MS/Art8/2018/D1-F/France/NE Atlantic: Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast

Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D1-F / France / 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	D1 Fish
Member State	France
Region/subregion	NE Atlantic: Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast
Reported by	Ministère de la transition Ecologique et Solidaire
Report date	2020-02-19
Report access	ART8_GES_FR_2020-02-17.xml

SRM GdG (ABI-FR-MS-GDG)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F
Feature	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish
Element	Dentex dentex	Dentex dentex	Dentex dentex	Dentex dentex	Dentex dentex	Dicentrarchus labrax	Dicentrarchus labrax	Dicentrarchus labrax	Dicentrarchus labrax	Dicentrarchus labrax	Epinephelus marginatus	Epinephelus marginatus	Epinephelus marginatus	Epinephelus marginatus	Epinephelus marginatus	Sciaena umbra	Sciaena umbra	Sciaena umbra	Sciaena umbra	Sciaena umbra	Argentina	Argentina	Argentina	Argentina	Argentina	Callionymus maculatus	Callionymus maculatus	Callionymus maculatus	Callionymus maculatus	Callionymus maculatus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Conger conger	Conger conger	Conger conger	Conger conger	Conger conger	Dipturus batis	Dipturus batis	Dipturus batis	Dipturus batis	Dipturus batis	Echiichthys vipera	Echiichthys vipera	Echiichthys vipera	Echiichthys vipera	Echiichthys vipera	Eutrigla gurnardus	Eutrigla gurnardus	Eutrigla gurnardus	Eutrigla gurnardus	Eutrigla gurnardus	Gadus morhua	Gadus morhua	Gadus morhua	Gadus morhua	Gadus morhua	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Lepidorhombus boscii	Lepidorhombus boscii	Lepidorhombus boscii	Lepidorhombus boscii	Lepidorhombus boscii	Leucoraja fullonica	Leucoraja fullonica	Leucoraja fullonica	Leucoraja fullonica	Leucoraja fullonica	Leucoraja naevus	Leucoraja naevus	Leucoraja naevus	Leucoraja naevus	Leucoraja naevus	Lophius budegassa	Lophius budegassa	Lophius budegassa	Lophius budegassa	Lophius budegassa	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Molva molva	Molva molva	Molva molva	Molva molva	Molva molva	Phycis blennoides	Phycis blennoides	Phycis blennoides	Phycis blennoides	Phycis blennoides	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Scophthalmus maximus	Scophthalmus maximus	Scophthalmus maximus	Scophthalmus maximus	Scophthalmus maximus	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Squatina squatina	Squatina squatina	Squatina squatina	Squatina squatina	Squatina squatina	Trachinus draco	Trachinus draco	Trachinus draco	Trachinus draco	Trachinus draco	Zeus faber	Zeus faber	Zeus faber	Zeus faber	Zeus faber	Cetorhinus maximus	Cetorhinus maximus	Cetorhinus maximus	Cetorhinus maximus	Cetorhinus maximus	Lamna nasus	Lamna nasus	Lamna nasus	Lamna nasus	Lamna nasus	Micromesistius poutassou	Micromesistius poutassou	Micromesistius poutassou	Micromesistius poutassou	Micromesistius poutassou	Micromesistius poutassou	Scomber scombrus	Scomber scombrus	Scomber scombrus	Scomber scombrus	Scomber scombrus	Scomber scombrus	Thunnus alalunga	Thunnus alalunga	Thunnus alalunga	Thunnus alalunga	Thunnus alalunga	Thunnus alalunga	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Trachurus trachurus	Trachurus trachurus	Trachurus trachurus	Trachurus trachurus	Trachurus trachurus	Trachurus trachurus	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius
Element code	273962	273962	273962	273962	273962	126975	126975	126975	126975	126975	127036	127036	127036	127036	127036	127010	127010	127010	127010	127010	125885	125885	125885	125885	125885	126793	126793	126793	126793	126793	127259	127259	127259	127259	127259	126285	126285	126285	126285	126285	105869	105869	105869	105869	105869	150630	150630	150630	150630	150630	150637	150637	150637	150637	150637	126436	126436	126436	126436	126436	105812	105812	105812	105812	105812	127251	127251	127251	127251	127251	127145	127145	127145	127145	127145	105874	105874	105874	105874	105874	105876	105876	105876	105876	105876	126554	126554	126554	126554	126554	126555	126555	126555	126555	126555	126484	126484	126484	126484	126484	126461	126461	126461	126461	126461	126501	126501	126501	126501	126501	105883	105883	105883	105883	105883	127149	127149	127149	127149	127149	105814	105814	105814	105814	105814	105923	105923	105923	105923	105923	105928	105928	105928	105928	105928	127082	127082	127082	127082	127082	127427	127427	127427	127427	127427	105837	105837	105837	105837	105837	105841	105841	105841	105841	105841	126439	126439	126439	126439	126439	126439	127023	127023	127023	127023	127023	127023	127026	127026	127026	127026	127026	127026	127029	127029	127029	127029	127029	127029	126822	126822	126822	126822	126822	126822	127094	127094	127094	127094	127094	127094
Element code source	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National
Criterion	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5
Parameter		EXP-KNO					EXP-KNO	EXP-KNO	EXP-KNO			EXP-KNO					EXP-KNO					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other					Other										Other					Other															BIOM-SSB	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)					BIOM-SSB	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)					BIOM-SSB	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)					BIOM-SSB	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)					BIOM-SSB	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)					BIOM-SSB	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
Parameter other																						Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance										Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance
Threshold value upper																																																																																																																																																													2250000.0	0.32					3000000.0	0.22					81110.0	0.1486					556600.0	0.07					634577.0	0.13					65060.0	0.21
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative		Not available yet					Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet			Not available yet					Not available yet					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.										The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.
