Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D4 / Sweden / 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 | Sweden |
Region/subregion | Baltic Sea |
Reported by | Havs- och vattenmyndigheten |
Report date | 2020-07-06 |
Report access | msfd2018-ART8GES_SE_200706.xml |
BAL-SE-AA-K_12n_Osterg_Stockh_skargard
GES component |
D4
|
D4
|
---|---|---|
Feature |
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Element |
Planktivores |
Sub-apex pelagic predators |
Element code |
TrophicGuildsPlankt |
TrophicGuildsPredSApexPel |
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
|
Element 2 |
||
Element 2 code |
||
Element 2 code source |
||
Element source |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
Criterion |
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
Parameter |
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Parameter other |
||
Threshold value upper |
0.6 |
0.6 |
Threshold value lower |
||
Threshold qualitative |
||
Threshold value source |
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Threshold value source other |
||
Value achieved upper |
0.375 |
0.625 |
Value achieved lower |
||
Value unit |
Other
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
deviation from baseline
|
deviation from baseline
|
Proportion threshold value |
||
Proportion value achieved |
||
Proportion threshold value unit |
||
Trend |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
No |
Yes |
Description parameter |
||
Related indicator |
||
Criteria status |
Not good |
Good |
Description criteria |
||
Element status |
Not good |
Good |
Description element |
||
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
||
Integration rule type criteria |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
||
GES extent threshold |
||
GES extent achieved |
||
GES extent unit |
||
GES achieved |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description overall status |
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 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. In 5 out of 7 assessed coastal waters the indicator specific thresholds were achieved, but since the trophic guild was assessed only in a few geographic areas no general conclusions can be drawn for the Baltic 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. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. 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. In 5 out of 7 assessed coastal waters the indicator specific thresholds were achieved, but since the trophic guild was assessed only in a few geographic areas no general conclusions can be drawn for the Baltic Sea. |
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
BAL-SE-AA-K_12s_Ostergotland_skargard
GES component |
D4
|
D4
|
---|---|---|
Feature |
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Element |
Planktivores |
Sub-apex pelagic predators |
Element code |
TrophicGuildsPlankt |
TrophicGuildsPredSApexPel |
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
|
Element 2 |
||
Element 2 code |
||
Element 2 code source |
||
Element source |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
Criterion |
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
Parameter |
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Parameter other |
||
Threshold value upper |
0.6 |
0.6 |
Threshold value lower |
||
Threshold qualitative |
||
Threshold value source |
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Threshold value source other |
||
Value achieved upper |
0.625 |
0.375 |
Value achieved lower |
||
Value unit |
Other
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
deviation from baseline
|
deviation from baseline
|
Proportion threshold value |
||
Proportion value achieved |
||
Proportion threshold value unit |
||
Trend |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
Yes |
No |
Description parameter |
||
Related indicator |
||
Criteria status |
Good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
||
Element status |
Good |
Not good |
Description element |
||
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
||
Integration rule type criteria |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
||
GES extent threshold |
||
GES extent achieved |
||
GES extent unit |
||
GES achieved |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description overall status |
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 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. In 5 out of 7 assessed coastal waters the indicator specific thresholds were achieved, but since the trophic guild was assessed only in a few geographic areas no general conclusions can be drawn for the Baltic 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. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. 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. In 5 out of 7 assessed coastal waters the indicator specific thresholds were achieved, but since the trophic guild was assessed only in a few geographic areas no general conclusions can be drawn for the Baltic Sea. |
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
BAL-SE-AA-K_16_S_Bottenhavet_inre
GES component |
D4
|
D4
|
---|---|---|
Feature |
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Element |
Planktivores |
Sub-apex pelagic predators |
Element code |
TrophicGuildsPlankt |
TrophicGuildsPredSApexPel |
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
|
Element 2 |
||
Element 2 code |
||
Element 2 code source |
||
Element source |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
Criterion |
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
Parameter |
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Parameter other |
||
Threshold value upper |
0.6 |
0.6 |
Threshold value lower |
||
Threshold qualitative |
||
Threshold value source |
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Threshold value source other |
||
Value achieved upper |
0.625 |
0.375 |
Value achieved lower |
||
Value unit |
Other
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
deviation from baseline
|
deviation from baseline
|
Proportion threshold value |
||
Proportion value achieved |
||
Proportion threshold value unit |
||
Trend |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
Yes |
No |
Description parameter |
||
Related indicator |
||
Criteria status |
Good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
||
Element status |
Good |
Not good |
Description element |
||
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
||
Integration rule type criteria |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
||
GES extent threshold |
||
GES extent achieved |
||
GES extent unit |
||
GES achieved |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description overall status |
