Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D8 / Spain / NE Atlantic: Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art. 8 Initial assessment (and Art. 17 updates) |
| Report due | 2018-10-15 |
| GES Descriptor | D8 Contaminants |
| Member State | Spain |
| Region/subregion | NE Atlantic: Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast |
| Reported by | Subdirección General para la protección del mar. D.G. Sostenibilidad de la Costa y del Mar. Minister |
| Report date | 2020-02-03 |
| Report access | msfd2018-ART8GES_MOD2020.xml |
Demarcación marina noratlántica (ABI-ES-SD-NOR)
GES component |
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Marine species
|
Marine species
|
Acute pollution events
|
Element |
Aldrin |
Aldrin |
Alpha-HCH |
Alpha-HCH |
Anthracene |
BDE 85 (2,2’,3,4,4’-pentabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 85 (2,2’,3,4,4’-pentabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE-183 (2,2',3,4,4',5',6-heptabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE-183 (2,2',3,4,4',5',6-heptabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE-66 (2,3',4,4'-tetrabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE-66 (2,3',4,4'-tetrabromodiphenyl ether) |
Benz(a)anthracene |
Cadmium and its compounds |
Cadmium and its compounds |
Chrysene |
Cisclordano |
Cisclordano |
DDT, p,p' |
DDT, p,p' |
Dieldrin |
Dieldrin |
Dieldrin |
Endrin |
Endrin |
Endrin |
Fluoranthene |
Gamma-HCH (Lindane) |
Gamma-HCH (Lindane) |
Hexachlorobenzene |
Hexachlorobenzene |
Isodrin |
Isodrin |
Isodrin |
Lead and its compounds |
Lead and its compounds |
PCB 101 (2,2’,4,5,5’-pentachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 101 (2,2’,4,5,5’-pentachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 138 (2,2’,3,4,4’,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 138 (2,2’,3,4,4’,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 153 (2,2’,4,4’,5,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 153 (2,2’,4,4’,5,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 180 (2,2’,3,4,4’,5,5’-heptachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 180 (2,2’,3,4,4’,5,5’-heptachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 28 (2,4,4’-trichlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 28 (2,4,4’-trichlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 52 (2,2’,5,5’-tetrachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 52 (2,2’,5,5’-tetrachlorobiphenyl) |
Phenanthrene |
Polychlorinated biphenyls (7 PCB: 28,52,101,118,138,153,180) |
Pyrene |
Transclordano |
Transclordano |
p,p′-DDD |
p,p′-DDD |
p,p′-DDE |
p,p′-DDE |
p,p′-DDE |
BDE 100 (2,2’,4,4’,6-pentabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 100 (2,2’,4,4’,6-pentabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 153 (2,2’,4,4’,5,5’-hexabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 153 (2,2’,4,4’,5,5’-hexabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 154 (2,2’,4,4’,5,6’-hexabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 154 (2,2’,4,4’,5,6’-hexabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 28 (2,4,4-tribromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 28 (2,4,4-tribromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 47 (2,2’,4,4’-tetrabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 47 (2,2’,4,4’-tetrabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 99 (2,2’,4,4’,5-pentabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 99 (2,2’,4,4’,5-pentabromodiphenyl ether) |
Benzo(a)pyrene |
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene |
Benzo(k)fluoranthene |
Indeno(1,2,3,-cd)pyrene |
Mercury and its compounds |
Mercury and its compounds |
PCB 105 (2,3,3’,4,4’-pentachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 105 (2,3,3’,4,4’-pentachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 118 (2,3’,4,4’,5-pentachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 118 (2,3’,4,4’,5-pentachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 156 (2,3,3’,4,4’,5-hexachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 156 (2,3,3’,4,4’,5-hexachlorobiphenyl) |
Mytilus galloprovincialis |
Tritia reticulata |
|
Element code |
CAS_309-00-2 |
CAS_309-00-2 |
CAS_319-84-6 |
CAS_319-84-6 |
CAS_120-12-7 |
CAS_182346-21-0 |
CAS_182346-21-0 |
CAS_68928-80-3 |
CAS_68928-80-3 |
BDE66 |
BDE66 |
CAS_56-55-3 |
CAS_7440-43-9 |
CAS_7440-43-9 |
CAS_218-01-9 |
CAS_5103-71-9 |
CAS_5103-71-9 |
CAS_50-29-3 |
CAS_50-29-3 |
CAS_60-57-1 |
CAS_60-57-1 |
CAS_60-57-1 |
CAS_72-20-8 |
CAS_72-20-8 |
CAS_72-20-8 |
CAS_206-44-0 |
CAS_58-89-9 |
CAS_58-89-9 |
CAS_118-74-1 |
