As part of EEA's ongoing security and identity management improvements, we are currently migrating the system to Entra ID authentication.
We kindly ask all users to start using Entra ID credentials when logging in to the system. 

Please note that LDAP authentication will be phased out and disabled by the end of August 2026. We encourage you to verify that you can successfully access the system and that your account and permissions function as expected after Entra ID login. Should you encounter any issues or require assistance during this transition, please contact Laszlo Cseh at laszlo.cseh@eaudeweb.ro Thank you for your cooperation and support.
As part of EEA's ongoing security and identity management improvements, we are currently migrating the system to Entra ID authentication.
We kindly ask all users to start using Entra ID credentials when logging in to the system. 

Please note that LDAP authentication will be phased out and disabled by the end of August 2026. We encourage you to verify that you can successfully access the system and that your account and permissions function as expected after Entra ID login. Should you encounter any issues or require assistance during this transition, please contact Laszlo Cseh at laszlo.cseh@eaudeweb.ro Thank you for your cooperation and support.

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
  • National
  • National
  • National
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
  • Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Input of other substances (e.g. synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides) - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition, acute events
  • Physical disturbance to seabed
  • Physical loss of the seabed
  • Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Input of other substances (e.g. synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides) - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition, acute events
  • Physical disturbance to seabed
  • Physical loss of the seabed
  • Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Input of other substances (e.g. synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides) - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition, acute events
  • Physical disturbance to seabed
  • Physical loss of the seabed
Related targets
  • ANSSE-A.1_Tillförsel_näringsämnen
  • ANSSE-B.1_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_halt
  • ANSSE-B.2_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_effekt
  • ANSSE-C.1_Introduktion_främmande arter
  • ANSSE-C.3_Population_fisk_ålder_storlek_bestånd
  • ANSSE-C.4_Samhälle_fisk_förkomst_art_storlek
  • ANSSE-D.1_Havsbottenareal_struktur_funktion
  • ANSSE-A.1_Tillförsel_näringsämnen
  • ANSSE-B.1_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_halt
  • ANSSE-B.2_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_effekt
  • ANSSE-C.1_Introduktion_främmande arter
  • ANSSE-C.3_Population_fisk_ålder_storlek_bestånd
  • ANSSE-C.4_Samhälle_fisk_förkomst_art_storlek
  • ANSSE-D.1_Havsbottenareal_struktur_funktion
  • ANSSE-A.1_Tillförsel_näringsämnen
  • ANSSE-B.1_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_halt
  • ANSSE-B.2_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_effekt
  • ANSSE-C.1_Introduktion_främmande arter
  • ANSSE-C.3_Population_fisk_ålder_storlek_bestånd
  • ANSSE-C.4_Samhälle_fisk_förkomst_art_storlek
  • ANSSE-D.1_Havsbottenareal_struktur_funktion
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
  • National
  • National
  • National
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
  • Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Input of other substances (e.g. synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides) - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition, acute events
  • Physical disturbance to seabed
  • Physical loss of the seabed
  • Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Input of other substances (e.g. synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides) - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition, acute events
  • Physical disturbance to seabed
  • Physical loss of the seabed
  • Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Input of other substances (e.g. synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides) - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition, acute events
  • Physical disturbance to seabed
  • Physical loss of the seabed
Related targets
  • ANSSE-A.1_Tillförsel_näringsämnen
  • ANSSE-B.1_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_halt
  • ANSSE-B.2_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_effekt
  • ANSSE-C.1_Introduktion_främmande arter
  • ANSSE-C.3_Population_fisk_ålder_storlek_bestånd
  • ANSSE-C.4_Samhälle_fisk_förkomst_art_storlek
  • ANSSE-D.1_Havsbottenareal_struktur_funktion
  • ANSSE-A.1_Tillförsel_näringsämnen
  • ANSSE-B.1_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_halt
  • ANSSE-B.2_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_effekt
  • ANSSE-C.1_Introduktion_främmande arter
  • ANSSE-C.3_Population_fisk_ålder_storlek_bestånd
  • ANSSE-C.4_Samhälle_fisk_förkomst_art_storlek
  • ANSSE-D.1_Havsbottenareal_struktur_funktion
  • ANSSE-A.1_Tillförsel_näringsämnen
  • ANSSE-B.1_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_halt
  • ANSSE-B.2_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_effekt
  • ANSSE-C.1_Introduktion_främmande arter
  • ANSSE-C.3_Population_fisk_ålder_storlek_bestånd
  • ANSSE-C.4_Samhälle_fisk_förkomst_art_storlek
  • ANSSE-D.1_Havsbottenareal_struktur_funktion
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
  • National
  • National
  • National
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
  • Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Input of other substances (e.g. synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides) - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition, acute events
  • Physical disturbance to seabed
  • Physical loss of the seabed
  • Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Input of other substances (e.g. synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides) - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition, acute events
  • Physical disturbance to seabed
  • Physical loss of the seabed
  • Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Input of other substances (e.g. synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides) - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition, acute events
  • Physical disturbance to seabed
  • Physical loss of the seabed
Related targets
  • ANSSE-A.1_Tillförsel_näringsämnen
  • ANSSE-B.1_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_halt
  • ANSSE-B.2_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_effekt
  • ANSSE-C.1_Introduktion_främmande arter
  • ANSSE-C.3_Population_fisk_ålder_storlek_bestånd
  • ANSSE-C.4_Samhälle_fisk_förkomst_art_storlek
  • ANSSE-D.1_Havsbottenareal_struktur_funktion
  • ANSSE-A.1_Tillförsel_näringsämnen
  • ANSSE-B.1_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_halt
  • ANSSE-B.2_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_effekt
  • ANSSE-C.1_Introduktion_främmande arter
  • ANSSE-C.3_Population_fisk_ålder_storlek_bestånd
  • ANSSE-C.4_Samhälle_fisk_förkomst_art_storlek
  • ANSSE-D.1_Havsbottenareal_struktur_funktion
  • ANSSE-A.1_Tillförsel_näringsämnen
  • ANSSE-B.1_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_halt
  • ANSSE-B.2_Tillförsel_farliga_ämnen_effekt
  • ANSSE-C.1_Introduktion_främmande arter
  • ANSSE-C.3_Population_fisk_ålder_storlek_bestånd
  • ANSSE-C.4_Samhälle_fisk_förkomst_art_storlek
  • ANSSE-D.1_Havsbottenareal_struktur_funktion
Test TV
NA
NA
NA
Test results
False
False
False