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 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. In 5 out of 7 assessed coastal waters the indicator specific thresholds were achieved, but since the trophic guild was assessed only in a few geographic areas no general conclusions can be drawn for the Baltic 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. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. 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. In 5 out of 7 assessed coastal waters the indicator specific thresholds were achieved, but since the trophic guild was assessed only in a few geographic areas no general conclusions can be drawn for the Baltic Sea. |
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
BAL-SE-AA-K_18_N_Bottenh_H_kusten_inre
GES component |
D4
|
D4
|
---|---|---|
Feature |
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Element |
Planktivores |
Sub-apex pelagic predators |
Element code |
TrophicGuildsPlankt |
TrophicGuildsPredSApexPel |
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
|
Element 2 |
||
Element 2 code |
||
Element 2 code source |
||
Element source |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
Criterion |
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
Parameter |
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Parameter other |
||
Threshold value upper |
0.6 |
0.6 |
Threshold value lower |
||
Threshold qualitative |
||
Threshold value source |
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Threshold value source other |
||
Value achieved upper |
0.625 |
0.625 |
Value achieved lower |
||
Value unit |
Other
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
deviation from baseline
|
deviation from baseline
|
Proportion threshold value |
||
Proportion value achieved |
||
Proportion threshold value unit |
||
Trend |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
Yes |
Yes |
Description parameter |
||
Related indicator |
||
Criteria status |
Good |
Good |
Description criteria |
||
Element status |
Good |
Good |
Description element |
||
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
||
Integration rule type criteria |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
||
GES extent threshold |
||
GES extent achieved |
||
GES extent unit |
||
GES achieved |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description overall status |
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 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. In 5 out of 7 assessed coastal waters the indicator specific thresholds were achieved, but since the trophic guild was assessed only in a few geographic areas no general conclusions can be drawn for the Baltic 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. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. 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. In 5 out of 7 assessed coastal waters the indicator specific thresholds were achieved, but since the trophic guild was assessed only in a few geographic areas no general conclusions can be drawn for the Baltic Sea. |
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
BAL-SE-AA-K_20_N_Kvarken_inre
GES component |
D4
|
D4
|
---|---|---|
Feature |
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Element |
Planktivores |
Sub-apex pelagic predators |
Element code |
TrophicGuildsPlankt |
TrophicGuildsPredSApexPel |
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
|
Element 2 |
||
Element 2 code |
||
Element 2 code source |
||
Element source |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
Criterion |
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
Parameter |
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Parameter other |
||
Threshold value upper |
0.6 |
0.6 |
Threshold value lower |
||
Threshold qualitative |
||
Threshold value source |
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Threshold value source other |
||
Value achieved upper |
0.375 |
0.125 |
Value achieved lower |
||
Value unit |
Other
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
deviation from baseline
|
deviation from baseline
|
Proportion threshold value |
||
Proportion value achieved |
||
Proportion threshold value unit |
||
Trend |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
No |
No |
Description parameter |
||
Related indicator |
||
Criteria status |
Not good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
||
Element status |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
||
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
||
Integration rule type criteria |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
||
GES extent threshold |
||
GES extent achieved |
||
GES extent unit |
||
GES achieved |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description overall status |
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 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. In 5 out of 7 assessed coastal waters the indicator specific thresholds were achieved, but since the trophic guild was assessed only in a few geographic areas no general conclusions can be drawn for the Baltic 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. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. 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. In 5 out of 7 assessed coastal waters the indicator specific thresholds were achieved, but since the trophic guild was assessed only in a few geographic areas no general conclusions can be drawn for the Baltic Sea. |
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
BAL-SE-AA-K_21_N_Kvarken_yttre
GES component |
D4
|
D4
|
---|---|---|
Feature |
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Element |
Planktivores |
Sub-apex pelagic predators |
Element code |
TrophicGuildsPlankt |
TrophicGuildsPredSApexPel |
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
|
Element 2 |
||
Element 2 code |
||
Element 2 code source |
||
Element source |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
Criterion |
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
Parameter |
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Parameter other |
||
Threshold value upper |
0.6 |
0.6 |
Threshold value lower |
||
Threshold qualitative |
||
Threshold value source |
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Threshold value source other |
||
Value achieved upper |
0.125 |
0.625 |
Value achieved lower |
||
Value unit |
Other
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
deviation from baseline
|
deviation from baseline
|
Proportion threshold value |
||
Proportion value achieved |
||
Proportion threshold value unit |
||
Trend |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
No |
Yes |
Description parameter |
||
Related indicator |
||
Criteria status |
Not good |
Good |
Description criteria |
||
Element status |
Not good |
Good |
Description element |
||
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
||
Integration rule type criteria |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