CAS_118-74-1 |
CAS_465-73-6 |
CAS_465-73-6 |
CAS_465-73-6 |
CAS_7439-92-1 |
CAS_7439-92-1 |
CAS_37680-73-2 |
CAS_37680-73-2 |
CAS_35065-28-2 |
CAS_35065-28-2 |
CAS_35065-27-1 |
CAS_35065-27-1 |
CAS_35065-29-3 |
CAS_35065-29-3 |
CAS_7012-37-5 |
CAS_7012-37-5 |
CAS_35693-99-3 |
CAS_35693-99-3 |
CAS_85-01-8 |
EEA_33-38-5 |
CAS_129-00-0 |
CAS_5103-74-2 |
CAS_5103-74-2 |
CAS_72-54-8 |
CAS_72-54-8 |
CAS_72-55-9 |
CAS_72-55-9 |
CAS_72-55-9 |
CAS_189084-64-8 |
CAS_189084-64-8 |
CAS_68631-49-2 |
CAS_68631-49-2 |
CAS_207122-15-4 |
CAS_207122-15-4 |
CAS_41318-75-6 |
CAS_41318-75-6 |
CAS_5436-43-1 |
CAS_5436-43-1 |
CAS_60348-60-9 |
CAS_60348-60-9 |
CAS_50-32-8 |
CAS_191-24-2 |
CAS_207-08-9 |
CAS_193-39-5 |
CAS_7439-97-6 |
CAS_7439-97-6 |
CAS_32598-14-4 |
CAS_32598-14-4 |
CAS_31508-00-6 |
CAS_31508-00-6 |
CAS_38380-08-4 |
CAS_38380-08-4 |
140481 |
876821 |
|
Element code source |
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
ICES
|
ICES
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
|
Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
|
|
Element 2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element 2 code |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element 2 code source |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element source |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
BARCON |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
BARCON |
BARCON |
BARCON |
BARCON |
BARCON |
BARCON |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
BARCON |
BARCON |
BARCON |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
BARCON |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
BARCON |
BARCON |
BARCON |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
|
Criterion |
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C2
|
D8C2
|
D8C3
|
Parameter |
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Concentration in biota
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Concentration in biota
|
Other
|
Other
|
Concentration in sediment
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Concentration in sediment
|
Other
|
Other
|
Concentration in sediment
|
Other
|
Other
|
Concentration in biota
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Concentration in sediment
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in sediment
|
Concentration in biota
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Concentration in sediment
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Extent
|
Parameter other |
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota ? red mullet
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota ? red mullet
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota ? red mullet
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota ? red mullet
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota ? red mullet
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota ? red mullet
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota ? red mullet
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota â hake muscle
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Concentration in biota - hake liver
|
Concentration in biota - mussels
|
Scope for Growth
|
Imposex
|
||||||||||||||||
Threshold value upper |
0.13 |
290.0 |
80.0 |
1.0 |
5.0 |
665.0 |
2.0 |
10.0 |
110.0 |
11.0 |
0.29 |
0.09 |
0.13 |
1.5 |
7.5 |
120.0 |
1.2 |
316.0 |
3.16 |
16.0 |
1600.0 |
0.48 |
480.0 |
0.64 |
64.0 |
108.0 |
1.08 |
1700.0 |
11.5 |
100.0 |
10.0 |
0.1 |
10.0 |
2.2 |
10.0 |
0.1 |
600.0 |
110.0 |
260.0 |
5.5 |
2.5 |
2.5 |
0.15 |
24.0 |
0.24 |
0.12 |
30.0 |
3.5 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value lower |
2.7 |
3.6 |
0.026 |
0.96 |
11.3 |
11.2 |
0.19 |
0.026 |
1.3 |
0.14 |
0.12 |
0.12 |
0.12 |
0.15 |
0.15 |
12.6 |
0.46 |
10.1 |
0.13 |
0.09 |
0.13 |
2.1 |
7.2 |
0.09 |
0.175 |
0.12 |
18.0 |
0.3 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value source |
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
Regulation on contaminants in foodstuffs (EC 1881/2006)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
Regulation on contaminants in foodstuffs (EC 1881/2006)
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
Other (specify)
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
Regulation on contaminants in foodstuffs (EC 1881/2006)
|
Regulation on contaminants in foodstuffs (EC 1881/2006)
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value source other |
Trend of the NOAA
|
Trend of the NOAA
|
OSPAR Commission, 2008. CEMP Assessment Manual. Co-ordinated Environmental Monitoring Programme Assessment Manual for contaminants in sediment and biota. ISBN 978-1-906840-20-4. Publication Number No. 379/2008 |