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															Common Fisheries Policy	Common Fisheries Policy					Common Fisheries Policy	Common Fisheries Policy					International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas	International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas					International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas	International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas					Common Fisheries Policy	Common Fisheries Policy					International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas	International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
Threshold value source other
Value achieved upper																																																																																																																																																													5031888.0	0.386					4587535.0	0.289					76243.0	0.106992					617826.0	0.0252					489616.0	0.126					74168.0	0.1722
Value achieved lower
Value unit																																																																																																																																																													tonne	Other					tonne	Other					tonne	Other					tonne	Other					tonne	Other					tonne	Other
Value unit other																																																																																																																																																														AR						AR						AR						AR						AR						AR
Proportion threshold value																																																																																																																																																													100.0	100.0					100.0	100.0					100.0	100.0					100.0	100.0					100.0	100.0					100.0	100.0
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit																																																																																																																																																													% of population achieving threshold value	% of population achieving threshold value					% of population achieving threshold value	% of population achieving threshold value					% of population achieving threshold value	% of population achieving threshold value					% of population achieving threshold value	% of population achieving threshold value					% of population achieving threshold value	% of population achieving threshold value					% of population achieving threshold value	% of population achieving threshold value
Trend																						Improving					Improving					Stable					Stable					Improving					Improving					Stable					Improving					Stable					Stable					Improving					Deteriorating					Improving					Stable					Stable					Improving					Improving					Improving					Improving					Improving					Stable					Improving										Stable					Stable															Improving	Improving					Improving	Stable					Stable	Stable					Improving	Deteriorating					Deteriorating	Stable					Improving	Deteriorating
Parameter achieved		No					No	No	No			No					No					Unknown					Unknown					Yes					Yes					Unknown					Unknown					Yes					Unknown					Yes					Yes					Unknown					No					Unknown					Yes					Yes					Unknown					Unknown					Unknown					Unknown					Unknown					Yes					Unknown										Yes					Yes															Yes	No					Yes	No					No	Yes					Yes	Yes					No	Yes					Yes	Yes
Description parameter		No quantitative indicators are operational for the criteria for this species. The assessment is based exclusively on a literature review.					No quantitative indicators are operational for the criteria for this species. The assessment is based exclusively on a literature review.	No quantitative indicators are operational for the criteria for this species. The assessment is based exclusively on a literature review.	No quantitative indicators are operational for the criteria for this species. The assessment is based exclusively on a literature review.			No quantitative indicators are operational for the criteria for this species. The assessment is based exclusively on a literature review.					No quantitative indicators are operational for the criteria for this species. The assessment is based exclusively on a literature review.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is conserved as unknown in the Bay of Biscay marine subregion.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is conserved as unknown in the Bay of Biscay marine subregion.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Bay of Biscay submarine region.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Bay of Biscay submarine region.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is conserved as unknown in the Bay of Biscay marine subregion.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is conserved as unknown in the Bay of Biscay marine subregion.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Bay of Biscay submarine region.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is conserved as unknown in the Bay of Biscay marine subregion.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Bay of Biscay submarine region.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Bay of Biscay submarine region.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is conserved as unknown in the Bay of Biscay marine subregion.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, search for a trend over the whole time series (simple linear regression). Results show that recent abundances of this species are lower than the abundances before the defined reference period. In fact, the abundance of this species is expected to decrease on average by 62% between 1997 and 2015. The parameter is therefore not reached for this species in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is conserved as unknown in the Bay of Biscay marine subregion.