||
GES extent threshold |
||
GES extent achieved |
||
GES extent unit |
||
GES achieved |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description overall status |
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 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. In 5 out of 7 assessed coastal waters the indicator specific thresholds were achieved, but since the trophic guild was assessed only in a few geographic areas no general conclusions can be drawn for the Baltic 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. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. 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. In 5 out of 7 assessed coastal waters the indicator specific thresholds were achieved, but since the trophic guild was assessed only in a few geographic areas no general conclusions can be drawn for the Baltic Sea. |
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
BAL-SE-AA-K_22_Bottenviken_inre
GES component |
D4
|
D4
|
---|---|---|
Feature |
Coastal ecosystem
|
Coastal ecosystem
|
Element |
Planktivores |
Sub-apex pelagic predators |
Element code |
TrophicGuildsPlankt |
TrophicGuildsPredSApexPel |
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
|
Element 2 |
||
Element 2 code |
||
Element 2 code source |
||
Element source |
HELCOM |
HELCOM |
Criterion |
D4C2
|
D4C2
|
Parameter |
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Parameter other |
||
Threshold value upper |
0.6 |
0.6 |
Threshold value lower |
||
Threshold qualitative |
||
Threshold value source |
Helsinki Convention
|
Helsinki Convention
|
Threshold value source other |
||
Value achieved upper |
0.625 |
0.625 |
Value achieved lower |
||
Value unit |
Other
|
Other
|
Value unit other |
deviation from baseline
|
deviation from baseline
|
Proportion threshold value |
||
Proportion value achieved |
||
Proportion threshold value unit |
||
Trend |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
Yes |
Yes |
Description parameter |
||
Related indicator |
||
Criteria status |
Good |
Good |
Description criteria |
||
Element status |
Good |
Good |
Description element |
||
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
||
Integration rule type criteria |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
||
GES extent threshold |
||
GES extent achieved |
||
GES extent unit |
||
GES achieved |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description overall status |
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 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. In 5 out of 7 assessed coastal waters the indicator specific thresholds were achieved, but since the trophic guild was assessed only in a few geographic areas no general conclusions can be drawn for the Baltic 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. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe general patterns in the food web on the level of marine regions, or sub-regions. 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. In 5 out of 7 assessed coastal waters the indicator specific thresholds were achieved, but since the trophic guild was assessed only in a few geographic areas no general conclusions can be drawn for the Baltic Sea. |
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
BAL-SE-RG-Ostersjon
GES component |
D4
|
D4
|
D4
|
---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Ecosystems, including food webs
|
Ecosystems, including food webs
|
Ecosystems, including food webs
|
Element |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
All trophic guilds |
Element code |
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
|
Element 2 |
|||
Element 2 code |
|||
Element 2 code source |
|||
Element source |
EU |
EU |
EU |
Criterion |
D4C1
|
D4C3
|
D4C4
|
Parameter |
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Parameter other |
Trophic guild species diversity
|
Trophic guild size distribution
|
Trophic guild productivity
|
Threshold value upper |
|||
Threshold value lower |
|||
Threshold qualitative |
|||
Threshold value source |
|||
Threshold value source other |
|||
Value achieved upper |
|||
Value achieved lower |
|||
Value unit |
|||
Value unit other |
|||
Proportion threshold value |
|||
Proportion value achieved |
|||
Proportion threshold value unit |
|||
Trend |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description parameter |
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 one indicator was used to describe the size distribution of both zooplankton in the Baltic Sea. 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. |
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 D4C4 two indicators were used describing nutritional status and reproductive status in the Baltic Sea. Both indicators do not achieve the thresholds. It is difficult to relate the status of these two indicators directly to other disturbances in the food web, e.g. size distribution of the fish community, since natural effects could matter as well, e.g. population size close to carrying capacity. |
Related indicator |
|||
Criteria status |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
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 one indicator was used to describe the size distribution of both zooplankton in the Baltic Sea. 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. |
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 D4C4 two indicators were used describing nutritional status and reproductive status in the Baltic Sea. Both indicators do not achieve the thresholds. It is difficult to relate the status of these two indicators directly to other disturbances in the food web, e.g. size distribution of the fish community, since natural effects could matter as well, e.g. population size close to carrying capacity. |
Element status |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description element |
|||
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 |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description overall status |
It was not possible to assess GES quantitatively and GES is not yet defined at criteria level. Information is provided under the element “All trophic guilds” for criteria D4C1, D4C3 and D4C4 where indicators from descriptor 1 have been used for a qualitative assessment. |
It was not possible to assess GES quantitatively and GES is not yet defined at criteria level. Information is provided under the element “All trophic guilds” for criteria D4C1, D4C3 and D4C4 where indicators from descriptor 1 have been used for a qualitative assessment. |
It was not possible to assess GES quantitatively and GES is not yet defined at criteria level. Information is provided under the element “All trophic guilds” for criteria D4C1, D4C3 and D4C4 where indicators from descriptor 1 have been used for a qualitative assessment. |
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|