Trend of the NOAA
|
Trend of the NOAA
|
OSPAR Commission, 2008. CEMP Assessment Manual. Co-ordinated Environmental Monitoring Programme Assessment Manual for contaminants in sediment and biota. ISBN 978-1-906840-20-4. Publication Number No. 379/2008 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
5.0 |
0.11 |
0.47 |
0.1 |
41.8 |
0.011 |
0.041 |
0.061 |
0.012 |
85.4 |
0.187 |
3.02 |
181.8 |
3.06 |
0.11 |
3.16 |
0.16 |
0.05 |
2.4 |
0.32 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
202.0 |
0.6 |
0.06 |
7.4 |
0.32 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
0.077 |
42.3 |
467.0 |
2172.0 |
2079.0 |
6.01 |
10.46 |
3282.0 |
0.93 |
1676.0 |
0.33 |
61.4 |
176.0 |
358.0 |
134.0 |
14.13 |
168.0 |
0.21 |
0.77 |
24.84 |
1.05 |
0.92 |
4.05 |
19.67 |
0.736 |
0.065 |
0.13 |
0.011 |
0.7583 |
0.021 |
0.085 |
0.0071 |
2.409 |
0.554 |
0.339 |
0.172 |
66.0 |
61.0 |
76.5 |
53.8 |
0.846 |
0.374 |
104.95 |
0.414 |
413.0 |
1.35 |
93.6 |
0.36 |
37.91 |
4.3 |
10.0 |
||
Value achieved lower |
1.0 |
0.35 |
0.024 |
0.39 |
0.6 |
0.19 |
0.02 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
0.05 |
3.09 |
0.32 |
0.05 |
0.59 |
2.27 |
11.35 |
0.14 |
0.19 |
18.8 |
4.22 |
3.78 |
0.3 |
2.05 |
4.22 |
0.04 |
0.05 |
0.4 |
1.25 |
0.108 |
0.003 |
0.319 |
0.02 |
0.044 |
0.005 |
0.3 |
0.63 |
0.048 |
0.055 |
0.01 |
3.53 |
0.06 |
0.22 |
9.51 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value unit |
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of dry weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of dry weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
Other
|
microgram per kilogram of dry weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of dry weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of dry weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
Other
|
Other
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
Other
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
Other
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
Other
|
Other
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of dry weight
|
microgram per kilogram of dry weight
|
microgram per kilogram of dry weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of dry weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of dry weight
|
microgram per kilogram of dry weight
|
microgram per kilogram of dry weight
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
Other
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
Other
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
Other
|
Other
|
square kilometre
|
Value unit other |
million gram of dry weight
|
million percent of dry weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kilometer of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kilometre dry weight
|
million gram of dry weight
|
million gram of dry weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
J/h/g
|
VDSI
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
|||||||||||||
Proportion value achieved |
100.0 |
97.8 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
95.5 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
91.3 |
90.5 |
91.3 |
85.7 |
86.0 |
100.0 |
95.2 |
100.0 |
95.2 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
97.6 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
97.0 |
95.5 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
71.4 |
34.8 |
63.0 |
39.0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
||||||||||||
Trend |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not relevant |
Unknown |
Improving |
Unknown |
Improving |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Improving |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Yes |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Yes |
Yes |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
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 |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Not assessed |
Yes |
Yes |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
No |
No |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
No |
No |
Unknown |
Description parameter |
Aldrin in hake liver.
There are no environmental criteria for assessing this contaminant in this matrix.
The lower value is less than the detection limit value (0,01 µg/kg W.W.)
|
Aldrin in wild mussels.
There are no environmental criteria for assessing this contaminant in this matrix.
The lower value is less than the detection limit value (0,01 µg/kg W.W.)
|
HCH (Alha-HCH) in hake liver.
There are no environmental criteria for assessing this contaminant in this matrix.
