MS/Art8/2018/D3/France/NE Atlantic: Celtic Seas — Marine Information System for Europe

Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D3 / France / NE Atlantic: Celtic Seas

Report type	Member State report to Commission
MSFD Article	Art. 8 Initial assessment (and Art. 17 updates)
Report due	2018-10-15
GES Descriptor	D3 Commercial fish and shellfish
Member State	France
Region/subregion	NE Atlantic: Celtic Seas
Reported by	Ministère de la transition Ecologique et Solidaire
Report date	2020-02-19
Report access	ART8_GES_FR_2020-02-17.xml

SRM MC (ACS-FR-MS-MC)

Simplified table

GES component	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3
Feature	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
Element	Alopias spp	Alopias spp	Alopias spp	Anguilla anguilla	Anguilla anguilla	Anguilla anguilla	Aphanopus carbo	Aphanopus carbo	Aphanopus carbo	Beryx spp	Beryx spp	Beryx spp	Brosme brosme	Brosme brosme	Brosme brosme	Buccinum undatum	Buccinum undatum	Buccinum undatum	Capros aper	Capros aper	Capros aper	Centrophorus squamosus	Centrophorus squamosus	Centrophorus squamosus	Centroscymnus coelolepis	Centroscymnus coelolepis	Centroscymnus coelolepis	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Coryphaenoides rupestris	Coryphaenoides rupestris	Coryphaenoides rupestris	Dalatias licha	Dalatias licha	Dalatias licha	Dicentrarchus labrax	Dicentrarchus labrax	Dicentrarchus labrax	Dipturus batis	Dipturus batis	Dipturus batis	Gadus morhua	Gadus morhua	Gadus morhua	Galeorhinus galeus	Galeorhinus galeus	Galeorhinus galeus	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Hoplostethus atlanticus	Hoplostethus atlanticus	Hoplostethus atlanticus	Isurus oxyrinchus	Isurus oxyrinchus	Isurus oxyrinchus	Lamna nasus	Lamna nasus	Lamna nasus	Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis	Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis	Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis	Leucoraja fullonica	Leucoraja fullonica	Leucoraja fullonica	Leucoraja naevus	Leucoraja naevus	Leucoraja naevus	Loligo forbesii	Loligo forbesii	Loligo forbesii	Loligo vulgaris	Loligo vulgaris	Loligo vulgaris	Lophius budegassa	Lophius budegassa	Lophius budegassa	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Macrourus berglax	Macrourus berglax	Macrourus berglax	Melanogrammus aeglefinus	Melanogrammus aeglefinus	Melanogrammus aeglefinus	Merlangius merlangus	Merlangius merlangus	Merlangius merlangus	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Micromesistius poutassou	Micromesistius poutassou	Micromesistius poutassou	Molva dypterygia	Molva dypterygia	Molva dypterygia	Molva molva	Molva molva	Molva molva	Mullus surmuletus	Mullus surmuletus	Mullus surmuletus	Mustelus spp	Mustelus spp	Mustelus spp	Octopodidae	Octopodidae	Octopodidae	Ommastrephidae	Ommastrephidae	Ommastrephidae	Pagellus bogaraveo	Pagellus bogaraveo	Pagellus bogaraveo	Pecten maximus	Pecten maximus	Pecten maximus	Phycis blennoides	Phycis blennoides	Phycis blennoides	Pleuronectes platessa	Pleuronectes platessa	Pleuronectes platessa	Pleuronectes platessa	Pleuronectes platessa	Pleuronectes platessa	Pollachius pollachius	Pollachius pollachius	Pollachius pollachius	Prionace glauca	Prionace glauca	Prionace glauca	Raja brachyura	Raja brachyura	Raja brachyura	Raja circularis	Raja circularis	Raja circularis	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Raja microocellata	Raja microocellata	Raja microocellata	Raja montagui	Raja montagui	Raja montagui	Raja undulata	Raja undulata	Raja undulata	Rostroraja alba	Rostroraja alba	Rostroraja alba	Sardina pilchardus	Sardina pilchardus	Sardina pilchardus	Scomber scombrus	Scomber scombrus	Scomber scombrus	Scophthalmus rhombus	Scophthalmus rhombus	Scophthalmus rhombus	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus stellaris	Scyliorhinus stellaris	Scyliorhinus stellaris	Solea solea (sin. vulgaris)	Solea solea (sin. vulgaris)	Solea solea (sin. vulgaris)	Solea solea (sin. vulgaris)	Solea solea (sin. vulgaris)	Solea solea (sin. vulgaris)	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Squatina squatina	Squatina squatina	Squatina squatina	Thunnus alalunga	Thunnus alalunga	Thunnus alalunga	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Trachurus trachurus	Trachurus trachurus	Trachurus trachurus	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius
Element code	105740	105740	105740	126281	126281	126281	127085	127085	127085	125700	125700	125700	126447	126447	126447	138878	138878	138878	127419	127419	127419	105901	105901	105901	105907	105907	105907	127259	127259	127259	158960	158960	158960	105910	105910	105910	126975	126975	126975	105869	105869	105869	126436	126436	126436	105820	105820	105820	105812	105812	105812	126402	126402	126402	105839	105839	105839	105841	105841	105841	127146	127146	127146	105874	105874	105874	105876	105876	105876	140270	140270	140270	140271	140271	140271	126554	126554	126554	126555	126555	126555	126472	126472	126472	126437	126437	126437	126438	126438	126438	126484	126484	126484	126439	126439	126439	126459	126459	126459	126461	126461	126461	126986	126986	126986	105732	105732	105732	11782	11782	11782	11760	11760	11760	127059	127059	127059	140712	140712	140712	126501	126501	126501	127143	127143	127143	127143	127143	127143	126440	126440	126440	105801	105801	105801	367297	367297	367297	105873	105873	105873	105883	105883	105883	105885	105885	105885	105887	105887	105887	105891	105891	105891	105896	105896	105896	126421	126421	126421	127023	127023	127023	127150	127150	127150	105814	105814	105814	105815	105815	105815	127160	127160	127160	127160	127160	127160	105923	105923	105923	105928	105928	105928	127026	127026	127026	127029	127029	127029	126822	126822	126822	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/	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	Thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) in the Northeast Atlantic	Thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) in