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Bay of Biscay submarine region.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Bay of Biscay submarine region.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is conserved as unknown in the Bay of Biscay marine subregion.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is conserved as unknown in the Bay of Biscay marine subregion.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is conserved as unknown in the Bay of Biscay marine subregion.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is conserved as unknown in the Bay of Biscay marine subregion.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is conserved as unknown in the Bay of Biscay marine subregion.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Bay of Biscay submarine region.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is conserved as unknown in the Bay of Biscay marine subregion.										The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Bay of Biscay submarine region.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Bay of Biscay submarine region.															The annual Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) is calculated from global quantitative or analytical models. The SSB used for this assessment is that obtained for the year 2017. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the Northeast Atlantic blue whiting stock is above the reference value (SSB ≥ MSY-Btrigger). The parameter is therefore considered to have been reached.	Fishing mortality (F) is a measure of fishing pressure and corresponds to the proportion of the number of fish in a year class caught by fishing in a year (2016 for this assessment). The results of parameter F show that the North-East Atlantic blue whiting stock is exploited beyond the maximum sustainable yield (F ≥ FMSY). The parameter is therefore considered as not being reached.					The annual Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) is calculated from global quantitative or analytical models. The SSB used for this assessment is that obtained for the year 2016. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the mackerel stock (Norwegian Sea to Bay of Biscay) is above the reference value (SSB ≥ MSY-Btrigger). The parameter is therefore considered to have been reached.	Fishing mortality (F) is a measure of fishing pressure and corresponds to the proportion of the number of fish in a year class caught by fishing in a year (2015 for this assessment). The results of parameter F show that the mackerel stock (Norwegian Sea to Bay of Biscay) is exploited beyond the maximum sustainable yield (F ≥ FMSY). The parameter is therefore considered not to have been reached.					The annual Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) is calculated from global quantitative or analytical models. The SSB used for this assessment is that obtained for the year 2013. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the North Atlantic albacore stock is in poor condition, below the reference value (SSB ≤ MSY-Btrigger). The parameter is therefore considered not to have been reached.	Fishing mortality (F) is a measure of fishing pressure and corresponds to the proportion of the number of fish in a year class caught by fishing in a year (2013 for this assessment). The results of parameter F show that the North Atlantic albacore tuna stock is exploited sustainably (F ≤ FMSY). The parameter is therefore considered to have been reached.					The annual Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) is calculated from global quantitative or analytical models. The SSB used for this assessment is that obtained for the year 2013. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the Atlantic bluefin tuna stock (Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean) is above the reference value (SSB ≥ MSY-Btrigger). The parameter is therefore considered to have been reached.	Fishing mortality (F) is a measure of fishing pressure and corresponds to the proportion of the number of fish in a year class caught by fishing in a year (2013 for this assessment). The results of parameter F show that the Atlantic bluefin tuna stock (Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean) is being exploited sustainably (F ≤ FMSY). The parameter is therefore considered to have been reached.					The annual Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) is calculated from global quantitative or analytical models. The SSB used for this assessment is that obtained for the year 2016. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the western stock of horse mackerel is in poor condition, below the reference value (SSB ≤ MSY-Btrigger). The parameter is therefore considered to be not reached.	Fishing mortality (F) is a measure of fishing pressure and corresponds to the proportion of the number of fish in an age class caught by fishing in a year (2015 for this assessment). The results of parameter F show that the western stock of horse mackerel is exploited in a sustainable manner (F ≤ FMSY). The parameter is therefore considered to have been reached.					The annual Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) is calculated from global quantitative or analytical models. The SSB used for this assessment is that obtained for the year 2011. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the North Atlantic swordfish stock is above the reference value (SSB ≥ MSY-Btrigger).The parameter is therefore considered to have been reached.	Fishing mortality (F) is a measure of fishing pressure and corresponds to the proportion of the number of fish in a year class caught by fishing in a year (2011 for this assessment). The results of parameter F show that the North Atlantic swordfish stock is exploited sustainably (F ≤ FMSY). The parameter is therefore considered to have been met.
