MS/Art8/2018/D1-F/France/Mediterranean: Western Mediterranean Sea

Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D1-F / France / Mediterranean: Western Mediterranean Sea

Report type	Member State report to Commission
MSFD Article	Art. 8 Initial assessment (and Art. 17 updates)
Report due	2018-10-15
GES Descriptor	D1 Fish
Member State	France
Region/subregion	Mediterranean: Western Mediterranean Sea
Reported by	Ministère de la transition Ecologique et Solidaire
Report date	2020-02-19
Report access	ART8_GES_FR_2020-02-17.xml

SRM MO (MWE-FR-MS-MO)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F
Feature	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Coastal fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish
Element	Dentex dentex	Dentex dentex	Dentex dentex	Dentex dentex	Dentex dentex	Epinephelus marginatus	Epinephelus marginatus	Epinephelus marginatus	Epinephelus marginatus	Epinephelus marginatus	Hippocampus guttulatus	Hippocampus guttulatus	Hippocampus guttulatus	Hippocampus guttulatus	Hippocampus guttulatus	Hippocampus hippocampus	Hippocampus hippocampus	Hippocampus hippocampus	Hippocampus hippocampus	Hippocampus hippocampus	Labrus viridis	Labrus viridis	Labrus viridis	Labrus viridis	Labrus viridis	Sciaena umbra	Sciaena umbra	Sciaena umbra	Sciaena umbra	Sciaena umbra	Squatina squatina	Squatina squatina	Squatina squatina	Squatina squatina	Squatina squatina	Cetorhinus maximus	Cetorhinus maximus	Cetorhinus maximus	Cetorhinus maximus	Cetorhinus maximus	Lamna nasus	Lamna nasus	Lamna nasus	Lamna nasus	Lamna nasus	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius
Element code	273962	273962	273962	273962	273962	127036	127036	127036	127036	127036	154776	154776	154776	154776	154776	127380	127380	127380	127380	127380	126968	126968	126968	126968	126968	127010	127010	127010	127010	127010	105928	105928	105928	105928	105928	105837	105837	105837	105837	105837	105841	105841	105841	105841	105841	127029	127029	127029	127029	127029	127029	127094	127094	127094	127094	127094	127094
Element code source	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National
Criterion	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5
Parameter		EXP-KNO					EXP-KNO															EXP-KNO	EXP-KNO				EXP-KNO																				BIOM-SSB	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)					BIOM-SSB	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
Parameter other
Threshold value upper																																															556600.0	0.07					47600.0	0.24
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative		Not available yet					Not available yet															Not available yet	Not available yet				Not available yet
Threshold value source																																															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
Threshold value source other
Value achieved upper																																															617826.0	0.0252					12852.0	0.4368
Value achieved lower
Value unit																																															tonne	Other					tonne	Other
Value unit other																																																AR						AR
Proportion threshold value																																															100.0	100.0					100.0	100.0
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit																																															% of population achieving threshold value	% of population achieving threshold value					% of population achieving threshold value	% of population achieving threshold value
Trend																																															Improving	Deteriorating					Stable	Deteriorating
Parameter achieved		No					No															No	No				No																				Yes	Yes					No	No
Description parameter		No quantitative indicators are operational for the criteria for this species. The assessment is based exclusively on a literature review.					No quantitative indicators are operational for the criteria for this species. The assessment is based exclusively on a literature review.															No quantitative indicators are operational for the criteria for this species. The assessment is based exclusively on a literature review.	No quantitative indicators are operational for the criteria for this species. The assessment is based exclusively on a literature review.				No quantitative indicators are operational for the criteria for this species. The assessment is based exclusively on a literature review.																				The annual Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) is calculated from global quantitative or analytical models. The SSB used for this assessment is that obtained for the year 2013. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the Atlantic bluefin tuna stock (Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean) is above the reference value (SSB ≥ MSY-Btrigger). The parameter is therefore considered to have been reached.	Fishing mortality (F) is a measure of fishing pressure and corresponds to the proportion of the number of fish in a year class caught by fishing in a year (2013 for this assessment). The results of parameter F show that the Atlantic bluefin tuna stock (Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean) is being exploited sustainably (F ≤ FMSY). The parameter is therefore considered to have been reached.					The annual Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) is calculated from global quantitative or analytical models. The SSB used for this assessment is that obtained for the year 2013. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the Mediterranean swordfish 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 Mediterranean swordfish stock is exploited beyond the maximum sustainable yield (F ≥ FMSY). The parameter is therefore considered as not reached for this stock.
Related indicator																																															Biomasse du stock reproducteur	Taux de mortalité par pêche					Biomasse du stock reproducteur	Taux de mortalité par pêche
Criteria status	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not 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	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed
Description criteria		In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to assess criterion D1C2 is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. Thus, according to the opinion issued by IUCN World in 2009, the state of criterion D1C2 is poor for the common dentex in the marine sub region Western Mediterranean (Carpenter, K.E. & Russell, B. 2014. Dentex dentex. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T170245A1300534).					In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to assess criterion D1C2 is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. Thus, according to the opinion issued by IUCN World in 2004, the state of criterion D1C2 is poor for brown grouper in the SRM MO (Cornish, A., Harmelin-Vivien, M. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group). 2004. Epinephelus marginatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T7859A12857009.).				In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the long-snouted seahorses, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the advice issued by the IUCN for the Mediterranean, the overall status of the long-snouted seahorses is poor (assessed NT by the IUCN Mediterranean) (Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus guttulatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41006A90859949.).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the long-snouted seahorses, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the advice issued by the IUCN for the Mediterranean, the overall status of the long-snouted seahorses is poor (assessed NT by the IUCN Mediterranean) (Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus guttulatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41006A90859949.).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the long-snouted seahorses, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the advice issued by the IUCN for the Mediterranean, the overall status of the long-snouted seahorses is poor (assessed NT by the IUCN Mediterranean) (Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus guttulatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41006A90859949.).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the long-snouted seahorses, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the advice issued by the IUCN for the Mediterranean, the overall status of the long-snouted seahorses is poor (assessed NT by the IUCN Mediterranean) (Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus guttulatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41006A90859949.).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the long-snouted seahorses, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the advice issued by the IUCN for the Mediterranean, the overall status of the long-snouted seahorses is poor (assessed NT by the IUCN Mediterranean) (Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus guttulatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41006A90859949.).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the Short-snouted seahorse, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the IUCN advice for the Mediterranean, the overall status of the Short-snouted seahorses is poor (NT assessed by IUCN Mediterranean) (Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus hippocampus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T10069A90866381.).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the Short-snouted seahorse, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the IUCN advice for the Mediterranean, the overall status of the Short-snouted seahorses is poor (NT assessed by IUCN Mediterranean) (Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus hippocampus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T10069A90866381.).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the Short-snouted seahorse, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the IUCN advice for the Mediterranean, the overall status of the Short-snouted seahorses is poor (NT assessed by IUCN Mediterranean) (Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus hippocampus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T10069A90866381.).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the Short-snouted seahorse, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the IUCN advice for the Mediterranean, the overall status of the Short-snouted seahorses is poor (NT assessed by IUCN Mediterranean) (Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus hippocampus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T10069A90866381.).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the Short-snouted seahorse, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the IUCN advice for the Mediterranean, the overall status of the Short-snouted seahorses is poor (NT assessed by IUCN Mediterranean) (Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus hippocampus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T10069A90866381.).		In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to assess criterion D1C2 is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. Thus, according to the opinion issued by the IUCN World Conservation Union in 2008, the state of criterion D1C2 is bad for the green wrasse in the Western Mediterranean marine sub-region (Pollard D, Choat J. Labrus viridis. 2010. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T187654A8591882.).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to assess criterion D1C3 is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. Thus, according to the opinion issued by the IUCN World Conservation Union in 2008, the state of criterion D1C3 is bad for the green wrasse in the Western Mediterranean marine sub-region (Pollard D, Choat J. Labrus viridis. 2010. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T187654A8591882.).				In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to assess criterion D1C2 is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. Thus, according to the opinion issued by the IUCN World Conservation Union in 2014, the state of criterion D1C2 is poor for the Brown meagre in the Western Mediterranean marine sub-region (Chao, L. 2015. Sciaena umbra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T198707A83232286).				In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the common sea angel, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the common sea angel is poor (assessed CR by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, rays and chimaeras in mainland France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the common sea angel, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the common sea angel is poor (assessed CR by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, rays and chimaeras in mainland France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the common sea angel, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the common sea angel is poor (assessed CR by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, rays and chimaeras in mainland France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the common sea angel, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the common sea angel is poor (assessed CR by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, rays and chimaeras in mainland France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the common sea angel, none of the status criteria could be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the common sea angel is poor (assessed CR by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, rays and chimaeras in mainland France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the basking shark, none of the status criteria could be individually informed, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the Basking shark is poor (assessed VU by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the basking shark, none of the status criteria could be individually informed, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the Basking shark is poor (assessed VU by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the basking shark, none of the status criteria could be individually informed, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the Basking shark is poor (assessed VU by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the basking shark, none of the status criteria could be individually informed, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the Basking shark is poor (assessed VU by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the basking shark, none of the status criteria could be individually informed, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the Red List established within the framework of the IUCN in 2013 for France, the overall status of the Basking shark is poor (assessed VU by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the porbeagle shark, none of the status criteria was able to be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the 2013 IUCN Red List for France, the overall status of the porbeagle shark is poor (assessed EN by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the porbeagle shark, none of the status criteria was able to be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the 2013 IUCN Red List for France, the overall status of the porbeagle shark is poor (assessed EN by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the porbeagle shark, none of the status criteria was able to be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the 2013 IUCN Red List for France, the overall status of the porbeagle shark is poor (assessed EN by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the porbeagle shark, none of the status criteria was able to be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the 2013 IUCN Red List for France, the overall status of the porbeagle shark is poor (assessed EN by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	In the absence of operational data and/or indicators, the method used to evaluate the various criteria is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. However, for the porbeagle shark, none of the status criteria was able to be filled in individually, but only an overall status of the species. Thus, according to the 2013 IUCN Red List for France, the overall status of the porbeagle shark is poor (assessed EN by IUCN France) (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).		The status of criterion D1C2 is considered to be good because the Atlantic bluefin tuna stock is assessed to be in good status with respect to criteria D3C1 and D3C2 in the Western Mediterranean marine sub-region. It is important to specify that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that criterion D3C2 relating to spawning stock biomass (SSB) may inform criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.	The status of criterion D1C2 is considered to be good because the Atlantic bluefin tuna stock is assessed to be in good status with respect to criteria D3C1 and D3C2 in the Western Mediterranean marine sub-region. It is important to specify that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that criterion D3C2 relating to spawning stock biomass (SSB) may inform criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.					The status of criterion D1C2 is considered poor because the Mediterranean swordfish stock is assessed to be in poor condition with respect to criteria D3C1 and D3C2 in the Western Mediterranean marine sub-region. It is important to note that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that criterion D3C2 relating to spawning stock biomass (SSB) may inform criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.	The status of criterion D1C2 is considered poor because the Mediterranean swordfish stock is assessed to be in poor condition with respect to criteria D3C1 and D3C2 in the Western Mediterranean marine sub-region. It is important to note that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that criterion D3C2 relating to spawning stock biomass (SSB) may inform criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.