the Northeast Atlantic	Thresher sharks (Alopias spp.) in the Northeast Atlantic	European eel (Anguilla anguilla) throughout its natural range	European eel (Anguilla anguilla) throughout its natural range	European eel (Anguilla anguilla) throughout its natural range	Black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo) in subareas 1 2 4–8 10 and 14 and divisions 3.a 9.a and 12.b (Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean)	Black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo) in subareas 1 2 4–8 10 and 14 and divisions 3.a 9.a and 12.b (Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean)	Black scabbardfish (Aphanopus carbo) in subareas 1 2 4–8 10 and 14 and divisions 3.a 9.a and 12.b (Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean)	Alfonsinos/Golden eye perch (Beryx spp.) in the Northeast Atlantic	Alfonsinos/Golden eye perch (Beryx spp.) in the Northeast Atlantic	Alfonsinos/Golden eye perch (Beryx spp.) in the Northeast Atlantic	Tusk (Brosme brosme) in subareas 4 and 7–9 and divisions 3.a 5.b 6.a and 12.b (Northeast Atlantic)	Tusk (Brosme brosme) in subareas 4 and 7–9 and divisions 3.a 5.b 6.a and 12.b (Northeast Atlantic)	Tusk (Brosme brosme) in subareas 4 and 7–9 and divisions 3.a 5.b 6.a and 12.b (Northeast Atlantic)	West Cotentin	West Cotentin	West Cotentin	Boarfish (Capros aper) in subareas 6–8 (Celtic Seas English Channel and Bay of Biscay)	Boarfish (Capros aper) in subareas 6–8 (Celtic Seas English Channel and Bay of Biscay)	Boarfish (Capros aper) in subareas 6–8 (Celtic Seas English Channel and Bay of Biscay)	Leafscale gulper shark (Centrophorus squamosus) in the Northeast Atlantic	Leafscale gulper shark (Centrophorus squamosus) in the Northeast Atlantic	Leafscale gulper shark (Centrophorus squamosus) in the Northeast Atlantic	Portuguese dogfish (Centroscymnus coelolepis) and leafscale gulper shark (Centrophorus squamosus) in the Northeast Atlantic	Portuguese dogfish (Centroscymnus coelolepis) and leafscale gulper shark (Centrophorus squamosus) in the Northeast Atlantic	Portuguese dogfish (Centroscymnus coelolepis) and leafscale gulper shark (Centrophorus squamosus) in the Northeast Atlantic	Red gurnard (Chelidonichthys cuculus) in the Northeast Atlantic	Red gurnard (Chelidonichthys cuculus) in the Northeast Atlantic	Red gurnard (Chelidonichthys cuculus) in the Northeast Atlantic	Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) in subareas 6-7 and divisions 5.b and 12.b (Celtic Seas and the English Channel Faroes grounds and western Hatton Bank)	Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) in subareas 6-7 and divisions 5.b and 12.b (Celtic Seas and the English Channel Faroes grounds and western Hatton Bank)	Roundnose grenadier (Coryphaenoides rupestris) in subareas 6-7 and divisions 5.b and 12.b (Celtic Seas and the English Channel Faroes grounds and western Hatton Bank)	Kitefin shark (Dalatias licha) in the Northeast Atlantic	Kitefin shark (Dalatias licha) in the Northeast Atlantic	Kitefin shark (Dalatias licha) in the Northeast Atlantic	Seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in divisions 4.b-c 7.a and 7.d-h (central and southern North Sea Irish Sea English Channel Bristol Channel and Celtic Sea)	Seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in divisions 4.b-c 7.a and 7.d-h (central and southern North Sea Irish Sea English Channel Bristol Channel and Celtic Sea)	Seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) in divisions 4.b-c 7.a and 7.d-h (central and southern North Sea Irish Sea English Channel Bristol Channel and Celtic Sea)	Common skate (Dipturus batis-complex flapper skate (Dipturus cf. Flossada) and blue skate (Dipturus cf. intermedia) in Subarea 6 and divisions 7.a-c and 7.e-k (Celtic Seas and western English Channel)	Common skate (Dipturus batis-complex flapper skate (Dipturus cf. Flossada) and blue skate (Dipturus cf. intermedia) in Subarea 6 and divisions 7.a-c and 7.e-k (Celtic Seas and western English Channel)	Common skate (Dipturus batis-complex flapper skate (Dipturus cf. Flossada) and blue skate (Dipturus cf. intermedia) in Subarea 6 and divisions 7.a-c and 7.e-k (Celtic Seas and western English Channel)	Cod (Gadus morhua) in divisions 7.e–k (eastern English Channel and southern Celtic Seas)	Cod (Gadus morhua) in divisions 7.e–k (eastern English Channel and southern Celtic Seas)	Cod (Gadus morhua) in divisions 7.e–k (eastern English Channel and southern Celtic Seas)	Tope (Galeorhinus galeus) in the Northeast Atlantic	Tope (Galeorhinus galeus) in the Northeast Atlantic	Tope (Galeorhinus galeus) in the Northeast Atlantic	Black-mouth dogfish (Galeus melastomus) in subareas 6 and 7 (West of Scotland southern Celtic Seas and English Channel)	Black-mouth dogfish (Galeus melastomus) in subareas 6 and 7 (West of Scotland southern Celtic Seas and English Channel)	Black-mouth dogfish (Galeus melastomus) in subareas 6 and 7 (West of Scotland southern Celtic Seas and English Channel)	Orange Roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) in the Northeast Atlantic	Orange Roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) in the Northeast Atlantic	Orange Roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) in the Northeast Atlantic	North East Atlantic	North East Atlantic	North East Atlantic	North East Atlantic	North East Atlantic	North East Atlantic	Megrim (Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis) in divisions 7.b–k 8.a–b and 8.d (west and southwest of Ireland Bay of Biscay)	Megrim (Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis) in divisions 7.b–k 8.a–b and 8.d (west and southwest of Ireland Bay of Biscay)	Megrim (Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis) in divisions 7.b–k 8.a–b and 8.d (west and southwest of Ireland Bay of Biscay)	Shagreen ray (Leucoraja fullonica) in subareas 6–7 (West of Scotland southern Celtic