Related indicator																						Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche										Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche															Biomasse du stock reproducteur	Taux de mortalité par pêche					Biomasse du stock reproducteur	Taux de mortalité par pêche					Biomasse du stock reproducteur	Taux de mortalité par pêche					Biomasse du stock reproducteur	Taux de mortalité par pêche					Biomasse du stock reproducteur	Taux de mortalité par pêche					Biomasse du stock reproducteur	Taux de mortalité par pêche
Criteria status	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	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	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed
Description criteria		In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to assess criterion D1C2 is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. Thus, according to the opinion issued by IUCN World in 2009, the state of criterion D1C2 is poor for the common tooth in the Bay of Biscay marine subregion (Carpenter, K.E. & Russell, B. 2014. Dentex dentex. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T170245A1300534).					In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to assess criterion D1C2 is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. Thus, according to the opinion issued by ICES in 2015, the status of criterion D1C2 is poor for sea bass in the MRS GdG (ICES, 2015. Report of the Working Group on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities (WGECO), 8-15 April 2015, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2015\ACOM:24. 122 pp.).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to assess criterion D1C3 is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. Thus, according to the opinion issued by ICES in 2015, the status of criterion D1C3 is poor for sea bass in the MRS GdG (ICES, 2015. Report of the Working Group on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activi-ties (WGECO), 8-15 April 2015, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2015\ACOM:24. 122 pp.).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to assess criterion D1C4 is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. Thus, according to the opinion issued by ICES in 2015, the status of criterion D1C4 is poor for sea bass in the MRS GdG (ICES, 2015. Report of the Working Group on the Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activi-ties (WGECO), 8-15 April 2015, ICES Headquarters, Copenhagen, Denmark. ICES CM 2015\ACOM:24. 122 pp.).			In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to assess criterion D1C2 is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. For example, according to the 2004 IUCN World opinion, the status of criterion D1C2 is poor for brown grouper in the SRM GdG (Cornish, A., Harmelin-Vivien, M. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group). 2004. Epinephelus marginatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T7859A12857009).					In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to assess criterion D1C2 is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. Thus, according to the opinion issued by IUCN World in 2014, the state of criterion D1C2 is poor for the corb in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (Chao, L. 2015. Sciaena umbra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T198707A83232286).					The ecological status of the argentina is unknown because its abundance shows no significant evolution during the period studied.					The ecological status of the spotted dragontail is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the red gurnard is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter 'Evolution of abundance' is achieved in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region.					The ecological status of conger eel is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is achieved in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region.					The ecological status of the gray satchel is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the lesser weever is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the grey gurnard is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter 'Evolution of abundance' is achieved in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region.					The ecological status of Atlantic cod is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the study period.					The ecological status of the Spanish dog is considered to be good with regard to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is reached in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region.					The ecological status of goatfish is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter 'Evolution of abundance' is achieved in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region.					The ecological status of four spot megrim is unknown as its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the thistle ray is considered to be poor with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter 'Evolution of abundance' is not achieved in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region.					The ecological status of the undulate ray is unknown as its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of anglerfish is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter 'Evolution of abundance' is achieved in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region.					The ecological status of anglerfish is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter 'Evolution of abundance' is achieved in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region.					The ecological status of European hake is unknown as its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of common ling is unknown as its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the greenside darter is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the thornback ray is unknown as its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of turbot is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the small spotted catshark is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter 'Evolution of abundance' is achieved in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region.					The ecological status of spiny dogfish is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.				In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the common sea angel, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the common sea angel is poor (assessed CR by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, rays and chimaeras in mainland France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the common sea angel, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the common sea angel is poor (assessed CR by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, rays and chimaeras in mainland France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the common sea angel, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the common sea angel is poor (assessed CR by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, rays and chimaeras in mainland France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the common sea angel, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the common sea angel is poor (assessed CR by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, rays and chimaeras in mainland France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the common sea angel, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the common sea angel is poor (assessed CR by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, rays and chimaeras in mainland France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).		The ecological status of the greater weever is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter 'Evolution of abundance' is achieved in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region.					The ecological status of St. Pierre is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter 'Evolution of abundance' is achieved in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region.				In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the basking shark, none of the status criteria could be individually informed, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the Basking shark is poor (assessed VU by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the basking shark, none of the status criteria could be individually informed, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the Basking shark is poor (assessed VU by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the basking shark, none of the status criteria could be individually informed, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the Basking shark is poor (assessed VU by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the basking shark, none of the status criteria could be individually informed, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the Basking shark is poor (assessed VU by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the basking shark, none of the status criteria could be individually informed, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the Basking shark is poor (assessed VU by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the porbeagle shark, none of the status criteria was able to be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the 2013 IUCN Red List for France, the overall status of the porbeagle shark is poor (assessed EN by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the porbeagle shark, none of the status criteria was able to be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the 2013 IUCN Red List for France, the overall status of the porbeagle shark is poor (assessed EN by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the porbeagle shark, none of the status criteria was able to be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the 2013 IUCN Red List for France, the overall status of the porbeagle shark is poor (assessed EN by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the porbeagle shark, none of the status criteria was able to be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the 2013 IUCN Red List for France, the overall status of the porbeagle shark is poor (assessed EN by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the porbeagle shark, none of the status criteria was able to be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the 2013 IUCN Red List for France, the overall status of the porbeagle shark is poor (assessed EN by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).		