Element status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good
Description element	For the common dentex, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Carpenter, K.E. & Russell, B. 2014. Dentex dentex. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T170245A1300534), therefore the common dentex dentex is considered to be in poor condition.	For the common dentex, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Carpenter, K.E. & Russell, B. 2014. Dentex dentex. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T170245A1300534), therefore the common dentex dentex is considered to be in poor condition.	For the common dentex, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Carpenter, K.E. & Russell, B. 2014. Dentex dentex. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T170245A1300534), therefore the common dentex dentex is considered to be in poor condition.	For the common dentex, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Carpenter, K.E. & Russell, B. 2014. Dentex dentex. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T170245A1300534), therefore the common dentex dentex is considered to be in poor condition.	For the common dentex, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Carpenter, K.E. & Russell, B. 2014. Dentex dentex. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T170245A1300534), therefore the common dentex dentex is considered to be in poor condition.	For brown grouper, criterion D1C2 was qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered endangered (EN) by IUCN World (Cornish, A., Harmelin-Vivien, M. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group), 2004. Epinephelus marginatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T7859A12857009.) Consequently, the brown grouper is considered to be in poor condition.	For brown grouper, criterion D1C2 was qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered endangered (EN) by IUCN World (Cornish, A., Harmelin-Vivien, M. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group), 2004. Epinephelus marginatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T7859A12857009.) Consequently, the brown grouper is considered to be in poor condition.	For brown grouper, criterion D1C2 was qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered endangered (EN) by IUCN World (Cornish, A., Harmelin-Vivien, M. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group), 2004. Epinephelus marginatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T7859A12857009.) Consequently, the brown grouper is considered to be in poor condition.	For brown grouper, criterion D1C2 was qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered endangered (EN) by IUCN World (Cornish, A., Harmelin-Vivien, M. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group), 2004. Epinephelus marginatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T7859A12857009.) Consequently, the brown grouper is considered to be in poor condition.	For brown grouper, criterion D1C2 was qualitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered endangered (EN) by IUCN World (Cornish, A., Harmelin-Vivien, M. (Grouper & Wrasse Specialist Group), 2004. Epinephelus marginatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2004: e.T7859A12857009.) Consequently, the brown grouper is considered to be in poor condition.	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the Long-snouted seahorse is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Near Threatened (NT) by the IUCN Mediterranean (Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus guttulatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41006A90859949.).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the Long-snouted seahorse is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Near Threatened (NT) by the IUCN Mediterranean (Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus guttulatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41006A90859949.).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the Long-snouted seahorse is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Near Threatened (NT) by the IUCN Mediterranean (Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus guttulatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41006A90859949.).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the Long-snouted seahorse is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Near Threatened (NT) by the IUCN Mediterranean (Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus guttulatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41006A90859949.).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the Long-snouted seahorse is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Near Threatened (NT) by the IUCN Mediterranean (Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus guttulatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T41006A90859949.).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the Short-snouted seahorse is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Near Threatened (NT) by the IUCN Mediterranean ((Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus hippocampus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T10069A90866381.).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the Short-snouted seahorse is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Near Threatened (NT) by the IUCN Mediterranean ((Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus hippocampus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T10069A90866381.).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the Short-snouted seahorse is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Near Threatened (NT) by the IUCN Mediterranean ((Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus hippocampus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T10069A90866381.).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the Short-snouted seahorse is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Near Threatened (NT) by the IUCN Mediterranean ((Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus hippocampus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T10069A90866381.).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the Short-snouted seahorse is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Near Threatened (NT) by the IUCN Mediterranean ((Pollom, R. 2016. Hippocampus hippocampus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T10069A90866381.).	For Labrus viridis, criteria D1C2 and D1C3 could be qualitatively filled in and are assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Furthermore, the overall status of this species is considered vulnerable (VU) by the IUCN World Conservation Union (Pollard D, Choat J. Labrus viridis. 2010. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T187654A8591882.) Consequently, the green wrasse is considered to be in poor condition.	For Labrus viridis, criteria D1C2 and D1C3 could be qualitatively filled in and are assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Furthermore, the overall status of this species is considered vulnerable (VU) by the IUCN World Conservation Union (Pollard D, Choat J. Labrus viridis. 2010. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T187654A8591882.) Consequently, the green wrasse is considered to be in poor condition.	For Labrus viridis, criteria D1C2 and D1C3 could be qualitatively filled in and are assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Furthermore, the overall status of this species is considered vulnerable (VU) by the IUCN World Conservation Union (Pollard D, Choat J. Labrus viridis. 2010. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T187654A8591882.) Consequently, the green wrasse is considered to be in poor condition.	For Labrus viridis, criteria D1C2 and D1C3 could be qualitatively filled in and are assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Furthermore, the overall status of this species is considered vulnerable (VU) by the IUCN World Conservation Union (Pollard D, Choat J. Labrus viridis. 2010. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T187654A8591882.) Consequently, the green wrasse is considered to be in poor condition.	For Labrus viridis, criteria D1C2 and D1C3 could be qualitatively filled in and are assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Furthermore, the overall status of this species is considered vulnerable (VU) by the IUCN World Conservation Union (Pollard D, Choat J. Labrus viridis. 2010. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T187654A8591882.) Consequently, the green wrasse is considered to be in poor condition.	For the corb, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this RMU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Chao, L. 2015. Sciaena umbra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T198707A83232286) and therefore the corb is considered to be in poor condition.	For the corb, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this RMU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Chao, L. 2015. Sciaena umbra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T198707A83232286) and therefore the corb is considered to be in poor condition.	For the corb, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this RMU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Chao, L. 2015. Sciaena umbra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T198707A83232286) and therefore the corb is considered to be in poor condition.	For the corb, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this RMU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Chao, L. 2015. Sciaena umbra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T198707A83232286) and therefore the corb is considered to be in poor condition.	For the corb, criterion D1C2 could be qualitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this RMU. In addition, the overall status of this species is considered as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN World (Chao, L. 2015. Sciaena umbra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T198707A83232286) and therefore the corb is considered to be in poor condition.	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the common sea angel is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Critically Endangered (CR) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the common sea angel is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Critically Endangered (CR) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the common sea angel is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Critically Endangered (CR) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the common sea angel is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Critically Endangered (CR) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the common sea angel is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Critically Endangered (CR) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the basking shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. La Liste rouge des espèces menacées en France - Chapitre Requins, raies et chimères de France métropolitaine. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the basking shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. La Liste rouge des espèces menacées en France - Chapitre Requins, raies et chimères de France métropolitaine. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the basking shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. La Liste rouge des espèces menacées en France - Chapitre Requins, raies et chimères de France métropolitaine. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the basking shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. La Liste rouge des espèces menacées en France - Chapitre Requins, raies et chimères de France métropolitaine. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the basking shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Vulnerable (VU) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. La Liste rouge des espèces menacées en France - Chapitre Requins, raies et chimères de France métropolitaine. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the porbeagle shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Endangered (EN) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the porbeagle shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Endangered (EN) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the porbeagle shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Endangered (EN) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the porbeagle shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Endangered (EN) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For this species, none of the status criteria could be filled in, but where there were references capable of providing information on the overall status of a species, then the result of this overall assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criteria. Thus, the porbeagle shark is considered to be in poor condition as it has been assessed as Endangered (EN) by IUCN France (IUCN France & MNHN, 2013. The Red List of Threatened Species in France - Chapter Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras of Metropolitan France. Paris, France. ISBN: 978-2-918105-27-5).	For Atlantic bluefin tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Atlantic bluefin tuna is considered to be in good condition.	For Atlantic bluefin tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Atlantic bluefin tuna is considered to be in good condition.	For Atlantic bluefin tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Atlantic bluefin tuna is considered to be in good condition.	For Atlantic bluefin tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Atlantic bluefin tuna is considered to be in good condition.	For Atlantic bluefin tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Atlantic bluefin tuna is considered to be in good condition.	For Atlantic bluefin tuna, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Atlantic bluefin tuna is considered to be in good condition.	For swordfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, swordfish is considered to be in poor condition.	For swordfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, swordfish is considered to be in poor condition.	For swordfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, swordfish is considered to be in poor condition.	For swordfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, swordfish is considered to be in poor condition.	For swordfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, swordfish is considered to be in poor condition.	For swordfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, swordfish is considered to be in poor condition.