Seas English Channel)	Shagreen ray (Leucoraja fullonica) in subareas 6–7 (West of Scotland southern Celtic Seas English Channel)	Shagreen ray (Leucoraja fullonica) in subareas 6–7 (West of Scotland southern Celtic Seas English Channel)	Cuckoo ray (Leucoraja naevus) in subareas 6–7 and divisions 8.a-b and 8.d (West of Scotland southern Celtic Seas and western English Channel Bay of Biscay)	Cuckoo ray (Leucoraja naevus) in subareas 6–7 and divisions 8.a-b and 8.d (West of Scotland southern Celtic Seas and western English Channel Bay of Biscay)	Cuckoo ray (Leucoraja naevus) in subareas 6–7 and divisions 8.a-b and 8.d (West of Scotland southern Celtic Seas and western English Channel Bay of Biscay)	Long-finned squids (Loliginidae) in divisions 7.d-e (English Channel)	Long-finned squids (Loliginidae) in divisions 7.d-e (English Channel)	Long-finned squids (Loliginidae) in divisions 7.d-e (English Channel)	Long-finned squids (Loliginidae) in divisions 7.d-e (English Channel)	Long-finned squids (Loliginidae) in divisions 7.d-e (English Channel)	Long-finned squids (Loliginidae) in divisions 7.d-e (English Channel)	Black-bellied anglerfish (Lophius budegassa) in divisions 7.b–k 8.a–b and 8.d (west and southwest of Ireland Bay of Biscay)	Black-bellied anglerfish (Lophius budegassa) in divisions 7.b–k 8.a–b and 8.d (west and southwest of Ireland Bay of Biscay)	Black-bellied anglerfish (Lophius budegassa) in divisions 7.b–k 8.a–b and 8.d (west and southwest of Ireland Bay of Biscay)	White anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) in divisions 7.b–k 8.a–b and 8.d (southern Celtic Seas Bay of Biscay)	White anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) in divisions 7.b–k 8.a–b and 8.d (southern Celtic Seas Bay of Biscay)	White anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) in divisions 7.b–k 8.a–b and 8.d (southern Celtic Seas Bay of Biscay)	Roughhead grenadier (Macrourus berglax) in the Northeast Atlantic	Roughhead grenadier (Macrourus berglax) in the Northeast Atlantic	Roughhead grenadier (Macrourus berglax) in the Northeast Atlantic	Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in divisions 7.b-k (southern Celtic Seas and English Channel)	Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in divisions 7.b-k (southern Celtic Seas and English Channel)	Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) in divisions 7.b-k (southern Celtic Seas and English Channel)	Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in divisions 7.b –c and 7.e–k (southern Celtic Seas and eastern English Channel)	Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in divisions 7.b –c and 7.e–k (southern Celtic Seas and eastern English Channel)	Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) in divisions 7.b –c and 7.e–k (southern Celtic Seas and eastern English Channel)	Hake (Merluccius merluccius) in subareas 4 6 and 7 and divisions 3.a 8.a–b and 8.d Northern stock (Greater North Sea Celtic Seas and the northern Bay of Biscay)	Hake (Merluccius merluccius) in subareas 4 6 and 7 and divisions 3.a 8.a–b and 8.d Northern stock (Greater North Sea Celtic Seas and the northern Bay of Biscay)	Hake (Merluccius merluccius) in subareas 4 6 and 7 and divisions 3.a 8.a–b and 8.d Northern stock (Greater North Sea Celtic Seas and the northern Bay of Biscay)	Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) in subareas 1–9 12 and 14 (Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters)	Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) in subareas 1–9 12 and 14 (Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters)	Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) in subareas 1–9 12 and 14 (Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters)	Blue ling (Molva dypterygia) in subareas 6–7 and Division 5.b (Celtic Seas English Channel and Faroes grounds)	Blue ling (Molva dypterygia) in subareas 6–7 and Division 5.b (Celtic Seas English Channel and Faroes grounds)	Blue ling (Molva dypterygia) in subareas 6–7 and Division 5.b (Celtic Seas English Channel and Faroes grounds)	Ling (Molva molva) in subareas 6-9 12 and 14 and divisions 3.a and 4.a (Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean)	Ling (Molva molva) in subareas 6-9 12 and 14 and divisions 3.a and 4.a (Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean)	Ling (Molva molva) in subareas 6-9 12 and 14 and divisions 3.a and 4.a (Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean)	Striped red mullet (Mullus surmuletus) in subareas 6 and 8 and divisions 7.a–c 7.e–k and 9.a (North Sea Bay of Biscay southern Celtic Seas and Atlantic Iberian waters)	Striped red mullet (Mullus surmuletus) in subareas 6 and 8 and divisions 7.a–c 7.e–k and 9.a (North Sea Bay of Biscay southern Celtic Seas and Atlantic Iberian waters)	Striped red mullet (Mullus surmuletus) in subareas 6 and 8 and divisions 7.a–c 7.e–k and 9.a (North Sea Bay of Biscay southern Celtic Seas and Atlantic Iberian waters)	Smooth-hound (Mustelus spp.) in subareas 1-10 12 and 14 (the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters)	Smooth-hound (Mustelus spp.) in subareas 1-10 12 and 14 (the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters)	Smooth-hound (Mustelus spp.) in subareas 1-10 12 and 14 (the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters)	Octopods (Octopodidae) in Subarea 7 (Irish Sea West of Ireland Porcupine Bank English Channel Bristol Channel Celtic Sea and Southwest of Ireland)	Octopods (Octopodidae) in Subarea 7 (Irish Sea West of Ireland Porcupine Bank English Channel Bristol Channel Celtic Sea and Southwest of Ireland)	Octopods (Octopodidae) in Subarea 7 (Irish Sea West of Ireland Porcupine Bank English Channel Bristol Channel Celtic Sea and Southwest of Ireland)	Short-finned squids (Ommastrephidae) in divisions 7.a-e (Irish Sea West of Ireland Porcupine Bank English Channel)	Short-finned squids (Ommastrephidae) in divisions 7.a-e (Irish Sea West of Ireland Porcupine Bank English Channel)	Short-finned squids (Ommastrephidae) in divisions 7.a-e (Irish Sea West of Ireland Porcupine Bank English Channel)	Blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo) in subareas 6–8 (Celtic Seas the English Channel and Bay of Biscay)	Blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo) in subareas 6–8 (Celtic Seas the English Channel and Bay of Biscay)	Blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo) in subareas 6–8 (Celtic Seas the English Channel and Bay of Biscay)	Bay of Saint-Brieuc	Bay of Saint-Brieuc	Bay of Saint-Brieuc	Greater forkbeard (Phycis blennoides) in the Northeast Atlantic	Greater forkbeard (Phycis blennoides) in the Northeast Atlantic	Greater forkbeard (Phycis blennoides) in the Northeast Atlantic	Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Division 7.e (western English Channel)	Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Division 7.e (western English Channel)	Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in Division 7.e (western English Channel)	Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in divisions 7.h-k (Celtic Sea South southwest of Ireland)	Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in divisions 7.h-k (Celtic Sea South southwest of Ireland)	Plaice (Pleuronectes platessa) in divisions 7.h-k (Celtic Sea South southwest of Ireland)	Pollack (Pollachius pollachius) in subareas 6–7 (Celtic Seas and the English Channel)	Pollack (Pollachius pollachius) in subareas 6–7 (Celtic Seas and the English Channel)	Pollack (Pollachius pollachius) in subareas 6–7 (Celtic Seas and the English Channel)	North East Atlantic	North East Atlantic	North East Atlantic	Blonde ray (Raja brachyura) in Division 7.e (western English Channel)	Blonde ray (Raja brachyura) in Division 7.e (western English Channel)	Blonde ray (Raja brachyura) in Division 7.e (western English Channel)	Sandy ray (Leucoraja circularis) in subareas 6–7 (West of Scotland southern Celtic Seas English Channel)	Sandy ray (Leucoraja circularis) in subareas 6–7 (West of Scotland southern Celtic Seas English Channel)	Sandy ray (Leucoraja circularis) in subareas 6–7 (West of Scotland southern Celtic Seas English Channel)	Thornback ray (Raja clavata) in Division 7.e (western English Channel)	Thornback ray (Raja clavata) in Division 7.e (western English Channel)	Thornback ray (Raja clavata) in Division 7.e (western English Channel)	Small-eyed ray (Raja microocellata) in divisions 7.d and 7.e (English Channel)	Small-eyed ray (Raja microocellata) in divisions 7.d and 7.e (English Channel)	Small-eyed ray (Raja microocellata) in divisions 7.d and 7.e (English Channel)	Spotted ray (Raja montagui) in divisions 7.a and 7.e–h (southern Celtic Seas and western English Channel)	Spotted ray (Raja montagui) in divisions 7.a and 7.e–h (southern Celtic Seas and western English Channel)	Spotted ray (Raja montagui) in divisions 7.a and 7.e–h (southern Celtic Seas and western English Channel)	Undulate ray (Raja undulata) in divisions 7.d and 7.e (English Channel)	Undulate ray (Raja undulata) in divisions 7.d and 7.e (English Channel)	Undulate ray (Raja undulata) in divisions 7.d and 7.e (English Channel)	White skate (Rostroraja alba) in the Northeast Atlantic	White skate (Rostroraja alba) in the Northeast Atlantic	White skate (Rostroraja alba) in the Northeast Atlantic	Sardine (Sardina pilchardus) in divisions 8.a–b and 8.d and Subarea 7 (Bay of Biscay southern Celtic Seas and the English Channel)	Sardine (Sardina pilchardus) in divisions 8.a–b and 8.d and Subarea 7 (Bay of Biscay southern Celtic Seas and the English Channel)	Sardine (Sardina pilchardus) in divisions 8.a–b and 8.d and Subarea 7 (Bay of Biscay southern Celtic Seas and the English Channel)	Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in subareas 1-8 and 14 and Division 9.a (the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters)	Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in subareas 1-8 and 14 and Division 9.a (the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters)	Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in subareas 1-8 and 14 and Division 9.a (the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters)	Brill (Scophthalmus rhombus) in Subarea 4 and divisions 3.a and 7.d–e (North Sea Skagerrak and Kattegat English Channel)	Brill (Scophthalmus rhombus) in Subarea 4 and divisions 3.a and 7.d–e (North Sea Skagerrak and Kattegat English Channel)	Brill (Scophthalmus rhombus) in Subarea 4 and divisions 3.a and 7.d–e (North Sea Skagerrak and Kattegat English Channel)	Lesser-spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula) in Subarea 6 and divisions 7.a–c and 7.e–j (West of Scotland Irish Sea southern Celtic Seas)	Lesser-spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula) in Subarea 6 and divisions 7.a–c and 7.e–j (West of Scotland Irish Sea southern Celtic Seas)	Lesser-spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus canicula) in Subarea 6 and divisions 7.a–c and 7.e–j (West of Scotland Irish Sea southern Celtic Seas)	Greater-spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus stellaris) in subareas 6 and 7 (West of Scotland southern Celtic Sea and the English Channel)	Greater-spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus stellaris) in subareas 6 and 7 (West of Scotland southern Celtic Sea and the English Channel)	Greater-spotted dogfish (Scyliorhinus stellaris) in subareas 6 and 7 (West of Scotland southern Celtic Sea and the English Channel)	Sole (Solea solea) in Division 7.e (western English Channel)	Sole (Solea solea) in Division 7.e (western English Channel)	Sole (Solea solea) in Division 7.e (western English Channel)	Sole (Solea solea) in divisions 7.h-k (Celtic Sea South southwest of Ireland)	Sole (Solea solea) in divisions 7.h-k (Celtic Sea South southwest of