The lower value is less than the detection limit value (0,01 µg/kg W.W.)
|
Alpha-HCH in wild mussels
The lower value is less than the detection limit value (0,01 µg/kg W.W.)
|
Wild pearl mussel
The minimum value is below the detection limit (0,13 µg/kg bw).
|
BDE85 hake liver
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
The maximum value is lower than the LOD.
|
BDE85 in wild mussels
No environmental criteria for evaluating this parameter
|
BDE183 for hake.
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
The maximum level is lower than the LOD.
|
BDE 183 in wild mussels.
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE66 hake liver
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE66 in wild mussels
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
Benzo [a] anthracene in wild mussel
|
Hake CD in liver of hake
|
CD in wild mussels.
|
Hake liver in hake
There are no environmental criteria in order to be able to assess their concentrations
|
Wild mussels
There are no environmental criteria for assessing this contaminant in this matrix.
The lower value is less than the detection limit value (0,01 µg/kg W.W.)
|
DDT, p, p 'in hake liver.
There are no environmental criteria for assessing this contaminant in this matrix.
The lower value is less than the detection limit value (0,01 µg/kg W.W.)
|
DDT, p, p 'in the wild mussel
The lower value is less than the detection limit value (0,01 µg/kg W.W.)
|
Determined in mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis)
|
Determined in red mullet (Mullus barbatus)
There are no environmental criteria in order to be able to assess their concentrations
|
Determined in mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis)
There are no environmental criteria in order to be able to assess their concentrations
|
Determined in red mullet (Mullus barbatus)
There are no environmental criteria in order to be able to assess their concentrations
|
Fluoranthene in Wild mussel
|
Gamma-HCH (lindane) in hake liver.
The lower value is less than the detection limit value (0,01 µg/kg W.W.)
|
Gamma-HCH (lindane) in wild mussel
The lower value is less than the detection limit value (0,01 µg/kg W.W.)
|
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) liver of hake.
There are no environmental criteria in order to be able to assess their concentrations.
|
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) in wild mussels
There are no environmental criteria in order to be able to assess their concentrations.
The lower value is less than the detection limit value (0,01 µg/kg W.W.)
|
Determined in mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis)
There are no environmental criteria in order to be able to assess their concentrations
|
Determined in red mullet (Mullus barbatus)
There are no environmental criteria in order to be able to assess their concentrations
|
Lead in liver of hake
The lower value determined is lower than the detection limit (0.013Â mg/kg W.W.)
|
PB on mussel
|
PCB101 hake liver
|
RCP101 in wild mussels.
The lower value was < 0.01 µg/kg W. W., which is our detection limit.
|
PCB 138 in hake liver
|
PCB138 in wild mussels
|
PCB 153 in wild mussels
|
PCB153 hake liver
|
PCB180 in wild mussels
The lower value was < 0.01 µg/kg W. W., which is our detection limit.
|
PCB180 hake liver
|
PCB28 in wild mussels
The lower value was < 0.01 µg/kg W. W., which is our detection limit.
|
PCB28 hake liver
The lower value is lower than the limit of detection.
|
PCB 52 in liver of hake.
The lower value is lower than the limit of detection.
|
PCB52 in wild mussels
The lower value was < 0.01 µg/kg W. W., which is our detection limit.
|
Determined in mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis)
|
The total of the concentration of 7 PCBs recommended by ICES: PCB-28, 52, 101, 118, 138, 153 and 180.
|
Determined in mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis)
|
Hake liver (Transcellane)
There are no environmental criteria for assessing this contaminant in this matrix.
The lower value is less than the detection limit value (0,01 µg/kg W.W.)
|
Transcellane in wild mussels
There are no environmental criteria for assessing this contaminant in this matrix.
The lower value is less than the detection limit value (0,01 µg/kg W.W.)
|
P, p â² -DDD in hake liver.
There are no environmental criteria for assessing this contaminant in this matrix.
|
P, p â² -DDD in wild mussels
|
Determined in mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis)
|
Determined in red mullet (Mullus barbatus)
There are no environmental criteria in order to be able to assess their concentrations
|
BDE100 for hake.
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE100 in wild mussels.
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE153 hake liver
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE153 in wild mussels
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE154 for hake.
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE154 in wild mussels.
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE28 hake liver
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE28 in wild mussels
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE47 hake liver
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE47 in wild mussels.
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE99 for hake,
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE99 in wild mussels
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
Benzo [a] pyrene in wild mussels
|
benzo [g, h,i] perylene in wild mussels.