Integration rule type parameter	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other
Integration rule description parameter	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For the species assessed in descriptor 3, bluefin tuna and swordfish, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is carried out by integration of criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock under consideration. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO) method.
Integration rule type criteria	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant
Integration rule description criteria	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	The assessment of the status of a given species is carried out by integrating the three status criteria D1C2, D1C3 and/or D1C4 according to the 'One-out all out' methodology, in line with the Nature Directives. Thus, if one of the criteria is not in good condition for a species, then this species is considered to be in poor condition. When criterion D1C2 is the only one assessed, then the assessment obtained for the criterion directly informs the overall status of the species. Finally, for the Long-snouted seahorse and Short-snouted seahorse, none of the criteria could be filled in. However, when there were bibliographical references capable of providing qualitative information on the global status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any criterion.	For this species, none of the criteria could be filled in individually. However, where bibliographical references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For this species, none of the criteria could be filled in individually. However, where bibliographical references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For this species, none of the criteria could be filled in individually. However, where bibliographical references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For this species, none of the criteria could be filled in individually. However, where bibliographical references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For this species, none of the criteria could be filled in individually. However, where bibliographical references were available that could provide qualitative information on the overall status of a species, the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species. For basking and porbeagle sharks, none of the criteria could be provided. However, where literature references were available that could qualitatively inform the overall status of a species, then the result of this global assessment was retained without specifying the status of any of the criteria.
GES extent threshold
GES extent achieved																																				25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00	25.00
GES extent unit	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group
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
Description overall status	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The literature review carried out for coastal species, with the exception of those living in unconsolidated environments, revealed that the six species assessed in this MRU do not meet the conditions of good ecological status (common dentex - Dentex dentex, brown grouper - Epinephelus marginatus, and common corb - Sciaena umbra, two species of seahorses - Hippocampus guttulatus and H. hippocampus, green wrasse - Labrus viridis ). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of demersal fish species in this MRU, the method used to assess the status of the species is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. The literature review revealed that the only species assessed in this MRU does not meet the conditions for good ecological status (Common sea angel - Squatina squatina). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) in all the Mediterranean MRUs (i. e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the 'Fish' and 'Cephalopod' components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of demersal fish species in this MRU, the method used to assess the status of the species is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. The literature review revealed that the only species assessed in this MRU does not meet the conditions for good ecological status (Common sea angel - Squatina squatina). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) in all the Mediterranean MRUs (i. e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the 'Fish' and 'Cephalopod' components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of demersal fish species in this MRU, the method used to assess the status of the species is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. The literature review revealed that the only species assessed in this MRU does not meet the conditions for good ecological status (Common sea angel - Squatina squatina). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) in all the Mediterranean MRUs (i. e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the 'Fish' and 'Cephalopod' components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of demersal fish species in this MRU, the method used to assess the status of the species is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. The literature review revealed that the only species assessed in this MRU does not meet the conditions for good ecological status (Common sea angel - Squatina squatina). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) in all the Mediterranean MRUs (i. e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the 'Fish' and 'Cephalopod' components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of demersal fish species in this MRU, the method used to assess the status of the species is based exclusively on a bibliographical synthesis, as exhaustive as possible, of the various diagnoses and expert reports likely to provide information on the ecological status of the species. The literature review revealed that the only species assessed in this MRU does not meet the conditions for good ecological status (Common sea angel - Squatina squatina). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) in all the Mediterranean MRUs (i. e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the 'Fish' and 'Cephalopod' components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.	Commercially exploited pelagic fish species, assessed quantitatively under Descriptor 3 at the stock level, do not achieve good ecological status for one of them (swordfish -Xiphias gladius) out of the two assessed in this MRU. In addition, two other pelagic species, benefiting from a protected status (basking shark - Cetorhinus marinus, and porbeagle shark - Lamna nasus), are not considered to be in good status because of the advice issued by the IUCN for these species. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-EC), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Facade Document for the South Atlantic Facade.
Assessments period	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015
Related pressures
Related targets

UMR Corse Est (MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F
Feature	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish
Element	Argentina	Argentina	Argentina	Argentina	Argentina	Arnoglossus rueppelii	Arnoglossus rueppelii	Arnoglossus rueppelii	Arnoglossus rueppelii	Arnoglossus rueppelii	Blennius ocellaris	Blennius ocellaris	Blennius ocellaris	Blennius ocellaris	Blennius ocellaris	Centrophorus granulosus	Centrophorus granulosus	Centrophorus granulosus	Centrophorus granulosus	Centrophorus granulosus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chimaera monstrosa	Chimaera monstrosa	Chimaera monstrosa	Chimaera monstrosa	Chimaera monstrosa	Coelorinchus caelorhincus	Coelorinchus caelorhincus	Coelorinchus caelorhincus	Coelorinchus caelorhincus	Coelorinchus caelorhincus	Conger conger	Conger conger	Conger conger	Conger conger	Conger conger	Dalatias licha	Dalatias licha	Dalatias licha	Dalatias licha	Dalatias licha	Dipturus oxyrinchus	Dipturus oxyrinchus	Dipturus oxyrinchus	Dipturus oxyrinchus	Dipturus oxyrinchus	Etmopterus spinax	Etmopterus spinax	Etmopterus spinax	Etmopterus spinax	Etmopterus spinax	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Glossanodon leioglossus	Glossanodon leioglossus	Glossanodon leioglossus	Glossanodon leioglossus	Glossanodon leioglossus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Lepidopus caudatus	Lepidopus caudatus	Lepidopus caudatus	Lepidopus caudatus	Lepidopus caudatus	Lepidorhombus boscii	Lepidorhombus boscii	Lepidorhombus boscii	Lepidorhombus boscii	Lepidorhombus boscii	Leucoraja naevus	Leucoraja naevus	Leucoraja naevus	Leucoraja naevus	Leucoraja naevus	Lophius budegassa	Lophius budegassa	Lophius budegassa	Lophius budegassa	Lophius budegassa	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Molva macrophthalma	Molva macrophthalma	Molva macrophthalma	Molva macrophthalma	Molva macrophthalma	Peristedion cataphractum	Peristedion cataphractum	Peristedion cataphractum	Peristedion cataphractum	Peristedion cataphractum	Phycis blennoides	Phycis blennoides	Phycis blennoides	Phycis blennoides	Phycis blennoides	Raja asterias	Raja asterias	Raja asterias	Raja asterias	Raja asterias	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Raja miraletus	Raja miraletus	Raja miraletus	Raja miraletus	Raja miraletus	Raja polystigma	Raja polystigma	Raja polystigma	Raja polystigma	Raja polystigma	Scorpaena scrofa	Scorpaena scrofa	Scorpaena scrofa	Scorpaena scrofa	Scorpaena scrofa	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Squalus blainville	Squalus blainville	Squalus blainville	Squalus blainville	Squalus blainville	Trachinus draco	Trachinus draco	Trachinus draco	Trachinus draco	Trachinus draco	Trigla lyra	Trigla lyra	Trigla lyra	Trigla lyra	Trigla lyra	Zeus faber	Zeus faber	Zeus faber	Zeus faber	Zeus faber
Element code	125885	125885	125885	125885	125885	127127	127127	127127	127127	127127	126761	126761	126761	126761	126761	105899	105899	105899	105899	105899	127259	127259	127259	127259	127259	105824	105824	105824	105824	105824	398381	398381	398381	398381	398381	126285	126285	126285	126285	126285	105910	105910	105910	105910	105910	105872	105872	105872	105872	105872	105913	105913	105913	105913	105913	105812	105812	105812	105812	105812	126717	126717	126717	126717	126717	127251	127251	127251	127251	127251	127088	127088	127088	127088	127088	127145	127145	127145	127145	127145	105876	105876	105876	105876	105876	126554	126554	126554	126554	126554	126555	126555	126555	126555	126555	126484	126484	126484	126484	126484	126460	126460	126460	126460	126460	127233	127233	127233	127233	127233	126501	126501	126501	126501	126501	105881	105881	105881	105881	105881	105883	105883	105883	105883	105883	105886	105886	105886	105886	105886	105888	105888	105888	105888	105888	127248	127248	127248	127248	127248	105814	105814	105814	105814	105814	105923	105923	105923	105923	105923	105924	105924	105924	105924	105924	127082	127082	127082	127082	127082	127266	127266	127266	127266	127266	127427	127427	127427	127427	127427
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/
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National
Criterion	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5
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
Parameter other		Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance
Threshold value upper
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative		The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.