Ireland)	Sole (Solea solea) in divisions 7.h-k (Celtic Sea South southwest of Ireland)	Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) in the Northeast Atlantic	Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) in the Northeast Atlantic	Spurdog (Squalus acanthias) in the Northeast Atlantic	Angel shark (Squatina squatina) in the Northeast Atlantic	Angel shark (Squatina squatina) in the Northeast Atlantic	Angel shark (Squatina squatina) in the Northeast Atlantic	Thunnus alalunga	Thunnus alalunga	Thunnus alalunga	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in Subarea 8 and divisions 2.a 4.a 5.b 6.a 7.a–c e–k (the Northeast Atlantic)	Horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in Subarea 8 and divisions 2.a 4.a 5.b 6.a 7.a–c e–k (the Northeast Atlantic)	Horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) in Subarea 8 and divisions 2.a 4.a 5.b 6.a 7.a–c e–k (the Northeast Atlantic)	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius
Element 2 code	thr-nea	thr-nea	thr-nea	ele.2737.nea	ele.2737.nea	ele.2737.nea	bsf.27.nea	bsf.27.nea	bsf.27.nea	alf-comb	alf-comb	alf-comb	usk.27.3a45b6a7-912b	usk.27.3a45b6a7-912b	usk.27.3a45b6a7-912b	whe.26E8.27E8GNB	whe.26E8.27E8GNB	whe.26E8.27E8GNB	boc.27.6-8	boc.27.6-8	boc.27.6-8	guq-nea	guq-nea	guq-nea	cyo-nea	cyo-nea	cyo-nea	gur-comb	gur-comb	gur-comb	rng.27.5b6712b	rng.27.5b6712b	rng.27.5b6712b	sck-nea	sck-nea	sck-nea	bss.27.4bc7ad-h	bss.27.4bc7ad-h	bss.27.4bc7ad-h	rjb.27.67a-ce-k	rjb.27.67a-ce-k	rjb.27.67a-ce-k	cod.27.7e-k	cod.27.7e-k	cod.27.7e-k	gag-nea	gag-nea	gag-nea	sho.27.67	sho.27.67	sho.27.67	ory-comb	ory-comb	ory-comb	BIL94B	BIL94B	BIL94B	BIL94B	BIL94B	BIL94B	meg.27.7b-k8abd	meg.27.7b-k8abd	meg.27.7b-k8abd	rjf.27.67	rjf.27.67	rjf.27.67	rjn.27.678abd	rjn.27.678abd	rjn.27.678abd	sqz.27.7de	sqz.27.7de	sqz.27.7de	sqz.27.7de	sqz.27.7de	sqz.27.7de	ank.27.78ab	ank.27.78ab	ank.27.78ab	mon.27.78ab	mon.27.78ab	mon.27.78ab	rhg-nea	rhg-nea	rhg-nea	had.27.7b-k	had.27.7b-k	had.27.7b-k	whg.27.7b-ce-k	whg.27.7b-ce-k	whg.27.7b-ce-k	hke.27.3a46-8abd	hke.27.3a46-8abd	hke.27.3a46-8abd	whb.27.1-91214	whb.27.1-91214	whb.27.1-91214	bli.27.5b67	bli.27.5b67	bli.27.5b67	lin.27.3a4a6-91214	lin.27.3a4a6-91214	lin.27.3a4a6-91214	mur.27.67a-ce-k89a	mur.27.67a-ce-k89a	mur.27.67a-ce-k89a	sdv.27.nea	sdv.27.nea	sdv.27.nea	oct.27.7	oct.27.7	oct.27.7	omz.27.7a-e	omz.27.7a-e	omz.27.7a-e	sbr.27.6-8	sbr.27.6-8	sbr.27.6-8	sce.26E7SB	sce.26E7SB	sce.26E7SB	gfb-comb	gfb-comb	gfb-comb	ple.27.7e	ple.27.7e	ple.27.7e	ple.27.7h-k	ple.27.7h-k	ple.27.7h-k	pol.27.67	pol.27.67	pol.27.67	BIL94B	BIL94B	BIL94B	rjh.27.7e	rjh.27.7e	rjh.27.7e	rji.27.67	rji.27.67	rji.27.67	rjc.27.7e	rjc.27.7e	rjc.27.7e	rje.27.7de	rje.27.7de	rje.27.7de	rjm.27.7ae-h	rjm.27.7ae-h	rjm.27.7ae-h	rju.27.7de	rju.27.7de	rju.27.7de	rja-nea	rja-nea	rja-nea	pil.27.78abd	pil.27.78abd	pil.27.78abd	mac.27.nea	mac.27.nea	mac.27.nea	bll.27.3a47de	bll.27.3a47de	bll.27.3a47de	syc.27.67a-ce-j	syc.27.67a-ce-j	syc.27.67a-ce-j	syt.27.67	syt.27.67	syt.27.67	sol.27.7e	sol.27.7e	sol.27.7e	sol.27.7h-k	sol.27.7h-k	sol.27.7h-k	dgs-nea	dgs-nea	dgs-nea	agn-nea	agn-nea	agn-nea	ALB-N	ALB-N	ALB-N	BFT-E	BFT-E	BFT-E	hom.27.2a4a5b6a7a-ce-k8	hom.27.2a4a5b6a7a-ce-k8	hom.27.2a4a5b6a7a-ce-k8	SWO-N	SWO-N	SWO-N
Element 2 code source	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	ICES	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	ICES	ICES	ICES	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
Element 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	National	National	National	National
Criterion	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3
Parameter																															Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	BIOM-SSB						BIOM-SSB					Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	BIOM-SSB																	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	BIOM-SSB																		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)	BIOM-SSB		Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)						Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)																											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)	BIOM-SSB		Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	BIOM-SSB
Parameter other
Threshold value upper																															1.0	0.5						12673.0					0.35	10300.0																	0.191	41800.0																		19400.0					0.4	10000.0		0.52	35000.0		0.28	45000.0		0.32	2250000.0		0.12	75000.0																										0.56	1910.0		0.25						0.19																											0.22	3000000.0											0.29	2900.0					0.03	964563.0					0.1486	81110.0		0.07	556600.0		0.13	634577.0		0.21	65060.0
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative
Threshold value source																															Common Fisheries Policy	Common Fisheries Policy						Common Fisheries Policy					Common Fisheries Policy	Common Fisheries Policy																	Common Fisheries Policy	Common Fisheries Policy																		Common Fisheries Policy					Common Fisheries Policy	Common Fisheries Policy		Common Fisheries Policy	Common Fisheries Policy		Common Fisheries Policy	Common Fisheries Policy		Common Fisheries Policy	Common Fisheries Policy		Common Fisheries Policy	Common Fisheries Policy																										Common Fisheries Policy	Common Fisheries Policy		Common Fisheries Policy						International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas																											Common Fisheries Policy	Common Fisheries Policy											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																															0.25	0.63						7320.0					0.527	8035.0																	0.216	80624.0																		26691.0					0.519	26082.0		0.382	63908.0		0.22	329685.0		0.386	5031888.0		0.034	95678.0																										0.347	2041.0		1.11						0.15																											0.289	4587535.0											0.196	4031.0					0.012	302376.0					0.106992	76243.4		0.0252	617826.0		0.126	489616.0		0.1722	74168.0