The status of criterion D1C2 is considered poor because the North-East Atlantic blue whiting stock is exploited beyond the maximum sustainable yield (D3C1). The spawning biomass remains above the reference value (D3C2). It is important to clarify that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that the spawning stock biomass (SSB) criterion D3C2 may inform the criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.	The status of criterion D1C2 is considered poor because the North-East Atlantic blue whiting stock is exploited beyond the maximum sustainable yield (D3C1). The spawning biomass remains above the reference value (D3C2). It is important to clarify that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that the spawning stock biomass (SSB) criterion D3C2 may inform the criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.					The state of criterion D1C2 is considered poor because the mackerel stock (Norwegian Sea to Bay of Biscay) is exploited beyond the maximum sustainable yield (D3C1). The spawning biomass remains above the reference value (D3C2). It is important to note that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that the spawning stock biomass (SSB) criterion D3C2 may inform the criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.	The state of criterion D1C2 is considered poor because the mackerel stock (Norwegian Sea to Bay of Biscay) is exploited beyond the maximum sustainable yield (D3C1). The spawning biomass remains above the reference value (D3C2). It is important to note that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that the spawning stock biomass (SSB) criterion D3C2 may inform the criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.					The status of criterion D1C2 is considered to be poor because the North Atlantic albacore tuna stock is not assessed as being in good condition with respect to criterion D3C2. Indeed, although this stock is exploited sustainably (D3C1), the biomass remains below the reference values (D3C2). It is important to note that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that the criterion D3C2 on spawning stock biomass (SSB) may inform the criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.	The status of criterion D1C2 is considered to be poor because the North Atlantic albacore tuna stock is not assessed as being in good condition with respect to criterion D3C2. Indeed, although this stock is exploited sustainably (D3C1), the biomass remains below the reference values (D3C2). It is important to note that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that the criterion D3C2 on spawning stock biomass (SSB) may inform the criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.					The status of criterion D1C2 is considered to be good because the Atlantic bluefin tuna stock is assessed to be in good condition with respect to criteria D3C1 and D3C2 in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region. It is important to note that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that criterion D3C2 relating to spawning stock biomass (SSB) may inform criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.	The status of criterion D1C2 is considered to be good because the Atlantic bluefin tuna stock is assessed to be in good condition with respect to criteria D3C1 and D3C2 in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region. It is important to note that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that criterion D3C2 relating to spawning stock biomass (SSB) may inform criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.					The condition of criterion D1C2 is considered poor because the western stock of horse mackerel is not assessed as being in good condition with respect to criterion D3C2. Indeed, although this stock is exploited in a sustainable manner (D3C1), the biomass remains below the reference values (D3C2). It is important to note that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that the criterion D3C2 on spawning stock biomass (SSB) may inform the criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.	The condition of criterion D1C2 is considered poor because the western stock of horse mackerel is not assessed as being in good condition with respect to criterion D3C2. Indeed, although this stock is exploited in a sustainable manner (D3C1), the biomass remains below the reference values (D3C2). It is important to note that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that the criterion D3C2 on spawning stock biomass (SSB) may inform the criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.					The status of criterion D1C2 is considered to be good because the North Atlantic swordfish stock is assessed to be in good status with respect to criteria D3C1 and D3C2 in the GoG MRS. It is important to note that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that criterion D3C2 on spawning stock biomass (SSB) may inform criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.	The status of criterion D1C2 is considered to be good because the North Atlantic swordfish stock is assessed to be in good status with respect to criteria D3C1 and D3C2 in the GoG MRS. It is important to note that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that criterion D3C2 on spawning stock biomass (SSB) may inform criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.
Element status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	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	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good
Description element	For the common dentex, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Carpenter, K.E. & Russell, B. 2014. Dentex dentex. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T170245A1300534), therefore the common dentex dentex is considered to be in poor condition.	For the common dentex, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Carpenter, K.E. & Russell, B. 2014. Dentex dentex. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T170245A1300534), therefore the common dentex dentex is considered to be in poor condition.	For the common dentex, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Carpenter, K.E. & Russell, B. 2014. Dentex dentex. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T170245A1300534), therefore the common dentex dentex is considered to be in poor condition.	For the common dentex, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Carpenter, K.E. & Russell, B. 2014. Dentex dentex. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T170245A1300534), therefore the common dentex dentex is considered to be in poor condition.	For the common dentex, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Carpenter, K.E. & Russell, B. 2014. Dentex dentex. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T170245A1300534), therefore the common dentex dentex is considered to be in poor condition.	For sea bass, criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 could be qualitatively filled in and are assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Consequently, the sea bass is considered to be in poor condition (OOAO integration of the criteria).	For sea bass, criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 could be qualitatively filled in and are assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Consequently, the sea bass is considered to be in poor condition (OOAO integration of the criteria).	For sea bass, criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 could be qualitatively filled in and are assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Consequently, the sea bass is considered to be in poor condition (OOAO integration of the criteria).	For sea bass, criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 could be qualitatively filled in and are assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Consequently, the sea bass is considered to be in poor condition (OOAO integration of the criteria).	For sea bass, criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 could be qualitatively filled in and are assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Consequently, the sea bass is considered to be in poor condition (OOAO integration of the criteria).	For brown grouper, criterion D1C2 was qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered endangered (EN) by IUCN World (Cornish, A., Harmelin-Vivien, M. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group), 2004. Epinephelus marginatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T7859A12857009.) Consequently, the brown grouper is considered to be in poor condition.	