Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D6 / 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 | D6 Sea-floor integrity/D1 Benthic habitats |
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-BG_Bottniska_Viken
GES component |
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Element |
Circalittoral mud |
Circalittoral mud |
Circalittoral mud |
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef |
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef |
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef |
Circalittoral sand |
Circalittoral sand |
Circalittoral sand |
Infralittoral mud |
Infralittoral mud |
Infralittoral mud |
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef |
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef |
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef |
Infralittoral sand |
Infralittoral sand |
Infralittoral sand |
Offshore circalittoral mud |
Offshore circalittoral mud |
Offshore circalittoral mud |
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic |
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic |
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic |
Offshore circalittoral sand |
Offshore circalittoral sand |
Offshore circalittoral sand |
Element code |
HabBenCircalitMud |
HabBenCircalitMud |
HabBenCircalitMud |
HabBenCircalitRock |
HabBenCircalitRock |
HabBenCircalitRock |
HabBenCircalitSand |
HabBenCircalitSand |
HabBenCircalitSand |
HabBenInfralitMud |
HabBenInfralitMud |
HabBenInfralitMud |
HabBenInfralitRock |
HabBenInfralitRock |
HabBenInfralitRock |
HabBenInfralitSand |
HabBenInfralitSand |
HabBenInfralitSand |
HabBenOffshMud |
HabBenOffshMud |
HabBenOffshMud |
HabBenOffshRock |
HabBenOffshRock |
HabBenOffshRock |
HabBenOffshSand |
HabBenOffshSand |
HabBenOffshSand |
Element code source |
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Element 2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element 2 code |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element 2 code source |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element source |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
Criterion |
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
Parameter |
Extent
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
||||||||||||||||||
Parameter other |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
||||||||||||||||||
Parameter achieved |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Not assessed |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
||||||||||||||||||
Description parameter |
Good status was not reached for circalittoral sand and mud in coastal areas, since 38 % does not reach threshold values (30 % reaches threshold values, data lacking for 32 %). |
Following the precautionary principle good status cannot be considered reached, based on the 2013 reporting of quality parameters under Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
Good status was not reached for circalittoral sand and mud in coastal areas, since 38 % does not reach threshold values (30 % reaches threshold values, data lacking for 32 %). |
Following the precautionary principle good status cannot be considered reached, based on the 2013 reporting of quality parameters under Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
An assessment could not be made for infralittoral rock and biogenic reef due to data lacking for 70% of the habitat types (threshold levels reached for 29% of the area). |
Following the precautionary principle good status cannot be considered reached, based on the 2013 reporting of quality parameters under Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
For circalittoral sand and mud in the open sea threshold levels are reached for 100% of the assessment area, and thus good status could be considered reached. |
Following the precautionary principle good status cannot be considered reached, based on the 2013 reporting of quality parameters under Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
For circalittoral sand and mud in the open sea threshold levels are reached for 100% of the assessment area, and thus good status could be considered reached. |
||||||||||||||||||
Related indicator |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria status |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Description criteria |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Element status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Description element |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule type criteria |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent threshold |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent achieved |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent unit |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES achieved |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description overall status |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BAL-SE-AA-BG_Egentliga_Ostersjon
GES component |
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Element |
Circalittoral mud |
Circalittoral mud |
Circalittoral mud |
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef |
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef |
Circalittoral rock and biogenic reef |
Circalittoral sand |
Circalittoral sand |
Circalittoral sand |
Infralittoral mud |
Infralittoral mud |
Infralittoral mud |
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef |
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef |
Infralittoral rock and biogenic reef |
Infralittoral sand |
Infralittoral sand |
Infralittoral sand |
Offshore circalittoral mud |
Offshore circalittoral mud |
Offshore circalittoral mud |
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic |
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic |
Offshore circalittoral rock and biogenic |
Offshore circalittoral sand |
Offshore circalittoral sand |
Offshore circalittoral sand |
Element code |
HabBenCircalitMud |
HabBenCircalitMud |
HabBenCircalitMud |
HabBenCircalitRock |
HabBenCircalitRock |
HabBenCircalitRock |
HabBenCircalitSand |
HabBenCircalitSand |
HabBenCircalitSand |
HabBenInfralitMud |
HabBenInfralitMud |
HabBenInfralitMud |
HabBenInfralitRock |
HabBenInfralitRock |
HabBenInfralitRock |
HabBenInfralitSand |
HabBenInfralitSand |
HabBenInfralitSand |
HabBenOffshMud |
HabBenOffshMud |
HabBenOffshMud |
HabBenOffshRock |
HabBenOffshRock |
HabBenOffshRock |
HabBenOffshSand |
HabBenOffshSand |
HabBenOffshSand |
Element code source |
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Habitats (D1-D6) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/msfd/broadHabitatTypes/view
|
Element 2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element 2 code |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element 2 code source |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element source |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
Criterion |
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
Parameter |
Extent
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
||||||||||||||||||
Parameter other |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
||||||||||||||||||
Parameter achieved |
Not assessed |
No |
Not assessed |
No |
Not assessed |
No |
No |
No |
No |
||||||||||||||||||
Description parameter |
An assessment could not be made for circalittoral sand and mud in coastal areas because of data lacking for 27% of the area (63 % of the area reaches threshold levels and 9,6 % does not reach threshold levels). |
Following the precautionary principle good status cannot be considered reached, based on the 2013 reporting of quality parameters under Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
An assessment could not be made for circalittoral sand and mud in coastal areas because of data lacking for 27% of the area (63 % of the area reaches threshold levels and 9,6 % does not reach threshold levels). |
Following the precautionary principle good status cannot be considered reached, based on the 2013 reporting of quality parameters under Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
An assessment could not be made for infralittoral rock and biogenic reef due to data lacking for 55% of the habitat types (ca 42% reaches threshold values). |
Following the precautionary principle good status cannot be considered reached, based on the 2013 reporting of quality parameters under Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
Good status was not reached for circalittoral sand and mud in the open sea since 50% of the assessment area does not reach threshold values (27% reaches threshold values, data lacking for 23% of the area). |
Following the precautionary principle good status cannot be considered reached, based on the 2013 reporting of quality parameters under Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
Good status was not reached for circalittoral sand and mud in the open sea since 50% of the assessment area does not reach threshold values (27% reaches threshold values, data lacking for 23% of the area). |
||||||||||||||||||
Related indicator |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria status |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Description criteria |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type.(92/43/EEG. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C3 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
Sweden do not have indicators under this criterion yet. The reason is lack of enough and adequate information and knowledge on the benthic habitats. Another reason is that threshold values shall be established at union level. We will include these thresholds when they are established. We are active in groups discussing this in CIS-MSFD, as well as in OSPAR and HELCOM. A justification for not using criterion D6C4 is included in ART9GES-Schema for the Baltic. |
To achieve GES for criterion D6C5, threshold levels for the relevant indicators are to be reached in 90 % of the assessment area for the respective habitat type. |
Element status |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule type criteria |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent threshold |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent achieved |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent unit |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES achieved |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description overall status |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
The Swedish assessment for benthic habitats in 2018 is incomplete, and is assessed only for some elements for criterion D6C5. Coastal areas were assessed building on the assessment done according to the Water Framework Directive but aggregated to coastal water type regarding soft-bottom macrofauna and macrophytes. Habitats in the open sea were assessed based on indicators and assessments available within the regional sea conventions. In cases where no assessments were available, a risk assessment was made based on Article 17 of the Habitats directive (92/43/EEG). |
Assessments period |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
2011-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|