Value achieved lower
Value unit																															Other	tonne						tonne					Other	tonne																	Other	tonne																		tonne					Other	tonne		Other	tonne		Other	tonne		Other	tonne		Other	tonne																										Other	tonne		Other						Other																											Other	tonne											Other	tonne					Other	tonne					Other	tonne		Other	tonne		Other	tonne		Other	tonne
Value unit other																															AR												AR																		AR																								AR			AR			AR			AR			AR																											AR			AR						AR																											AR												AR						AR						AR			AR			AR			AR
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend																															Deteriorating	Improving						Deteriorating					Stable	Stable																	Deteriorating	Improving																		Improving					Stable	Stable		Stable	Stable		Deteriorating	Improving		Improving	Improving		Stable	Improving																										Deteriorating	Improving		Improving						Unknown																											Stable	Improving											Stable	Stable					Stable	Stable					Stable	Stable		Deteriorating	Improving		Stable	Deteriorating		Deteriorating	Improving
Parameter achieved																															Yes	Yes						No					No	No																	No	Yes																		Yes					No	Yes		Yes	Yes		Yes	Yes		No	Yes		Yes	Yes																										Yes	Yes		No						Yes																											No	Yes											Yes	Yes					Yes	No					Yes	No		Yes	Yes		Yes	No		Yes	Yes
Description parameter																															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 stock of roundnose grenadier in the Channel, Celtic Sea, West Scotland and Féringian waters 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 evaluation is that obtained for the year 2016. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the roundnose grenadier stock in the Channel, Celtic Sea, West Scotland and Féringian waters is above the reference value (SSB ≥ MSY-Btrigger). 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 evaluation is that obtained for the year 2016. The results of the SSB parameter show that the North Sea, Channel and Celtic Sea sea bass stock is in a critical situation with a spawning biomass far 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 (2015 for this assessment). The results of parameter F show that the Celtic Sea cod stock is being exploited beyond 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 evaluation is that obtained for the year 2016. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the Celtic Sea cod 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 (2015 for this assessment). The results of parameter F show that the megrim stock in the Celtic Sea and 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 evaluation is that obtained for the year 2016. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the megrim stock in the Celtic Sea and Bay of Biscay is above the reference value (SSB ≥ MSY-Btrigger). 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 evaluation is that obtained for the year 2016. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the white anglerfish stock in the Celtic Sea and 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 Celtic haddock stock is being exploited beyond 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 evaluation is that obtained for the year 2016. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the Celtic haddock 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 (2015 for this assessment). The results of parameter F show that the Celtic Sea Whiting 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 evaluation is that obtained for the year 2016. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the Celtic Sea 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 (2015 for this assessment). The results of parameter F show that the Northern hake 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 evaluation is that obtained for the year 2016. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the northern hake 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 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 (2015 for this assessment). The results of parameter F show that the blue ling stock is exploited in a sustainable way (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 evaluation is that obtained for the year 2016. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the blue ling 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 (2015 for this assessment). The results of parameter F show that the Western Channel plaice stock is exploited in a sustainable way (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 evaluation is that obtained for the year 2016. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the Western Channel plaice 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 (2015 for this assessment). The results of parameter F show that the South West Ireland plaice stock is exploited beyond the maximum sustainable yield (F ≥ FMSY). 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 Northeast Atlantic blue shark stock is exploited sustainably (F ≤ FMSY). 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 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 Western Channel sole stock 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 Channel sole 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 (2015 for this assessment). The results of parameter F show that the Northeast Atlantic spurdog stock is exploited sustainably (F ≤ FMSY). The parameter is therefore considered to have been met.	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 Northeast Atlantic spurdog 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.	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.