The lower value is lower than the limit of detection (0,63 µg/kg D.W.)
|
Benzo (k) fluoranthene in wild mussels
|
Indeno [1,2,3-cd] pyrene in wild mussels
The lower value is lower than the limit of detection (1,13 µg/kg D.W.)
|
Hg in the tissue of the wild MJILLON
|
Mercury in muscle muscle
|
PCB105 hake liver
There is no upper threshold that can be used as an environmental criterion in this matrix.
|
PCB 105 in wild mussels.
There is no upper threshold that can be used as an environmental criterion in this matrix.
|
PCB118 hake liver
|
PCB118 in wild mussels
|
PCB 156 in liver of hake.
There is no upper threshold that can be used as an environmental criterion in this matrix.
|
RCP156 in wild mussels.
The lower value was < 0.01 µg/kg W. W., which is our detection limit.
There is no upper threshold that can be used as an environmental criterion in this matrix.
|
Scope for Growth (SFG) in mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis.
The SFG represents the energy available for the growth of the animal and is obtained from the integration of physiological rates. Low values of SFG indicate a poor physiological state. |
Imposex in gastropod Nassarius reticulatus.
The vas deferens sequence index (VDSI) is based on the development onto females of a male
genital structure. |
From the database of possible incidents of pollution in the marine environment, those that have given rise to a stain with an area larger than 1 km² have been selected, the origin of which is related to a ship or a land-based installation and the released product is plant oil or hydrocarbons. These events are not considered as acute but were intended to be reflected in order to rule out the accumulation or recurrence of these events in certain areas.
|
|||||
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria status |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Description criteria |
Aldrin in wild mussels and hake.
|
Aldrin in wild mussels and hake.
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussel and hake liver.
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussel and hake liver.
|
Wild pearl mussel
|
Benzo [a] anthracene in wild mussels.
|
Cadmium in hake and hake in liver.
|
Cadmium in hake and hake in liver.
|
PPAHis in sediment
|
Cisclordane in wild mussels and hake in the liver of hake
|
Cisclordane in wild mussels and hake in the liver of hake
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussel and hake liver.
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussel and hake liver.
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussels, red mullet and sediment
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussels, red mullet and sediment
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussels, red mullet and sediment
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussels, red mullet and sediment
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussels, red mullet and sediment
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussels, red mullet and sediment
|
Fluoranthene in Wild mussel
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussel and hake liver.
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussel and hake liver.
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussel and hake liver.
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussel and hake liver.
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussels, red mullet and sediment
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussels, red mullet and sediment
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussels, red mullet and sediment
|
Lead in hake and hake in liver.
|
Lead in hake and hake in liver.
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver.
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver.
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver
|
Phenanthrene in wild mussels
|
Sediment PCBs
|
Pyrene in wild mussels
|
Tiscellano in wild mussel and in hake liver.
|
Tiscellano in wild mussel and in hake liver.
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussel and hake liver.
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussel and hake liver.
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussels, red mullet and sediment
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussels, red mullet and sediment
|
Organochlorine pesticides in mussels, red mullet and sediment
|
Benzo [a] pyrene in wild mussels
|
Benzo [g, h,i] perylene in wild mussels
|
Benzo (k) fluoranthene in wild mussels
|
Indeno [1,2,3-cd] pyrene in wild mussels.
|
Mercury in mussel and hake muscle.
For both parameters the results are positive.
|
Mercury in mussel and hake muscle.
For both parameters the results are positive.
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver.
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver.
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver.
|
PCBs in mussel and hake liver.
|
There is a record of 1 possible pollution incident in 2013, of a discharge of vegetable oil from a vessel in navigation, on the high seas. The spot affected a total surface area of approximately 10 km².