Threshold value source		OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention
Threshold value source other
Value achieved upper
Value achieved lower
Value unit
Value unit other
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend		Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable
Parameter achieved		Unknown					Yes					Unknown					Unknown					Unknown					Yes					Yes					Unknown					Unknown					Unknown					Yes					Yes					Unknown					Unknown					Unknown					Yes					Unknown					Unknown					Unknown					Unknown					Unknown					Yes					Yes					Yes					Unknown					Yes					Yes					Unknown					Unknown					Unknown					Yes					Unknown					Unknown					Yes
Description parameter		The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. However, this species shows an overall improvement in the estimated densities over the time series (increasing overall linear trend). The parameter has therefore been reached for this species in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the attainment of the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Corsica-East MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Corsica-East MRU.
Related indicator		Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche
Criteria status	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed
Description criteria		The ecological status of the argentina is unknown because its abundance shows no significant evolution during the period studied.					The ecological status of the Arnoglossus rueppelii is considered to be good with regard to criterion D1C2 because the parameter 'Evolution of abundance' is achieved in this MRU for East Corsica.					The ecological status of the Butterfly blenny is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the common gulper shark d is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the red gurnard is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the Rabbit fish is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter 'Evolution of abundance' is achieved in this MRU for East Corsica.					The ecological status of the Hollow-snout grenadier is considered to be good with regard to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is reached in this MRU for East Corsica.					The ecological status of the European conger is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the kitefin shark is unknown because its abundance shows no significant evolution during the period studied.					The ecological status of the longnose skate is unknown because its abundance shows no significant evolution during the period studied.					The ecological status of Velvet belly lanternshark is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is achieved in this MRU for East Corsica.					The ecological status of the blackmouth catshark is considered to be good with regard to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is reached in this MRU relating to East Corsica.					The ecological status of small-toothed argentine is unknown because its abundance shows no significant evolution during the period studied.					The ecological status of Blackbelly rosefish is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the silver scabbardfish is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of four spotted megrim is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is achieved in this MRU for East Corsica.					The ecological status of the undulate ray is unknown as its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of blackbellied angler is unknown as its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of anglerfish is unknown as its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of European hake is unknown as its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the Spanish ling is unknown as its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the African malarmat is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is reached in this MRU relating to East Corsica.					The ecological status of the greenside darter is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is reached in this MRU relating to East Corsica.					The ecological status of the starry ray is considered to be good with regard to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is achieved in this MRU relating to Eastern Corsica.					The ecological status of the thornback ray is unknown as its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the Raja miraletus is considered to be good with regard to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is reached in this MRU for East Corsica.					The ecological status of spotted ray is considered to be good with regard to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is achieved in this MRU for Eastern Corsica.					The ecological status of red scorpionfish is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the small spotted catshark is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of spiny dogfish is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of Longnose spurdog is considered to be good in relation to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is achieved in this MRU for East Corsica.					The ecological status of the greater weever is unknown because its abundance shows no significant evolution during the period studied.					The ecological status of the piper gurnard is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of Saint-Pierre is considered to be good with regard to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is achieved in this MRU for East Corsica.
Element status	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good
Description element	For Argentina, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Argentina is considered to be unknown.	For Argentina, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Argentina is considered to be unknown.	For Argentina, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Argentina is considered to be unknown.	For Argentina, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Argentina is considered to be unknown.	For Argentina, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Argentina is considered to be unknown.	For the Arnoglossus rueppelii, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Rüppell arnoglossus is considered to be in good condition.	For the Arnoglossus rueppelii, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Rüppell arnoglossus is considered to be in good condition.	For the Arnoglossus rueppelii, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Rüppell arnoglossus is considered to be in good condition.	For the Arnoglossus rueppelii, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Rüppell arnoglossus is considered to be in good condition.	For the Arnoglossus rueppelii, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Rüppell arnoglossus is considered to be in good condition.	For Butterfly blenny, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Butterfly blenny is considered to be unknown.	For Butterfly blenny, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Butterfly blenny is considered to be unknown.	For Butterfly blenny, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Butterfly blenny is considered to be unknown.	For Butterfly blenny, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Butterfly blenny is considered to be unknown.	For Butterfly blenny, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Butterfly blenny is considered to be unknown.	For common Gulper shark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Gulper shark is considered unknown.	For common Gulper shark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Gulper shark is considered unknown.	For common Gulper shark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Gulper shark is considered unknown.	For common Gulper shark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Gulper shark is considered unknown.	For common Gulper shark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Gulper shark is considered unknown.	For the red gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the red gurnard is considered unknown.	For the red gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the red gurnard is considered unknown.	For the red gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the red gurnard is considered unknown.	For the red gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the red gurnard is considered unknown.	For the red gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the red gurnard is considered unknown.	For the rabbit fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the rabbit fish is considered to be in good condition.	For the rabbit fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the rabbit fish is considered to be in good condition.	For the rabbit fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the rabbit fish is considered to be in good condition.	For the rabbit fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the rabbit fish is considered to be in good condition.	For the rabbit fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the rabbit fish is considered to be in good condition.	For the Hollow-snout grenadier, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Hollow-snout grenadier is considered to be in good condition.	For the Hollow-snout grenadier, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Hollow-snout grenadier is considered to be in good condition.	For the Hollow-snout grenadier, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Hollow-snout grenadier is considered to be in good condition.	For the Hollow-snout grenadier, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Hollow-snout grenadier is considered to be in good condition.	For the Hollow-snout grenadier, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Hollow-snout grenadier is considered to be in good condition.	For the European conger, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the European conger is considered unknown.	For the European conger, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the European conger is considered unknown.	For the European conger, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the European conger is considered unknown.	For the European conger, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the European conger is considered unknown.	For the European conger, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the European conger is considered unknown.	For the kitefin shark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the kitefin shark is considered unknown.	For the kitefin shark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the kitefin shark is considered unknown.	For the kitefin shark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the kitefin shark is considered unknown.	For the kitefin shark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the kitefin shark is considered unknown.	For the kitefin shark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the kitefin shark is considered unknown.	For the longnose skate, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the longnose skate is considered unknown.	For the longnose skate, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the longnose skate is considered unknown.	For the longnose skate, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the longnose skate is considered unknown.	For the longnose skate, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the longnose skate is considered unknown.	For the longnose skate, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the longnose skate is considered unknown.	For Velvet belly lanternshark, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Velvet belly lanternshark is considered to be in good condition.	For Velvet belly lanternshark, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Velvet belly lanternshark is considered to be in good condition.	For Velvet belly lanternshark, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Velvet belly lanternshark is considered to be in good condition.	For Velvet belly lanternshark, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Velvet belly lanternshark is considered to be in good condition.	For Velvet belly lanternshark, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Velvet belly lanternshark is considered to be in good condition.	For theblackmouth catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackmouth catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For theblackmouth catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackmouth catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For theblackmouth catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackmouth catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For theblackmouth catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackmouth catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For theblackmouth catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackmouth catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For small-toothed argentine, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of small-toothed argentine is considered unknown.	For small-toothed argentine, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of small-toothed argentine is considered unknown.	For small-toothed argentine, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of small-toothed argentine is considered unknown.	For small-toothed argentine, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of small-toothed argentine is considered unknown.	For small-toothed argentine, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of small-toothed argentine is considered unknown.	For the blackbelly rosefish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the blackbelly rosefish is considered unknown.	For the blackbelly rosefish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the blackbelly rosefish is considered unknown.	