Related indicator																															Taux de mortalité par pêche	Biomasse du stock reproducteur						Biomasse du stock reproducteur					Taux de mortalité par pêche	Biomasse du stock reproducteur																	Taux de mortalité par pêche	Biomasse du stock reproducteur																		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																										Rapport entre captures et indice de biomasse Taux de mortalité par pêche	Biomasse du stock reproducteur Indice biomasse féconde		Rapport entre captures et indice de biomasse Taux de mortalité par pêche						Taux de mortalité par pêche																											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	Biomasse du stock reproducteur		Taux de mortalité par pêche	Biomasse du stock reproducteur
Criteria status	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not 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 assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Good	Not assessed	Good	Good	Not assessed	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not good	Good	Not assessed	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	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	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	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 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	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not good	Not assessed	Good	Good	Not assessed	Good	Not good	Not assessed	Good	Good	Not assessed
Description criteria																															Criterion D3C1 is in good condition with regard to the stock of roundnose grenadier in the Channel, Celtic Sea, West Scotland and Féringian waters.	Criterion D3C2 is in good condition with regard to the stock of roundnose grenadier in the Channel, Celtic Sea, West Scotland and Féringian waters.						Criterion D3C2 is in poor condition with regard to the sea bass stock in the North Sea, English Channel and Celtic Sea.					Criterion D3C1 is in poor condition with respect to the cod stock in the Celtic Sea.	Criterion D3C2 is in poor condition with respect to the cod stock in the Celtic Sea.																	Criterion D3C1 is in poor condition with regard to the megrim stock in the Celtic Sea and Bay of Biscay.	Criterion D3C2 is in good condition with regard to the megrim stock in the Celtic Sea and Bay of Biscay.																		Criterion D3C2 is in good condition with regard to the stock of anglerfish in the Celtic Sea and Bay of Biscay.					Criterion D3C1 is in poor condition with regard to the stock of haddock in the Celtic Sea.	Criterion D3C2 is in good condition with regard to the stock of haddock in the Celtic Sea.		Criterion D3C1 is in good condition with regard to the stock of whiting in the Celtic Sea.	Criterion D3C2 is in good condition with regard to the stock of whiting in the Celtic Sea.		Criterion D3C1 is in good condition with regard to the Northern hake stock.	Criterion D3C2 is in good condition with regard to the Northern hake stock.		Criterion D3C1 is in poor condition with regard to the North-East Atlantic blue whiting stock.	Criterion D3C2 is in good condition with regard to the stock of blue whiting in the north-east Atlantic.		Criterion D3C1 is in good condition with regard to the West of Scotland to Celtic Sea blue ling stock.	Criterion D3C2 is in good condition with regard to the West of Scotland to Celtic Sea blue ling stock.																										Criterion D3C1 is in good condition with regard to the Western Channel plaice stock.	Criterion D3C2 is in good condition with regard to the Western Channel plaice stock.		Criterion D3C1 is in poor condition with regard to the south-west Irish plaice stock.						Criterion D3C1 is in good condition with respect to the blue shark stock in the north-east Atlantic.																											Criterion D3C1 is in poor condition with regard to the mackerel stock from the Norwegian Sea to the Bay of Biscay.	Criterion D3C2 is in good condition with regard to the mackerel stock from the Norwegian Sea to the Bay of Biscay.											Criterion D3C1 is in good condition with regard to the Western Channel sole stock.	Criterion D3C2 is in good condition with regard to the Western Channel sole stock.					Criterion D3C1 is in good condition with regard to the spurdog stock in the north-east Atlantic.	Criterion D3C2 is in poor condition in relation to the spurdog stock in the north-east Atlantic.					Criterion D3C1 is in good condition with regard to the North Atlantic albacore tuna stock.	Criterion D3C2 is in poor condition with regard to the North Atlantic albacore tuna stock.		Criterion D3C1 is in good condition with regard to the Atlantic bluefin tuna stock in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean.	Criterion D3C2 is in good condition with regard to the Atlantic bluefin tuna stock in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean.		Criterion D3C1 is in good condition with respect to the western horse mackerel stock.	Criterion D3C2 is in poor condition with respect to the western horse mackerel stock.		Criterion D3C1 is in good condition vis-à-vis the swordfish stock in the North Atlantic.	Criterion D3C2 is in good condition with regard to the North Atlantic swordfish stock.
Element status	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not 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 assessed	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Good	Good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Good	Good	Good
Description element																Note that the code of the additional element is a national code due to the absence of an official repository.	Note that the code of the additional element is a national code due to the absence of an official repository.	Note that the code of the additional element is a national code due to the absence of an official repository.													The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.				The assessment of criterion D3C2 shows that the stock of sea bass in the North Sea, Channel and Celtic Sea is in a critical situation with a spawning biomass far below the reference value (D3C2) and a fishing mortality which is certainly too high (no reference point). Criteria D3C1 and D3C3 were not assessed.	The assessment of criterion D3C2 shows that the stock of sea bass in the North Sea, Channel and Celtic Sea is in a critical situation with a spawning biomass far below the reference value (D3C2) and a fishing mortality which is certainly too high (no reference point). Criteria D3C1 and D3C3 were not assessed.	The assessment of criterion D3C2 shows that the stock of sea bass in the North Sea, Channel and Celtic Sea is in a critical situation with a spawning biomass far below the reference value (D3C2) and a fishing mortality which is certainly too high (no reference point). Criteria D3C1 and D3C3 were not assessed.				The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the Celtic Sea cod stock is being exploited beyond maximum sustainable yield (D3C1) and that its spawning biomass is in poor condition (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the Celtic Sea cod stock is being exploited beyond maximum sustainable yield (D3C1) and that its spawning biomass is in poor condition (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the Celtic Sea cod stock is being exploited beyond maximum sustainable yield (D3C1) and that its spawning biomass is in poor condition (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.										Note that the code for the additional element comes from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	Note that the code for the additional element comes from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	Note that the code for the additional element comes from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	Note that the code for the additional element comes from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	Note that the code for the additional element comes from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	Note that the code for the additional element comes from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is exploited beyond maximum sustainable yield (D3C1) but that spawning biomass is above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is exploited beyond maximum sustainable yield (D3C1) but that spawning biomass is above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is exploited beyond maximum sustainable yield (D3C1) but that spawning biomass is above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.																The assessment of criterion D3C2 shows that the spawning biomass of the white anglerfish stock in the Celtic Sea and Bay of Biscay is above the reference value. However, criterion D3C1 could not be assessed, which does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the overall state of this stock.	The assessment of criterion D3C2 shows that the spawning biomass of the white anglerfish stock in the Celtic Sea and Bay of Biscay is above the reference value. However, criterion D3C1 could not be assessed, which does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the overall state of this stock.	The assessment of criterion D3C2 shows that the spawning biomass of the white anglerfish stock in the Celtic Sea and Bay of Biscay is above the reference value. However, criterion D3C1 could not be assessed, which does not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the overall state of this stock.				The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the Celtic haddock stock is exploited beyond maximum sustainable yield (D3C1) but that spawning biomass is above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the Celtic haddock stock is exploited beyond maximum sustainable yield (D3C1) but that spawning biomass is above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the Celtic haddock stock is exploited beyond maximum sustainable yield (D3C1) but that spawning biomass is above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the Northeast Atlantic blue whiting stock is exploited beyond maximum sustainable yield (D3C1) but that the spawning biomass is above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the Northeast Atlantic blue whiting stock is exploited beyond maximum sustainable yield (D3C1) but that the spawning biomass is above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the Northeast Atlantic blue whiting stock is exploited beyond maximum sustainable yield (D3C1) but that the spawning biomass is above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.																			