There is no definition of GES for this criterion.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Element status |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not good |
|
Description element |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
|||
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
|
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
|
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
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
|||
GES extent threshold |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
|
GES extent achieved |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent unit |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
|
GES achieved |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description overall status |
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
|
Assessments period |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2008-2012 |
2008-2012 |
2013-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demarcación marina sudatlántica (ABI-ES-SD-SUD)
GES component |
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - non UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Marine species
|
Acute pollution events
|
Element |
Aldrin |
Alpha-HCH |
BDE 85 (2,2’,3,4,4’-pentabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE-183 (2,2',3,4,4',5',6-heptabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE-66 (2,3',4,4'-tetrabromodiphenyl ether) |
Cadmium and its compounds |
Cisclordano |
DDT, p,p' |
Gamma-HCH (Lindane) |
Hexachlorobenzene |
Lead and its compounds |
PCB 101 (2,2’,4,5,5’-pentachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 101 (2,2’,4,5,5’-pentachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 101 (2,2’,4,5,5’-pentachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 101 (2,2’,4,5,5’-pentachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 101 (2,2’,4,5,5’-pentachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 101 (2,2’,4,5,5’-pentachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 101 (2,2’,4,5,5’-pentachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 138 (2,2’,3,4,4’,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 138 (2,2’,3,4,4’,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 138 (2,2’,3,4,4’,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 138 (2,2’,3,4,4’,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 153 (2,2’,4,4’,5,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 180 (2,2’,3,4,4’,5,5’-heptachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 28 (2,4,4’-trichlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 28 (2,4,4’-trichlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 28 (2,4,4’-trichlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 28 (2,4,4’-trichlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 28 (2,4,4’-trichlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 28 (2,4,4’-trichlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 28 (2,4,4’-trichlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 28 (2,4,4’-trichlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 28 (2,4,4’-trichlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 52 (2,2’,5,5’-tetrachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 52 (2,2’,5,5’-tetrachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 52 (2,2’,5,5’-tetrachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 52 (2,2’,5,5’-tetrachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 52 (2,2’,5,5’-tetrachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 52 (2,2’,5,5’-tetrachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 52 (2,2’,5,5’-tetrachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 52 (2,2’,5,5’-tetrachlorobiphenyl) |
Transclordano |
p,p′-DDE |
BDE 100 (2,2’,4,4’,6-pentabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 153 (2,2’,4,4’,5,5’-hexabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 154 (2,2’,4,4’,5,6’-hexabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 28 (2,4,4-tribromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 47 (2,2’,4,4’-tetrabromodiphenyl ether) |
BDE 99 (2,2’,4,4’,5-pentabromodiphenyl ether) |
Mercury and its compounds |
PCB 105 (2,3,3’,4,4’-pentachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 118 (2,3’,4,4’,5-pentachlorobiphenyl) |
PCB 156 (2,3,3’,4,4’,5-hexachlorobiphenyl) |
Paracentrotus lividus |
|
Element code |
CAS_309-00-2 |
CAS_319-84-6 |
CAS_182346-21-0 |
CAS_68928-80-3 |
BDE66 |
CAS_7440-43-9 |
CAS_5103-71-9 |
CAS_50-29-3 |
CAS_58-89-9 |
CAS_118-74-1 |
CAS_7439-92-1 |
CAS_37680-73-2 |
CAS_37680-73-2 |
CAS_37680-73-2 |
CAS_37680-73-2 |
CAS_37680-73-2 |
CAS_37680-73-2 |
CAS_37680-73-2 |
CAS_35065-28-2 |
CAS_35065-28-2 |
CAS_35065-28-2 |
CAS_35065-28-2 |
CAS_35065-27-1 |
CAS_35065-29-3 |
CAS_7012-37-5 |
CAS_7012-37-5 |
CAS_7012-37-5 |
CAS_7012-37-5 |
CAS_7012-37-5 |
CAS_7012-37-5 |
CAS_7012-37-5 |
CAS_7012-37-5 |
CAS_7012-37-5 |
CAS_35693-99-3 |
CAS_35693-99-3 |
CAS_35693-99-3 |
CAS_35693-99-3 |
CAS_35693-99-3 |
CAS_35693-99-3 |
CAS_35693-99-3 |
CAS_35693-99-3 |
CAS_5103-74-2 |
CAS_72-55-9 |
CAS_189084-64-8 |
CAS_68631-49-2 |
CAS_207122-15-4 |
CAS_41318-75-6 |
CAS_5436-43-1 |
CAS_60348-60-9 |
CAS_7439-97-6 |
CAS_32598-14-4 |
CAS_31508-00-6 |
CAS_38380-08-4 |
124316 |
|
Element code source |
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
ICES
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Eutrophication (D5) and contaminants (D8-D9) http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/wise/ObservedProperty/view
|
Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
|
|
Element 2 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element 2 code |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element 2 code source |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element source |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
OSPAR |
|
Criterion |
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C2
|
D8C3
|
Parameter |
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Concentration in biota
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Concentration in biota
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Concentration in biota
|
Other
|
Extent
|
Parameter other |
PCB 101 in hake liver
|
PCB 105 in hake liver
|
PCB 118 in hake liver
|
PCB 138 in hake liver
|
PCB 153 in hake liver
|
PCB 156 in hake liver
|
PCB 180 in hake liver
|
PCB 153 in hake liver
|
PCB 156 in hake liver
|
PCB 180 in hake liver
|
PCB 101 in hake liver
|
PCB 105 in hake liver
|
PCB 118 in hake liver
|
PCB 138 in hake liver
|
PCB 153 in hake liver
|
PCB 156 in hake liver
|
PCB 180 in hake liver
|
PCB 52 in hake liver
|
PCB 101 in hake liver
|
PCB 105 in hake liver
|
PCB 118 in hake liver
|
PCB 138 in hake liver
|
PCB 153 in hake liver
|
PCB 156 in hake liver
|
PCB 180 in hake liver
|
Sea-urchin larval growth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value upper |
1.0 |
11.0 |
0.09 |
1.5 |
120.0 |
24.0 |
316.0 |
1600.0 |
480.0 |
316.0 |
1600.0 |
480.0 |
1600.0 |
480.0 |
64.0 |
120.0 |
24.0 |
316.0 |
1600.0 |
480.0 |
108.0 |
108.0 |
120.0 |
24.0 |
316.0 |
1600.0 |
480.0 |
0.1 |
2.5 |
24.0 |
0.694 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value lower |
0.026 |
0.026 |
0.175 |
0.508 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value source |
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
Regulation on contaminants in foodstuffs (EC 1881/2006)
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value source other |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
0.04 |
0.69 |
0.096 |
0.06 |
0.478 |
3.69 |
19.46 |
0.87 |
4.38 |
0.375 |
66.6 |
115.5 |
609.0 |
1150.0 |
479.0 |
609.0 |
1150.0 |
479.0 |
1150.0 |
479.0 |
1.29 |
66.6 |
115.5 |
609.0 |
1150.0 |
479.0 |
7.24 |
7.24 |
66.6 |
115.5 |
609.0 |
1150.0 |
479.0 |
0.56 |
2274.0 |
0.471 |
1.94 |
0.328 |
0.058 |
1.94 |
0.133 |
0.688 |
23.46 |
115.5 |
25.29 |
1.0 |
|||||||||
Value achieved lower |
0.025 |
1.43 |
0.09 |
0.34 |
0.57 |
3.44 |
3.51 |
16.39 |
25.3 |
10.5 |
16.39 |
25.3 |
10.5 |
25.3 |
10.5 |
3.44 |
3.51 |
16.39 |
25.3 |
10.5 |
3.44 |
3.51 |
16.39 |
25.3 |
10.5 |
33.3 |
0.125 |
0.61 |
0.061 |
0.61 |
0.044 |
0.158 |
0.78 |
3.51 |
0.66 |
0.03 |
|||||||||||||||||||
Value unit |
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
milligram per kilogram of wet weight
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
Other
|
microgram per kilogram of wet weight
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
square kilometre
|
|||
Value unit other |
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kilometer of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kilometer of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kilometer of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kilometer of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kilometer of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kilometer of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kilometer of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kilometer of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kilometer of Lipid weight
|
million gram of dry weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
microgram per kg of Lipid weight
|
Percentage Net Response
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
95.0 |
|||||||||||
Proportion value achieved |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
80.8 |
96.2 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
96.2 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
80.8 |
96.2 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
80.8 |
96.2 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
80.8 |
87.5 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
% of samples achieving threshold value |
|||||||||||||||||
Trend |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Parameter achieved |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Yes |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Yes |
Not assessed |
Yes |
Yes |
Not assessed |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Not assessed |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Not assessed |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Not assessed |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Not assessed |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Not assessed |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Not assessed |
Yes |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Yes |
Not assessed |
No |
Not assessed |
No |
Yes |
Description parameter |
Aldrin in hake liver
There are no environmental criteria for assessing this contaminant in this matrix.
The lower value is less than the detection limit value (0,01 µg/kg W.W.)
|
HCH spp. in hake liver
There are no environmental criteria for assessing this contaminant in this matrix.
The lower value is less than the detection limit value (0,01 µg/kg W.W.)
|
BDE 85 in liver of hake.
No upper levels have been found to the LOD.
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE183 for hake.
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE66 for hake.