For the blackbelly rosefish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the blackbelly rosefish is considered unknown.	For the blackbelly rosefish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the blackbelly rosefish is considered unknown.	For the blackbelly rosefish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the blackbelly rosefish is considered unknown.	For the silver scabbardfish, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the silver scabbardfish is considered unknown.	For the silver scabbardfish, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the silver scabbardfish is considered unknown.	For the silver scabbardfish, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the silver scabbardfish is considered unknown.	For the silver scabbardfish, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the silver scabbardfish is considered unknown.	For the silver scabbardfish, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the silver scabbardfish is considered unknown.	For the four spotted megrim, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the four-spotted megrim is considered to be in good condition.	For the four spotted megrim, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the four-spotted megrim is considered to be in good condition.	For the four spotted megrim, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the four-spotted megrim is considered to be in good condition.	For the four spotted megrim, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the four-spotted megrim is considered to be in good condition.	For the four spotted megrim, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the four-spotted megrim is considered to be in good condition.	For the undulate ray, only the D1C2 criterion could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the undulate ray is considered to be unknown.	For the undulate ray, only the D1C2 criterion could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the undulate ray is considered to be unknown.	For the undulate ray, only the D1C2 criterion could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the undulate ray is considered to be unknown.	For the undulate ray, only the D1C2 criterion could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the undulate ray is considered to be unknown.	For the undulate ray, only the D1C2 criterion could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the undulate ray is considered to be unknown.	For blackbellied angler, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the blackbellied angler is considered unknown.	For blackbellied angler, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the blackbellied angler is considered unknown.	For blackbellied angler, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the blackbellied angler is considered unknown.	For blackbellied angler, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the blackbellied angler is considered unknown.	For blackbellied angler, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the blackbellied angler is considered unknown.	For anglerfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of anglerfish is considered to be unknown.	For anglerfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of anglerfish is considered to be unknown.	For anglerfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of anglerfish is considered to be unknown.	For anglerfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of anglerfish is considered to be unknown.	For anglerfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of anglerfish is considered to be unknown.	For European hake, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of European hake is considered to be unknown.	For European hake, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of European hake is considered to be unknown.	For European hake, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of European hake is considered to be unknown.	For European hake, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of European hake is considered to be unknown.	For European hake, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of European hake is considered to be unknown.	For Spanish ling, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Spanish ling is considered unknown.	For Spanish ling, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Spanish ling is considered unknown.	For Spanish ling, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Spanish ling is considered unknown.	For Spanish ling, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Spanish ling is considered unknown.	For Spanish ling, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Spanish ling is considered unknown.	For the African malarmat, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the African malarmat is considered to be in good condition.	For the African malarmat, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the African malarmat is considered to be in good condition.	For the African malarmat, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the African malarmat is considered to be in good condition.	For the African malarmat, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the African malarmat is considered to be in good condition.	For the African malarmat, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the African malarmat is considered to be in good condition.	For greenside darter, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the greenside darter is considered to be in good condition.	For greenside darter, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the greenside darter is considered to be in good condition.	For greenside darter, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the greenside darter is considered to be in good condition.	For greenside darter, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the greenside darter is considered to be in good condition.	For greenside darter, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the greenside darter is considered to be in good condition.	For the starry ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the starry ray is considered to be in good condition.	For the starry ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the starry ray is considered to be in good condition.	For the starry ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the starry ray is considered to be in good condition.	For the starry ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the starry ray is considered to be in good condition.	For the starry ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the starry ray is considered to be in good condition.	For the thornback ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the thornback ray is considered unknown.	For the thornback ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the thornback ray is considered unknown.	For the thornback ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the thornback ray is considered unknown.	For the thornback ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the thornback ray is considered unknown.	For the thornback ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the thornback ray is considered unknown.	For the raja miretus, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the raja miretus is considered to be in good condition.	For the raja miretus, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the raja miretus is considered to be in good condition.	For the raja miretus, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the raja miretus is considered to be in good condition.	For the raja miretus, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the raja miretus is considered to be in good condition.	For the raja miretus, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the raja miretus is considered to be in good condition.	For spotted ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the spotted ray is considered to be in good condition.	For spotted ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the spotted ray is considered to be in good condition.	For spotted ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the spotted ray is considered to be in good condition.	For spotted ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the spotted ray is considered to be in good condition.	For spotted ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the spotted ray is considered to be in good condition.	For the great red scorpion fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of great red scorpion fish is considered unknown.	For the great red scorpion fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of great red scorpion fish is considered unknown.	For the great red scorpion fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of great red scorpion fish is considered unknown.	For the great red scorpion fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of great red scorpion fish is considered unknown.	For the great red scorpion fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of great red scorpion fish is considered unknown.	For the small spotted catshark , the indicator D1C2 did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the small spotted catshark is considered to be unknown.	For the small spotted catshark , the indicator D1C2 did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the small spotted catshark is considered to be unknown.	For the small spotted catshark , the indicator D1C2 did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the small spotted catshark is considered to be unknown.	For the small spotted catshark , the indicator D1C2 did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the small spotted catshark is considered to be unknown.	For the small spotted catshark , the indicator D1C2 did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the small spotted catshark is considered to be unknown.	For spiny dogfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of spiny dogfish is considered unknown.	For spiny dogfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of spiny dogfish is considered unknown.	For spiny dogfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of spiny dogfish is considered unknown.	For spiny dogfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of spiny dogfish is considered unknown.	For spiny dogfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of spiny dogfish is considered unknown.	For Longnose spurdog, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Longnose spurdog is considered to be in good condition.	For Longnose spurdog, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Longnose spurdog is considered to be in good condition.	For Longnose spurdog, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Longnose spurdog is considered to be in good condition.	For Longnose spurdog, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Longnose spurdog is considered to be in good condition.	For Longnose spurdog, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, Longnose spurdog is considered to be in good condition.	In the case of the Greater weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively documented. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Greater weever is considered unknown.	In the case of the Greater weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively documented. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Greater weever is considered unknown.	In the case of the Greater weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively documented. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Greater weever is considered unknown.	In the case of the Greater weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively documented. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Greater weever is considered unknown.	In the case of the Greater weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively documented. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Greater weever is considered unknown.	For the piper gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the piper gurnard is considered unknown.	For the piper gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the piper gurnard is considered unknown.	For the piper gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the piper gurnard is considered unknown.	For the piper gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the piper gurnard is considered unknown.	For the piper gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the piper gurnard is considered unknown.	For Saint-Pierre, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, St. Pierre is considered to be in good condition.	For Saint-Pierre, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, St. Pierre is considered to be in good condition.	For Saint-Pierre, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, St. Pierre is considered to be in good condition.	For Saint-Pierre, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, St. Pierre is considered to be in good condition.	For Saint-Pierre, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, St. Pierre is considered to be in good condition.
Integration rule type parameter	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant
Integration rule description parameter	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule.
Integration rule type criteria	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant
Integration rule description criteria	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.
GES extent threshold
GES extent achieved
GES extent unit	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group
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
Description overall status	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status was achieved under D1C2 for all 13 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure. However, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 21 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.