Note that the code of the additional element is a national code due to the absence of an official repository.	Note that the code of the additional element is a national code due to the absence of an official repository.	Note that the code of the additional element is a national code due to the absence of an official repository.				The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of criterion D3C1 shows that the state of this stock is being exploited beyond maximum sustainable yield. Criteria D3C2 and D3C3 were not assessed.	The assessment of criterion D3C1 shows that the state of this stock is being exploited beyond maximum sustainable yield. Criteria D3C2 and D3C3 were not assessed.	The assessment of criterion D3C1 shows that the state of this stock is being exploited beyond maximum sustainable yield. Criteria D3C2 and D3C3 were not assessed.				The assessment of criterion D3C1 shows that the blue shark stock is exploited in a sustainable manner. However, criterion D3C2 could not be assessed, which makes it impossible to conclude on the overall state of the stock. Note that the code for the additional element is taken from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	The assessment of criterion D3C1 shows that the blue shark stock is exploited in a sustainable manner. However, criterion D3C2 could not be assessed, which makes it impossible to conclude on the overall state of the stock. Note that the code for the additional element is taken from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	The assessment of criterion D3C1 shows that the blue shark stock is exploited in a sustainable manner. However, criterion D3C2 could not be assessed, which makes it impossible to conclude on the overall state of the stock. Note that the code for the additional element is taken from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).																									The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the mackerel stock (Norwegian Sea to Bay of Biscay) is exploited beyond the maximum sustainable yield (D3C1) but that the spawning biomass is above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the mackerel stock (Norwegian Sea to Bay of Biscay) is exploited beyond the maximum sustainable yield (D3C1) but that the spawning biomass is above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the mackerel stock (Norwegian Sea to Bay of Biscay) is exploited beyond the maximum sustainable yield (D3C1) but that the spawning biomass is above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.										The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 was not assessed.				The only species of elasmobranchs that has been quantitatively assessed is the spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias, from the north-east Atlantic. This species does not achieve good ecological status because, despite fishing mortality below the reference value (D3C1), the biomass remains insufficient (D3C2). The D3C3 criterion has not been assessed.	The only species of elasmobranchs that has been quantitatively assessed is the spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias, from the north-east Atlantic. This species does not achieve good ecological status because, despite fishing mortality below the reference value (D3C1), the biomass remains insufficient (D3C2). The D3C3 criterion has not been assessed.	The only species of elasmobranchs that has been quantitatively assessed is the spiny dogfish, Squalus acanthias, from the north-east Atlantic. This species does not achieve good ecological status because, despite fishing mortality below the reference value (D3C1), the biomass remains insufficient (D3C2). The D3C3 criterion has not been assessed.				The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the North Atlantic albacore stock is exploited sustainably (D3C1) but the biomass remains below the reference values (D3C2). The D3C3 criterion has not been assessed. Note that the code for the additional element comes from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the North Atlantic albacore stock is exploited sustainably (D3C1) but the biomass remains below the reference values (D3C2). The D3C3 criterion has not been assessed. Note that the code for the additional element comes from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the North Atlantic albacore stock is exploited sustainably (D3C1) but the biomass remains below the reference values (D3C2). The D3C3 criterion has not been assessed. Note that the code for the additional element comes from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 has not been assessed; note that the code for the additional element is from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 has not been assessed; note that the code for the additional element is from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	The assessment of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is sustainably exploited (D3C1) and has a spawning biomass above the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 has not been assessed; note that the code for the additional element is from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the western stock of horse mackerel is exploited in a sustainable manner (D3C1) but the biomass remains below the reference values (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 has not been assessed.	The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the western stock of horse mackerel is exploited in a sustainable manner (D3C1) but the biomass remains below the reference values (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 has not been assessed.	The assessment of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 shows that the western stock of horse mackerel is exploited in a sustainable manner (D3C1) but the biomass remains below the reference values (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 has not been assessed.	The evaluation of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is exploited in a sustainable way (D3C1) and presents a fertile biomass higher than the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 has not been evaluated. Note that the code for the additional element comes from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	The evaluation of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is exploited in a sustainable way (D3C1) and presents a fertile biomass higher than the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 has not been evaluated. Note that the code for the additional element comes from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).	The evaluation of this stock is based on the evaluation of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 and shows that it is exploited in a sustainable way (D3C1) and presents a fertile biomass higher than the reference value (D3C2). Criterion D3C3 has not been evaluated. Note that the code for the additional element comes from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT: https://www.iccat.int/fr/index.asp).
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	Other	Other	Other	Other
Integration rule description parameter	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.	The evaluation obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given stock, without an integration rule.
Integration rule type criteria	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO
Integration rule description criteria	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.	The condition of the stock is evaluated by integrating the evaluations of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 obtained for this stock. The integration method used is the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. This means that all criteria assessed must be within values describing maximum sustainable yield.
GES extent threshold
GES extent achieved	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00	12.00
GES extent unit	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status	Proportion of populations in good status
GES achieved	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	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 assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.	The assessment of descriptor 3 is carried out at the level of individual stocks of commercial species without aggregating the results at the scale of the marine sub-region. In accordance with ICES recommendation, this assessment considers for each stock the fishing mortality (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) on the sole condition that reference points can be calculated. On the other hand, the age and height distribution criterion (D3C3) is not assessed. Achieving good status is based on the objective of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is the achievement of maximum sustainable yield for each stock. Of the 65 stocks considered in the Celtic Seas marine subregion, 18 stocks (28 per cent) have been assessed quantitatively: 8 stocks are assessed as being in good condition and 10 stocks are assessed as being in poor condition. The other 47 stoks could not be evaluated in this cycle. Of the 65 stocks considered, only 12 per cent of the stocks were assessed to be in good condition.1 Compared to IA 2012, the number of fish stocks assessed quantitatively increased for the present assessment from 5 to 18 stocks in the case of the Celtic Seas Marine Subregion. Moreover, the results obtained over the last 10 years show that conditions are improving for many of the stocks surveyed.
Assessments period	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	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	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	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	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