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
The minimum value is lower than the LOD.
|
Cadmium in liver of hake
|
Hake liver in hake
There are no environmental criteria in order to be able to assess their concentrations
|
DDT, hake P, p 'DDT
There are no environmental criteria for assessing this contaminant in this matrix.
|
Hake, gamma-HCH (lindanane), of hake
|
Hexachlorobenzene in hake liver
There are no environmental criteria in order to be able to assess their concentrations
|
Lead in liver of hake
The lower value determined is lower than the detection limit (0.013Â mg/kg W.W.)
|
PCB101 hake liver
|
PCB138 hake liver
|
PCB153 hake liver
|
PCB180 hake liver
|
PCB28 hake liver
The lower value is lower than the limit of detection.
|
The lower value is lower than the limit of detection.
|
PCB52 hake liver
The lower value is lower than the limit of detection.
|
Hake liver (Transcellane)
There are no environmental criteria for assessing this contaminant in this matrix.
The lower value is less than the detection limit value (0,01 µg/kg W.W.)
|
P, P'DDE in liver of hake
There are no environmental criteria for assessing this contaminant in this matrix.
|
BDE100 hake liver
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE153 hake liver
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE154 hake liver
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE28 hake liver
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE47 for hake.
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
BDE99 for hake.
There are no environmental criteria to assess this parameter.
|
Hg in hake muscle
|
PCB 105 in liver of hake.
There are no evaluation criteria for this matrix made up of this matrix.
|
PCB118 hake liver
|
PCB 156 in liver of hake.
No environmental criteria are available for this matrix.
|
Sea-urchin larval growth measured as Percentage Net Response (PNR), which is the value of the response (increase in larval length) in sediment elutriates, divided by the response in controls. Low PNR values (<0,508) correspond to sediments with poor environmental quality. |
From the database of potential incidents of pollution in the sea rescue marine environment, those that have given rise to a stain with an area of more than 1 km² have been selected, the origin of which is related to a ship or a land-based installation and the released product is plant oil or hydrocarbons. These events are not considered as acute but were intended to be reflected in order to rule out the accumulation or recurrence of these events in certain areas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria status |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Good |
Description criteria |
Aldrin in hake liver
|
HCH spp. in hake liver
|
BDE85 hake liver
|
BDE183 hake liver
|
BDE66 hake liver
|
Cadmium in liver of hake
|
Hake liver in hake
|
DDT, hake P, p 'DDT
|
Hake, gamma-HCH (lindanane), of hake
|
Hexachlorobenzene in hake liver
|
Lead in liver of hake.
|
PCB101 hake liver
|
PCB101 hake liver
|
PCB101 hake liver
|
PCB101 hake liver
|
PCB101 hake liver
|
PCB101 hake liver
|
PCB101 hake liver
|
PCB138 hake liver
|
PCB138 hake liver
|
PCB138 hake liver
|
PCB138 hake liver
|
PCB153 hake liver
|
PCB180 hake liver
|
PCB28 hake liver
|
PCB28 hake liver
|
PCB28 hake liver
|
PCB28 hake liver
|
PCB28 hake liver
|
PCB28 hake liver
|
PCB28 hake liver
|
PCB28 hake liver
|
PCB28 hake liver
|
PCB52 hake liver
|
PCB52 hake liver
|
PCB52 hake liver
|
PCB52 hake liver
|
PCB52 hake liver
|
PCB52 hake liver
|
PCB52 hake liver
|
PCB52 hake liver
|
Organochlorine pesticides in hake liver
|
hake P, P 'DDE
|
BDE100 hake liver
|
BDE153 hake liver
|
BDE154 hake liver
|
BDE28 hake liver
|
BDE47 hake liver
|
BDE99 hake liver
|
Mercury in muscle muscle
|
PCB105 hake liver
|
PCB118 hake liver
|
PCB156 hake liver
|
The period analysed did not result in any discharge exceeding 1 km².
|
|
Element status |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not good |
|
Description element |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
THRES
|
|
Integration rule description parameter |
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
Results of different pollutants have not been integrated. They are presented individually with the degree of compliance with the environmental criteria or threshold values defined for their toxicity.
|
||
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
|
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
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
A threshold value is established for the proportion of cases that should be below T1, which makes it possible to establish whether or not the BEA is achieved for a demarcation. As in the initial assessment of 2012, it is proposed to use an initial threshold value of 95Â % cases without risk (< T1) for each of the indicators used separately.
|
||
GES extent threshold |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
|
GES extent achieved |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent unit |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
|
GES achieved |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
GES achieved |
Description overall status |
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
The available data are considered to be insufficient (number of years and matrices analysed) to determine compliance or not with GES.
|
|
Assessments period |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2012-2013 |
2010-2011 |
2013-2016 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|