Assessments period	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015
Related pressures
Related targets

UMR GdL (MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F
Feature	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish	Pelagic shelf fish
Element	Argentina	Argentina	Argentina	Argentina	Argentina	Arnoglossus rueppelii	Arnoglossus rueppelii	Arnoglossus rueppelii	Arnoglossus rueppelii	Arnoglossus rueppelii	Blennius ocellaris	Blennius ocellaris	Blennius ocellaris	Blennius ocellaris	Blennius ocellaris	Callionymus maculatus	Callionymus maculatus	Callionymus maculatus	Callionymus maculatus	Callionymus maculatus	Centrophorus granulosus	Centrophorus granulosus	Centrophorus granulosus	Centrophorus granulosus	Centrophorus granulosus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys obscurus	Chelidonichthys obscurus	Chelidonichthys obscurus	Chelidonichthys obscurus	Chelidonichthys obscurus	Chimaera monstrosa	Chimaera monstrosa	Chimaera monstrosa	Chimaera monstrosa	Chimaera monstrosa	Citharus linguatula	Citharus linguatula	Citharus linguatula	Citharus linguatula	Citharus linguatula	Coelorinchus caelorhincus	Coelorinchus caelorhincus	Coelorinchus caelorhincus	Coelorinchus caelorhincus	Coelorinchus caelorhincus	Conger conger	Conger conger	Conger conger	Conger conger	Conger conger	Etmopterus spinax	Etmopterus spinax	Etmopterus spinax	Etmopterus spinax	Etmopterus spinax	Eutrigla gurnardus	Eutrigla gurnardus	Eutrigla gurnardus	Eutrigla gurnardus	Eutrigla gurnardus	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Lepidopus caudatus	Lepidopus caudatus	Lepidopus caudatus	Lepidopus caudatus	Lepidopus caudatus	Lepidorhombus boscii	Lepidorhombus boscii	Lepidorhombus boscii	Lepidorhombus boscii	Lepidorhombus boscii	Lophius budegassa	Lophius budegassa	Lophius budegassa	Lophius budegassa	Lophius budegassa	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Molva macrophthalma	Molva macrophthalma	Molva macrophthalma	Molva macrophthalma	Molva macrophthalma	Peristedion cataphractum	Peristedion cataphractum	Peristedion cataphractum	Peristedion cataphractum	Peristedion cataphractum	Phycis blennoides	Phycis blennoides	Phycis blennoides	Phycis blennoides	Phycis blennoides	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Scorpaena notata	Scorpaena notata	Scorpaena notata	Scorpaena notata	Scorpaena notata	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Trachinus draco	Trachinus draco	Trachinus draco	Trachinus draco	Trachinus draco	Trachyrincus scabrus	Trachyrincus scabrus	Trachyrincus scabrus	Trachyrincus scabrus	Trachyrincus scabrus	Trigla lyra	Trigla lyra	Trigla lyra	Trigla lyra	Trigla lyra	Zeus faber	Zeus faber	Zeus faber	Zeus faber	Zeus faber	Engraulis encrasicolus	Engraulis encrasicolus	Engraulis encrasicolus	Engraulis encrasicolus	Engraulis encrasicolus
Element code	125885	125885	125885	125885	125885	127127	127127	127127	127127	127127	126761	126761	126761	126761	126761	126793	126793	126793	126793	126793	105899	105899	105899	105899	105899	127259	127259	127259	127259	127259	127263	127263	127263	127263	127263	105824	105824	105824	105824	105824	127130	127130	127130	127130	127130	398381	398381	398381	398381	398381	126285	126285	126285	126285	126285	105913	105913	105913	105913	105913	150637	150637	150637	150637	150637	105812	105812	105812	105812	105812	127251	127251	127251	127251	127251	127088	127088	127088	127088	127088	127145	127145	127145	127145	127145	126554	126554	126554	126554	126554	126555	126555	126555	126555	126555	126484	126484	126484	126484	126484	126460	126460	126460	126460	126460	127233	127233	127233	127233	127233	126501	126501	126501	126501	126501	105883	105883	105883	105883	105883	127246	127246	127246	127246	127246	105814	105814	105814	105814	105814	105923	105923	105923	105923	105923	127082	127082	127082	127082	127082	126482	126482	126482	126482	126482	127266	127266	127266	127266	127266	127427	127427	127427	127427	127427	126426	126426	126426	126426	126426
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/
Element 2																																																																																																																																																												Gulf of Lion	Gulf of Lion	Gulf of Lion	Gulf of Lion	Gulf of Lion
Element 2 code																																																																																																																																																												GSA07	GSA07	GSA07	GSA07	GSA07
Element 2 code source																																																																																																																																																												Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	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
Criterion	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5
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					Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
Parameter other		Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance					Evolution of abundance
Threshold value upper																																																																																																																																																													22889.0
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative		The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.					The parameter is reached if the density time series shows a recent period of stability greater than the previous period or if a significant positive trend is observed over the long term.
Threshold value source		OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
Threshold value source other
Value achieved upper																																																																																																																																																													22740.0
Value achieved lower
Value unit																																																																																																																																																													tonne
Value unit other
Proportion threshold value																																																																																																																																																													100.0
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit																																																																																																																																																													% of population achieving threshold value
Trend		Stable					Stable					Stable					Improving					Improving					Stable					Improving					Stable					Improving					Stable					Stable					Stable					Improving					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Improving					Improving					Stable					Stable					Stable					Stable					Improving					Stable					Stable					Stable
Parameter achieved		Unknown					Unknown					Yes					No					No					Unknown					No					Unknown					No					Yes					Unknown					Unknown					No					Unknown					Yes					Unknown					Yes					Yes					Unknown					Unknown					Unknown					No					No					No					Yes					Yes					Unknown					Yes					No					Yes					Yes					No
Description parameter		The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, search for a trend over the whole time series (simple linear regression). Results show that recent abundances of this species are lower than the abundances before the defined reference period. The parameter is therefore not reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, search for a trend over the whole time series (simple linear regression). Results show that recent abundances of this species are lower than the abundances before the defined reference period. The parameter is therefore not reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, search for a trend over the whole time series (simple linear regression). Results show that recent abundances of this species are lower than the abundances before the defined reference period. The parameter is therefore not reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, search for a trend over the whole time series (simple linear regression). Results show that recent abundances of this species are lower than the abundances before the defined reference period. The parameter is therefore not reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, search for a trend over the whole time series (simple linear regression). Results show that recent abundances of this species are lower than the abundances before the defined reference period. The parameter is therefore not reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. However, this species shows an overall deterioration of the estimated densities over the time series (decreasing overall linear trend). The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion UMR. Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, search for a trend over the whole time series (simple linear regression). Results show that recent abundances of this species are lower than the abundances before the defined reference period. The parameter is therefore not reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, search for a trend over the whole time series (simple linear regression). Results show that recent abundances of this species are lower than the abundances before the defined reference period. The parameter is therefore not reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that no breakpoints could be identified in the time series of densities of this species. Furthermore, this species shows no significant trend in the estimated densities over the time series. Consequently, the parameter for this species is retained as unknown in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, search for a trend over the whole time series (simple linear regression). Results show that recent abundances of this species are lower than the abundances before the defined reference period. The parameter is therefore not reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					The "Evolution of abundance" parameter consists in calculating a mean annual density of the species and looking for break points between two stable periods in the time series. If there are no break points, a significant trend is sought over the entire time series (simple linear regression). The results show that recent abundances of this species are higher than the abundances of the reference period. The parameter is therefore reached for this species in the Gulf of Lion MRU.					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 2015. The results of the SSB parameter show that the spawning biomass of the Gulf of Lion anchovy stock is in poor condition, below the reference value (SSB ≤ MSY-Btrigger). The parameter is therefore considered not to have been reached.
Related indicator		Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Rétablissement de l'abondance des populations d'espèces bentho-démersales du plateau continental sensibles à la pression de pêche					Taux de mortalité par pêche
Criteria status	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed
Description criteria		The ecological status of the Argentine is unknown because its abundance does not show any significant evolution during the period studied.					The ecological status of the Rüppell's arnoglossus is unknown as its abundance shows no significant changes during the period studied.					The ecological status of the butterfly blenny is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is reached in this MRU relating to the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of the spotted dragonnet is considered to be poor with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is not achieved in this MRU for the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of the common gulper shark e is considered to be poor with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is not achieved in this MRU for the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of the red gurnard is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the longfin gurnard is considered to be poor with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is not achieved in this MRU for the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of the Rabbit fish is unknown because its abundance shows no significant evolution during the period studied.					The ecological status of the spotted flounder is considered to be poor with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is not achieved in this MRU for the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of the hollowsnout grenadier is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is reached in this MRU relating to the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of the European conger is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the Velvet belly lanternshark is unknown as its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the grey gurnard is considered to be poor with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is not achieved in this MRU for the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological state of the Blackmouth catshark is unknown because its abundance does not show any significant evolution during the period studied.					The ecological status of rose fish is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is reached in this UMR relating to the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of the silver scabbardfish is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of four spot megrim is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is reached in this MRU relating to the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of the blackbellied angler is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is reached in this MRU relating to the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of anglerfish is unknown as its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of European hake is unknown as its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the Spanish ling is unknown as its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the African malarmat is considered to be poor with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is not reached in this MRU relating to the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of the Phycis blennioides is considered to be poor with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is not reached in this MRU for the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of the Thornback ray is considered to be poor with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is not achieved in this MRU relating to the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of small red scorpion fish is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is reached in this MRU relating to the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of the small spotted catshark is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is achieved in this MRU relating to the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of spiny dogfish is unknown because its abundance shows no significant change during the period studied.					The ecological status of the greater weever is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is achieved in this MRU relating to the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of the Mediterranean longsnout grenadier is considered to be poor with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is not reached in this MRU relating to the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of the piper gurnard is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is reached in this MRU relating to the Gulf of Lion.					The ecological status of St. Pierre is considered to be good with respect to criterion D1C2 because the parameter "Evolution of abundance" is achieved in this MRU relating to the Gulf of Lion.					The status of criterion D1C2 is considered poor because the Mediterranean anchovy stock is assessed as being in poor condition with respect to criterion D3C2 in the Gulf of Lion MRU. It is important to note that Decision 2017/848/EU provides that criterion D3C2 on spawning stock biomass (SSB) may inform criterion D1C2. However, the assessment of the ecological status of a stock of fishery resources is based on two criteria: a pressure criterion (D3C1 - fishing mortality) and a status criterion (SSB - D3C2). For this species, the integration of the results for these two criteria (where available) is therefore used to inform criterion D1C2.