For brown grouper, criterion D1C2 was qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered endangered (EN) by IUCN World (Cornish, A., Harmelin-Vivien, M. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group), 2004. Epinephelus marginatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T7859A12857009.) Consequently, the brown grouper is considered to be in poor condition.	For brown grouper, criterion D1C2 was qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered endangered (EN) by IUCN World (Cornish, A., Harmelin-Vivien, M. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group), 2004. Epinephelus marginatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T7859A12857009.) Consequently, the brown grouper is considered to be in poor condition.	For brown grouper, criterion D1C2 was qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered endangered (EN) by IUCN World (Cornish, A., Harmelin-Vivien, M. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group), 2004. Epinephelus marginatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T7859A12857009.) Consequently, the brown grouper is considered to be in poor condition.	For brown grouper, criterion D1C2 was qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered endangered (EN) by IUCN World (Cornish, A., Harmelin-Vivien, M. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group), 2004. Epinephelus marginatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T7859A12857009.) Consequently, the brown grouper is considered to be in poor condition.	For the corb, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this RMU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Chao, L. 2015. Sciaena umbra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T198707A83232286) and therefore the corb is considered to be in poor condition.	For the corb, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this RMU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Chao, L. 2015. Sciaena umbra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T198707A83232286) and therefore the corb is considered to be in poor condition.	For the corb, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this RMU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Chao, L. 2015. Sciaena umbra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T198707A83232286) and therefore the corb is considered to be in poor condition.	For the corb, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this RMU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Chao, L. 2015. Sciaena umbra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T198707A83232286) and therefore the corb is considered to be in poor condition.	For the corb, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this RMU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Chao, L. 2015. Sciaena umbra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T198707A83232286) and therefore the corb is considered to be in poor condition.	For the argentina, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Argentina is considered to be unknown.	For the argentina, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Argentina is considered to be unknown.	For the argentina, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Argentina is considered to be unknown.	For the argentina, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Argentina is considered to be unknown.	For the argentina, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Argentina is considered to be unknown.	For the spotted dragonet, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the spotted wrist strap is considered unknown.	For the spotted dragonet, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the spotted wrist strap is considered unknown.	For the spotted dragonet, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the spotted wrist strap is considered unknown.	For the spotted dragonet, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the spotted wrist strap is considered unknown.	For the spotted dragonet, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the spotted wrist strap is considered unknown.	For the red gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this RMU. Therefore, the red gurnard is considered to be in good condition.	For the red gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this RMU. Therefore, the red gurnard is considered to be in good condition.	For the red gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this RMU. Therefore, the red gurnard is considered to be in good condition.	For the red gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this RMU. Therefore, the red gurnard is considered to be in good condition.	For the red gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this RMU. Therefore, the red gurnard is considered to be in good condition.	For the conger, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, conger is considered to be in good condition.	For the conger, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, conger is considered to be in good condition.	For the conger, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, conger is considered to be in good condition.	For the conger, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, conger is considered to be in good condition.	For the conger, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, conger is considered to be in good condition.	For the grey pocket, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the common sack is considered unknown.	For the grey pocket, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the common sack is considered unknown.	For the grey pocket, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the common sack is considered unknown.	For the grey pocket, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the common sack is considered unknown.	For the grey pocket, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the common sack is considered unknown.	For the lesser weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the small buffalo is considered unknown.	For the lesser weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the small buffalo is considered unknown.	For the lesser weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the small buffalo is considered unknown.	For the lesser weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the small buffalo is considered unknown.	For the lesser weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the small buffalo is considered unknown.	For the grey gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the grey gurnard is considered to be in good condition.	For the grey gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the grey gurnard is considered to be in good condition.	For the grey gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the grey gurnard is considered to be in good condition.	For the grey gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the grey gurnard is considered to be in good condition.	For the grey gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the grey gurnard is considered to be in good condition.	For Atlantic cod, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Atlantic cod is considered unknown.	For Atlantic cod, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Atlantic cod is considered unknown.	For Atlantic cod, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Atlantic cod is considered unknown.	For Atlantic cod, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Atlantic cod is considered unknown.	For Atlantic cod, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Atlantic cod is considered unknown.	For theblackmouth catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackmouth catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For theblackmouth catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackmouth catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For theblackmouth catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackmouth catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For theblackmouth catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackmouth catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For theblackmouth catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackmouth catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For the rose fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the rose fish is considered to be in good condition.	For the rose fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the rose fish is considered to be in good condition.	For the rose fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the rose fish is considered to be in good condition.	For the rose fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the rose fish is considered to be in good condition.	For the rose fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the rose fish is considered to be in good condition.	For the four spot megrim, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the four-spot megrim is considered to be unknown.	For the four spot megrim, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the four-spot megrim is considered to be unknown.	For the four spot megrim, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the four-spot megrim is considered to be unknown.	For the four spot megrim, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the four-spot megrim is considered to be unknown.	For the four spot megrim, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the four-spot megrim is considered to be unknown.	