalances in nutrient webs both in the North Sea and the Baltic.
As a complement to the qualitative description, the text report also presents a method for setting the status of relevant ecosystem components in relation to each other (""""Baltic Sea Health Index"""") which shows a slightly poorer normalized state for ecosystem components in the Baltic Sea, compared to the North Sea, even if these threshold values are not reached in any of the areas.
The description of the North Sea (OSPAR) points to a downward trend in both phytoplankton and zooplankton in recent decades, and that populations of pelagic or demersal fish species do not achieve good status in the North Sea. Overall, the food web in the North Sea is not described as reaching good status. In a pilot assessment of food webs in the Kattegat with ecosystem models carried out in 2023 (HELCOM 2023g; Safi et al. 2019; Scotti et al. 2022), the Kattegat is assessed to have undergone a radical change during the period 1992–2008, from a pelagically dominated food web to a benthically dominated one, but with positive signs as a result of reduced fishing pressure. |
Assessments period |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
Test TV |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Test results |
False |
False |
False |