Element status	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good
Description element	For the argentina, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Argentina is considered to be unknown.	For the argentina, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Argentina is considered to be unknown.	For the argentina, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Argentina is considered to be unknown.	For the argentina, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Argentina is considered to be unknown.	For the argentina, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Argentina is considered to be unknown.	For Rüppell's arnoglossus, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, it was not possible to conclude on the status of this criterion from the indicator. Therefore, the ecological status of the Rüppell's water-pennywort is considered unknown.	For Rüppell's arnoglossus, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, it was not possible to conclude on the status of this criterion from the indicator. Therefore, the ecological status of the Rüppell's water-pennywort is considered unknown.	For Rüppell's arnoglossus, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, it was not possible to conclude on the status of this criterion from the indicator. Therefore, the ecological status of the Rüppell's water-pennywort is considered unknown.	For Rüppell's arnoglossus, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, it was not possible to conclude on the status of this criterion from the indicator. Therefore, the ecological status of the Rüppell's water-pennywort is considered unknown.	For Rüppell's arnoglossus, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, it was not possible to conclude on the status of this criterion from the indicator. Therefore, the ecological status of the Rüppell's water-pennywort is considered unknown.	For butterfly blenny, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, butterfly blenny is considered to be in good condition.	For butterfly blenny, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, butterfly blenny is considered to be in good condition.	For butterfly blenny, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, butterfly blenny is considered to be in good condition.	For butterfly blenny, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, butterfly blenny is considered to be in good condition.	For butterfly blenny, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, butterfly blenny is considered to be in good condition.	For the spotted dragonnet, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the spotted dragonnet is considered to be in poor condition.	For the spotted dragonnet, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the spotted dragonnet is considered to be in poor condition.	For the spotted dragonnet, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the spotted dragonnet is considered to be in poor condition.	For the spotted dragonnet, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the spotted dragonnet is considered to be in poor condition.	For the spotted dragonnet, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the spotted dragonnet is considered to be in poor condition.	For the common squale-grizzle, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, gulper shark is considered to be in poor condition.	For the common squale-grizzle, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, gulper shark is considered to be in poor condition.	For the common squale-grizzle, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, gulper shark is considered to be in poor condition.	For the common squale-grizzle, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, gulper shark is considered to be in poor condition.	For the common squale-grizzle, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, gulper shark is considered to be in poor condition.	For the red gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the red gurnard is considered unknown.	For the red gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the red gurnard is considered unknown.	For the red gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the red gurnard is considered unknown.	For the red gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the red gurnard is considered unknown.	For the red gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the red gurnard is considered unknown.	For the longfin gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively determined and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the longfin gurnard is considered to be in poor condition.	For the longfin gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively determined and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the longfin gurnard is considered to be in poor condition.	For the longfin gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively determined and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the longfin gurnard is considered to be in poor condition.	For the longfin gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively determined and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the longfin gurnard is considered to be in poor condition.	For the longfin gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively determined and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the longfin gurnard is considered to be in poor condition.	For the Rabbit fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Rabbit fish is considered unknown.	For the Rabbit fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Rabbit fish is considered unknown.	For the Rabbit fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Rabbit fish is considered unknown.	For the Rabbit fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Rabbit fish is considered unknown.	For the Rabbit fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Rabbit fish is considered unknown.	For the spotted flounder, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the spotted flounder is considered to be in poor condition.	For the spotted flounder, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the spotted flounder is considered to be in poor condition.	For the spotted flounder, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the spotted flounder is considered to be in poor condition.	For the spotted flounder, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the spotted flounder is considered to be in poor condition.	For the spotted flounder, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the spotted flounder is considered to be in poor condition.	For the Hollow-snout grenadier, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Hollow-snout grenadier is considered to be in good condition.	For the Hollow-snout grenadier, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Hollow-snout grenadier is considered to be in good condition.	For the Hollow-snout grenadier, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Hollow-snout grenadier is considered to be in good condition.	For the Hollow-snout grenadier, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Hollow-snout grenadier is considered to be in good condition.	For the Hollow-snout grenadier, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Hollow-snout grenadier is considered to be in good condition.	For the European conger, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the European conger is considered unknown.	For the European conger, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the European conger is considered unknown.	For the European conger, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the European conger is considered unknown.	For the European conger, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the European conger is considered unknown.	For the European conger, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the European conger is considered unknown.	For Velvet belly lanternshark, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Velvet belly lanternshark is considered unknown.	For Velvet belly lanternshark, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Velvet belly lanternshark is considered unknown.	For Velvet belly lanternshark, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Velvet belly lanternshark is considered unknown.	For Velvet belly lanternshark, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Velvet belly lanternshark is considered unknown.	For Velvet belly lanternshark, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Velvet belly lanternshark is considered unknown.	For the grey gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the longfin gurnard is considered to be in poor condition.	For the grey gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the longfin gurnard is considered to be in poor condition.	For the grey gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the longfin gurnard is considered to be in poor condition.	For the grey gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the longfin gurnard is considered to be in poor condition.	For the grey gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the longfin gurnard is considered to be in poor condition.	For the Blackmouth catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. For the Spanish dog, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow conclusions to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Blackmouth catshark is considered unknown.	For the Blackmouth catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. For the Spanish dog, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow conclusions to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Blackmouth catshark is considered unknown.	For the Blackmouth catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. For the Spanish dog, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow conclusions to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Blackmouth catshark is considered unknown.	For the Blackmouth catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. For the Spanish dog, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow conclusions to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Blackmouth catshark is considered unknown.	For the Blackmouth catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. For the Spanish dog, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow conclusions to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of the Blackmouth catshark is considered unknown.	For the rose fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the rose fish is considered to be in good condition.	For the rose fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the rose fish is considered to be in good condition.	For the rose fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the rose fish is considered to be in good condition.	For the rose fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the rose fish is considered to be in good condition.	For the rose fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the rose fish is considered to be in good condition.	For silver scabbardfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of silver scabbardfish is considered to be unknown.	For silver scabbardfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of silver scabbardfish is considered to be unknown.	For silver scabbardfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of silver scabbardfish is considered to be unknown.	For silver scabbardfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of silver scabbardfish is considered to be unknown.	For silver scabbardfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in. However, the indicator did not allow a conclusion to be drawn on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of silver scabbardfish is considered to be unknown.	For the four spotted megrim, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the four-spotted megrim is considered to be in good condition.	For the four spotted megrim, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the four-spotted megrim is considered to be in good condition.	For the four spotted megrim, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the four-spotted megrim is considered to be in good condition.	For the four spotted megrim, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the four-spotted megrim is considered to be in good condition.	For the four spotted megrim, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the four-spotted megrim is considered to be in good condition.	For blackbellied angler, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackbellied angler is considered to be in good condition.	For blackbellied angler, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackbellied angler is considered to be in good condition.	For blackbellied angler, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackbellied angler is considered to be in good condition.	For blackbellied angler, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackbellied angler is considered to be in good condition.	For blackbellied angler, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the blackbellied angler is considered to be in good condition.	For anglerfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of anglerfish is considered to be unknown.	For anglerfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of anglerfish is considered to be unknown.	For anglerfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of anglerfish is considered to be unknown.	For anglerfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of anglerfish is considered to be unknown.	For anglerfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of anglerfish is considered to be unknown.	For European hake, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of European hake is considered to be unknown.	For European hake, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of European hake is considered to be unknown.	For European hake, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of European hake is considered to be unknown.	For European hake, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of European hake is considered to be unknown.	For European hake, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of European hake is considered to be unknown.	For Spanish ling, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Spanish ling is considered unknown.	For Spanish ling, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Spanish ling is considered unknown.	For Spanish ling, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Spanish ling is considered unknown.	