For the shagreen ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the shagreen ray is considered to be in poor condition.	For the shagreen ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the shagreen ray is considered to be in poor condition.	For the shagreen ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the shagreen ray is considered to be in poor condition.	For the shagreen ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the shagreen ray is considered to be in poor condition.	For the shagreen ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the shagreen ray is considered to be in poor condition.	For the undulate ray, only the D1C2 criterion could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the undulate ray is considered to be unknown.	For the undulate ray, only the D1C2 criterion could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the undulate ray is considered to be unknown.	For the undulate ray, only the D1C2 criterion could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the undulate ray is considered to be unknown.	For the undulate ray, only the D1C2 criterion could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the undulate ray is considered to be unknown.	For the undulate ray, only the D1C2 criterion could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the undulate ray is considered to be unknown.	For blackbellied angler, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackbellied angler is considered to be in good condition.	For blackbellied angler, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackbellied angler is considered to be in good condition.	For blackbellied angler, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackbellied angler is considered to be in good condition.	For blackbellied angler, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackbellied angler is considered to be in good condition.	For blackbellied angler, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackbellied angler is considered to be in good condition.	For anglerfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the angler is considered to be in good condition.	For anglerfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the angler is considered to be in good condition.	For anglerfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the angler is considered to be in good condition.	For anglerfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the angler is considered to be in good condition.	For anglerfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the angler is considered to be in good condition.	For European hake, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of European hake is considered to be unknown.	For European hake, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of European hake is considered to be unknown.	For European hake, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of European hake is considered to be unknown.	For European hake, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of European hake is considered to be unknown.	For European hake, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of European hake is considered to be unknown.	For the common ling, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the common ling is considered to be unknown.	For the common ling, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the common ling is considered to be unknown.	For the common ling, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the common ling is considered to be unknown.	For the common ling, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the common ling is considered to be unknown.	For the common ling, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the common ling is considered to be unknown.	For greenside darter, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the greenside darter is considered unknown.	For greenside darter, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the greenside darter is considered unknown.	For greenside darter, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the greenside darter is considered unknown.	For greenside darter, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the greenside darter is considered unknown.	For greenside darter, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the greenside darter is considered unknown.	For the thornback ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the thornback ray is considered unknown.	For the thornback ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the thornback ray is considered unknown.	For the thornback ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the thornback ray is considered unknown.	For the thornback ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the thornback ray is considered unknown.	For the thornback ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the thornback ray is considered unknown.	For turbot, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of turbot is considered unknown.	For turbot, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of turbot is considered unknown.	For turbot, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of turbot is considered unknown.	For turbot, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of turbot is considered unknown.	For turbot, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of turbot is considered unknown.	For the small spotted catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the small spotted catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For the small spotted catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the small spotted catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For the small spotted catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the small spotted catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For the small spotted catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the small spotted catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For the small spotted catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the small spotted catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For spiny dogfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of spiny dogfish is considered unknown.	For spiny dogfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of spiny dogfish is considered unknown.	For spiny dogfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of spiny dogfish is considered unknown.	For spiny dogfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of spiny dogfish is considered unknown.	For spiny dogfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of spiny dogfish is considered unknown.	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the common sea angel is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Critically Endangered (CR) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the common sea angel is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Critically Endangered (CR) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the common sea angel is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Critically Endangered (CR) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the common sea angel is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Critically Endangered (CR) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the common sea angel is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Critically Endangered (CR) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the case of the greater weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the greater weever is considered to be in good condition.	In the case of the greater weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the greater weever is considered to be in good condition.	In the case of the greater weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the greater weever is considered to be in good condition.	In the case of the greater weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the greater weever is considered to be in good condition.	In the case of the greater weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the greater weever is considered to be in good condition.	For Saint-Pierre, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, St. Pierre is considered to be in good condition.	For Saint-Pierre, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, St. Pierre is considered to be in good condition.	For Saint-Pierre, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, St. Pierre is considered to be in good condition.	For Saint-Pierre, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, St. Pierre is considered to be in good condition.	For Saint-Pierre, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, St. Pierre is considered to be in good condition.	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the basking shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. La Liste rouge des espèces menacées en France - Chapitre Requins, raies et chimères de France métropolitaine. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the basking shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. La Liste rouge des espèces menacées en France - Chapitre Requins, raies et chimères de France métropolitaine. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the basking shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. La Liste rouge des espèces menacées en France - Chapitre Requins, raies et chimères de France métropolitaine. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the basking shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. La Liste rouge des espèces menacées en France - Chapitre Requins, raies et chimères de France métropolitaine. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the basking shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. La Liste rouge des espèces menacées en France - Chapitre Requins, raies et chimères de France métropolitaine. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the porbeagle shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Endangered (EN) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the porbeagle shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Endangered (EN) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the porbeagle shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Endangered (EN) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the porbeagle shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Endangered (EN) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the porbeagle shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Endangered (EN) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For blue whiting, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, blue whiting is considered to be in poor condition.	For blue whiting, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, blue whiting is considered to be in poor condition.	For blue whiting, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, blue whiting is considered to be in poor condition.	For blue whiting, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, blue whiting is considered to be in poor condition.	For blue whiting, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, blue whiting is considered to be in poor condition.	For blue whiting, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, blue whiting is considered to be in poor condition.	For mackerel, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, mackerel is considered to be in poor condition.	For mackerel, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, mackerel is considered to be in poor condition.	For mackerel, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, mackerel is considered to be in poor condition.	For mackerel, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, mackerel is considered to be in poor condition.	For mackerel, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, mackerel is considered to be in poor condition.	For mackerel, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, mackerel is considered to be in poor condition.	For albacore tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, albacore tuna is considered to be in poor condition.	For albacore tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, albacore tuna is considered to be in poor condition.	For albacore tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, albacore tuna is considered to be in poor condition.	For albacore tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, albacore tuna is considered to be in poor condition.	For albacore tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, albacore tuna is considered to be in poor condition.	For albacore tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, albacore tuna is considered to be in poor condition.	For Atlantic bluefin tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Atlantic bluefin tuna is considered to be in good condition.	For Atlantic bluefin tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Atlantic bluefin tuna is considered to be in good condition.	For Atlantic bluefin tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Atlantic bluefin tuna is considered to be in good condition.	For Atlantic bluefin tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Atlantic bluefin tuna is considered to be in good condition.	For Atlantic bluefin tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Atlantic bluefin tuna is considered to be in good condition.	For Atlantic bluefin tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Atlantic bluefin tuna is considered to be in good condition.	For the jack mackerel, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the jack mackerel is considered to be in poor condition.	For the jack mackerel, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the jack mackerel is considered to be in poor condition.	For the jack mackerel, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the jack mackerel is considered to be in poor condition.	For the jack mackerel, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the jack mackerel is considered to be in poor condition.	For the jack mackerel, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the jack mackerel is considered to be in poor condition.	For the jack mackerel, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the jack mackerel is considered to be in poor condition.	For swordfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, swordfish is considered to be in good condition.	For swordfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, swordfish is considered to be in good condition.	For swordfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, swordfish is considered to be in good condition.	For swordfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, swordfish is considered to be in good condition.	For swordfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, swordfish is considered to be in good condition.	For swordfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, swordfish is considered to be in good condition.
Integration rule type parameter	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	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	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	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	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	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	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	Other	Other
Integration rule description parameter	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).
Integration rule type criteria	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	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	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	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	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	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	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	Other	Other
Integration rule description criteria	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Habitats and Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For the common sea angel, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking shark and porbeagle, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.
GES extent threshold
GES extent achieved																					40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	40.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00
GES extent unit	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group
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	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	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 literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the four species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common toothed dentex - Dentex dentex, European sea bass - Dicentrarchus labrax, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all species groups combined), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	For the group of demersal fish species, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for the Thistle Skate (Leucoraja fullonica). Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). Furthermore, on the basis of a literature review, the sea angel (Squatina squatina) is not considered to be in good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be evaluated for a total of 24 species at the scale of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (all groups of species taken together), i.e. less than 15% of the list of species identified as relevant at the national scale for the evaluation of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in decision 2017/848/EU, was also evaluated qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.	Les espèces de poissons pélagiques exploitées à des fins commerciales, évaluées quantitativement dans le cadre du descripteur 3 à l’échelle des stocks (échelle beaucoup plus vaste que la sous-région marine golfe de Gascogne), n’atteignent les conditions du bon état écologique que pour deux d’entre elles (le thon rouge de l’Atlantique Thunnus thynnus et l’espadon Xiphias gladius) sur les six évaluées. Par ailleurs, deux autres espèces pélagiques, bénéficiant d’un statut de protection (requin pèlerin, Cetorhinus marinus, et requin-taupe, Lamna nasus), ne sont pas considérées en bon état en raison de l'avis émis par l'IUCN pour ces espèces.Dans la présente évaluation, le bon état écologique a pu être évalué pour un total de 24 espèces à l'échelle de la SRM GdG (tous groupes d'espèces confondus), soit moins de 15 % de la liste des espèces identifiées comme pertinentes à l’échelle nationale pour l’évaluation des composantes « Poissons » et « Céphalopodes ». A noter que le groupe d'espèces des poissons amphihalins, non listé dans la décision 2017/848/UE, a été également évalué qualitativement. Les résultats pour ce groupe d'espèces sont présentés dans les synthèses annexées au Document Stratégique de Façade pour la façade Sud Atlantique.
Assessments period	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017	2011-2017
Related pressures
Related targets