For Spanish ling, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Spanish ling is considered unknown.	For Spanish ling, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not make it possible to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of Spanish ling is considered unknown.	For the African malarmat, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the African malarmat is considered to be in poor condition.	For the African malarmat, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the African malarmat is considered to be in poor condition.	For the African malarmat, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the African malarmat is considered to be in poor condition.	For the African malarmat, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the African malarmat is considered to be in poor condition.	For the African malarmat, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the African malarmat is considered to be in poor condition.	For Phycis blennioides, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Phycis blennioides is considered to be in poor condition.	For Phycis blennioides, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Phycis blennioides is considered to be in poor condition.	For Phycis blennioides, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Phycis blennioides is considered to be in poor condition.	For Phycis blennioides, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Phycis blennioides is considered to be in poor condition.	For Phycis blennioides, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Phycis blennioides is considered to be in poor condition.	For the thornback ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the thornback ray is considered to be in poor condition.	For the thornback ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the thornback ray is considered to be in poor condition.	For the thornback ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the thornback ray is considered to be in poor condition.	For the thornback ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the thornback ray is considered to be in poor condition.	For the thornback ray, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed as being in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the thornback ray is considered to be in poor condition.	For small red scorpion fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, small red scorpion fish is considered to be in good condition.	For small red scorpion fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, small red scorpion fish is considered to be in good condition.	For small red scorpion fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, small red scorpion fish is considered to be in good condition.	For small red scorpion fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, small red scorpion fish is considered to be in good condition.	For small red scorpion fish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, small red scorpion fish is considered to be in good condition.	For the small spotted catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the small spotted catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For the small spotted catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the small spotted catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For the small spotted catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the small spotted catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For the small spotted catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the small spotted catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For the small spotted catshark, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the small spotted catshark is considered to be in good condition.	For spiny dogfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of spiny dogfish is considered unknown.	For spiny dogfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of spiny dogfish is considered unknown.	For spiny dogfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of spiny dogfish is considered unknown.	For spiny dogfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of spiny dogfish is considered unknown.	For spiny dogfish, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively reported. However, the indicator did not allow for a conclusion on the status of this criterion. Therefore, the ecological status of spiny dogfish is considered unknown.	In the case of the greater weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the greater weever is considered to be in good condition.	In the case of the greater weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the greater weever is considered to be in good condition.	In the case of the greater weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the greater weever is considered to be in good condition.	In the case of the greater weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the greater weever is considered to be in good condition.	In the case of the greater weever, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the greater weever is considered to be in good condition.	For Mediterranean longsnout grenadier, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Mediterranean longsnout grenadier is considered to be in poor condition.	For Mediterranean longsnout grenadier, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Mediterranean longsnout grenadier is considered to be in poor condition.	For Mediterranean longsnout grenadier, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Mediterranean longsnout grenadier is considered to be in poor condition.	For Mediterranean longsnout grenadier, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Mediterranean longsnout grenadier is considered to be in poor condition.	For Mediterranean longsnout grenadier, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, the Mediterranean longsnout grenadier is considered to be in poor condition.	For the piper gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the piper gurnard is considered to be in good condition.	For the piper gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the piper gurnard is considered to be in good condition.	For the piper gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the piper gurnard is considered to be in good condition.	For the piper gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the piper gurnard is considered to be in good condition.	For the piper gurnard, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is assessed in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, the piper gurnard is considered to be in good condition.	For Saint-Pierre, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, St. Pierre is considered to be in good condition.	For Saint-Pierre, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, St. Pierre is considered to be in good condition.	For Saint-Pierre, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, St. Pierre is considered to be in good condition.	For Saint-Pierre, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, St. Pierre is considered to be in good condition.	For Saint-Pierre, only criterion D1C2 could be quantitatively filled in and is evaluated in good condition in this MRU. Therefore, St. Pierre is considered to be in good condition.	For anchovy from the Gulf of Lion, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, Gulf of Lion anchovy is considered to be in poor condition. It should be noted that the code for the additional element comes from the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (http://www.fao.org/gfcm).	For anchovy from the Gulf of Lion, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, Gulf of Lion anchovy is considered to be in poor condition. It should be noted that the code for the additional element comes from the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (http://www.fao.org/gfcm).	For anchovy from the Gulf of Lion, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, Gulf of Lion anchovy is considered to be in poor condition. It should be noted that the code for the additional element comes from the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (http://www.fao.org/gfcm).	For anchovy from the Gulf of Lion, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, Gulf of Lion anchovy is considered to be in poor condition. It should be noted that the code for the additional element comes from the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (http://www.fao.org/gfcm).	For anchovy from the Gulf of Lion, only criterion D1C2 could be filled in quantitatively and is assessed in poor condition in this MRU. Therefore, Gulf of Lion anchovy is considered to be in poor condition. It should be noted that the code for the additional element comes from the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (http://www.fao.org/gfcm).
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
Integration rule description parameter	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).	For the species evaluated according to a literature review, no quantitative indicator is operational, so the integration rule is 'Not relevant'. For other species, when the evaluation of criterion D1C2 is obtained by calculating the parameter 'Evolution of abundance', this parameter directly informs the criterion without an integration rule. Finally, for the species assessed in descriptor 3, the assessment of criterion D1C2 is obtained by integrating criterion D3C1 and/or criterion D3C2 for the stock in question. The integration method used is the 'One Out All Out' (OOAO).
Integration rule type criteria	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant
Integration rule description criteria	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the demersal fish group, only criterion D1C2 on the abundance of fish populations could be quantitatively reported, based on an indicator of recovery of the abundance of populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure (FC1 - OSPAR). The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.	For species in the pelagic group, only criterion D1C2 on fish population abundance could be quantitatively reported, based on the results of stock assessments of commercial species. The assessment obtained for criterion D1C2 therefore provides direct information on the overall status of the species.
GES extent threshold
GES extent achieved	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00	53.00
GES extent unit	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group
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
Description overall status	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	Concerning the group of species of demersal fish in this MRU, the indicator used allowed a quantitative assessment of criterion D1C2 (abundance of fish populations) for populations of bentho-demersal species on the continental shelf that are sensitive to fishing pressure. The assessment showed that good status under D1C2 was achieved for 10 populations of fish species sensitive to fishing pressure, but that this was not the case for 9 species. Finally, the use of the indicator did not allow to conclude on the good ecological status of 13 species (status unknown). In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups combined) across all the Mediterranean MRUs (i.e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as relevant at national level for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopods" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The pelagic fish species group was mainly assessed at the scale of the "Western Mediterranean" marine sub-region (MWE-FR-MS-MO) which includes this MRU "Gulf of Lion" (MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL). In the "Gulf of Lion" MRU, only the anchovy stock (Engraulis encrasicolus) has been assessed at this scale and it does not meet the conditions for good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) in all the Mediterranean MRUs (i. e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The pelagic fish species group was mainly assessed at the scale of the "Western Mediterranean" marine sub-region (MWE-FR-MS-MO) which includes this MRU "Gulf of Lion" (MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL). In the "Gulf of Lion" MRU, only the anchovy stock (Engraulis encrasicolus) has been assessed at this scale and it does not meet the conditions for good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) in all the Mediterranean MRUs (i. e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The pelagic fish species group was mainly assessed at the scale of the "Western Mediterranean" marine sub-region (MWE-FR-MS-MO) which includes this MRU "Gulf of Lion" (MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL). In the "Gulf of Lion" MRU, only the anchovy stock (Engraulis encrasicolus) has been assessed at this scale and it does not meet the conditions for good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) in all the Mediterranean MRUs (i. e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The pelagic fish species group was mainly assessed at the scale of the "Western Mediterranean" marine sub-region (MWE-FR-MS-MO) which includes this MRU "Gulf of Lion" (MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL). In the "Gulf of Lion" MRU, only the anchovy stock (Engraulis encrasicolus) has been assessed at this scale and it does not meet the conditions for good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) in all the Mediterranean MRUs (i. e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.	The pelagic fish species group was mainly assessed at the scale of the "Western Mediterranean" marine sub-region (MWE-FR-MS-MO) which includes this MRU "Gulf of Lion" (MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL). In the "Gulf of Lion" MRU, only the anchovy stock (Engraulis encrasicolus) has been assessed at this scale and it does not meet the conditions for good ecological status. In the present assessment, good ecological status could be assessed for a total of 39 species (all species groups taken together) in all the Mediterranean MRUs (i. e. MWE-FR-MS-MO, MWE-FR-MS-MO-GDL and MWE-FR-MS-MO-CE), i.e. less than 20% of the list of species identified as nationally relevant for the assessment of the "Fish" and "Cephalopod" components. It should be noted that the group of species of amphihaline fish, not listed in Decision 2017/848/EU, was also assessed qualitatively. The results for this group of species are presented in the summaries annexed to the Strategic Document for the Mediterranean Seafront.
Assessments period	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015	2010-2015
Related pressures
Related targets