Member State report / Art8-2024 / 2024 / D1-B / Ireland / NE Atlantic: Celtic Seas
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art8 |
| Report due | 2024-10-15 |
| GES Descriptor | D1 Birds |
| Member State | Ireland |
| Region/subregion | NE Atlantic: Celtic Seas |
| Report date | 2026-04-09 13:40:20 |
Irish Assesment Area (ACS-IE-AA-001)
Regional assessment area |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES component |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
Feature |
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
Element |
Bucephala clangula |
Bucephala clangula |
Bucephala clangula |
Bucephala clangula |
Bucephala clangula |
Melanitta nigra |
Melanitta nigra |
Melanitta nigra |
Melanitta nigra |
Melanitta nigra |
Alca torda |
Alca torda |
Alca torda |
Alca torda |
Alca torda |
Morus bassanus |
Morus bassanus |
Morus bassanus |
Morus bassanus |
Morus bassanus |
Uria aalge |
Uria aalge |
Uria aalge |
Uria aalge |
Uria aalge |
Fulmarus glacialis |
Fulmarus glacialis |
Fulmarus glacialis |
Fulmarus glacialis |
Fulmarus glacialis |
Rissa tridactyla |
Rissa tridactyla |
Rissa tridactyla |
Rissa tridactyla |
Rissa tridactyla |
Sterna dougallii |
Sterna dougallii |
Sterna dougallii |
Sterna dougallii |
Sterna dougallii |
Element extent |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trend element |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element 2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element source |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
BD; OSPAR |
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
|
Parameter |
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Threshold value upper |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value lower |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value operator |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
The level of by-catch mortality equivalent to the threshold of 1% of annual adult mortality was compared to available information about estimated by-catch of the species |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value source |
OSPAR Convention
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value achieved lower |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value unit |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion value achieved |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trend parameter |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Stable |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Stable |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Deteriorating |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Parameter achieved |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Yes |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description parameter |
Based on literature data, a qualitative bycatch assessment is possible for the European population of roseate tern. OSPAR B5 assessment. Based
on the information available, it appears reasonable to assume that close to zero bycatch mortality is
occurring in the European population. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Criteria status |
Unknown |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description criteria |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Description element |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Source assessment feature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting method feature |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Type C |
Trend feature |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Integration rule type parameter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule description parameter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule type criteria |
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
Integration rule description criteria |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
GES extent threshold |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
GES extent achieved |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
66.66 |
66.66 |
66.66 |
66.66 |
66.66 |
66.66 |
66.66 |
66.66 |
66.66 |
66.66 |
66.66 |
66.66 |
66.66 |
66.66 |
66.66 |
||||||||||
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 |
GES achieved |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES achieved by 2024 |
GES achieved by 2024 |
GES achieved by 2024 |
GES achieved by 2024 |
GES achieved by 2024 |
GES achieved by 2024 |
GES achieved by 2024 |
GES achieved by 2024 |
GES achieved by 2024 |
GES achieved by 2024 |
GES achieved by 2024 |
GES achieved by 2024 |
GES achieved by 2024 |
GES achieved by 2024 |
GES achieved by 2024 |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
Description overall status |
Only two benthic feeding birds were assessed. One (common golden eye) did not achieve GES and the other (common scoter) was unknown due to uncertainty around available abundance data. |
Only two benthic feeding birds were assessed. One (common golden eye) did not achieve GES and the other (common scoter) was unknown due to uncertainty around available abundance data. |
Only two benthic feeding birds were assessed. One (common golden eye) did not achieve GES and the other (common scoter) was unknown due to uncertainty around available abundance data. |
Only two benthic feeding birds were assessed. One (common golden eye) did not achieve GES and the other (common scoter) was unknown due to uncertainty around available abundance data. |
Only two benthic feeding birds were assessed. One (common golden eye) did not achieve GES and the other (common scoter) was unknown due to uncertainty around available abundance data. |
Only two benthic feeding birds were assessed. One (common golden eye) did not achieve GES and the other (common scoter) was unknown due to uncertainty around available abundance data. |
Only two benthic feeding birds were assessed. One (common golden eye) did not achieve GES and the other (common scoter) was unknown due to uncertainty around available abundance data. |
Only two benthic feeding birds were assessed. One (common golden eye) did not achieve GES and the other (common scoter) was unknown due to uncertainty around available abundance data. |
Only two benthic feeding birds were assessed. One (common golden eye) did not achieve GES and the other (common scoter) was unknown due to uncertainty around available abundance data. |
Only two benthic feeding birds were assessed. One (common golden eye) did not achieve GES and the other (common scoter) was unknown due to uncertainty around available abundance data. |
The three pelagic feeding birds assessed (common guillemot, razorbill and northern gannet) all achieved GES. |
The three pelagic feeding birds assessed (common guillemot, razorbill and northern gannet) all achieved GES. |
The three pelagic feeding birds assessed (common guillemot, razorbill and northern gannet) all achieved GES. |
The three pelagic feeding birds assessed (common guillemot, razorbill and northern gannet) all achieved GES. |
The three pelagic feeding birds assessed (common guillemot, razorbill and northern gannet) all achieved GES. |
The three pelagic feeding birds assessed (common guillemot, razorbill and northern gannet) all achieved GES. |
The three pelagic feeding birds assessed (common guillemot, razorbill and northern gannet) all achieved GES. |
The three pelagic feeding birds assessed (common guillemot, razorbill and northern gannet) all achieved GES. |
The three pelagic feeding birds assessed (common guillemot, razorbill and northern gannet) all achieved GES. |
The three pelagic feeding birds assessed (common guillemot, razorbill and northern gannet) all achieved GES. |
The three pelagic feeding birds assessed (common guillemot, razorbill and northern gannet) all achieved GES. |
The three pelagic feeding birds assessed (common guillemot, razorbill and northern gannet) all achieved GES. |
The three pelagic feeding birds assessed (common guillemot, razorbill and northern gannet) all achieved GES. |
The three pelagic feeding birds assessed (common guillemot, razorbill and northern gannet) all achieved GES. |
The three pelagic feeding birds assessed (common guillemot, razorbill and northern gannet) all achieved GES. |
Two surface feeding birds (roseate tern and northern fulmar) achieved GES while one (black-kittiwake) did not achieve GES. |
Two surface feeding birds (roseate tern and northern fulmar) achieved GES while one (black-kittiwake) did not achieve GES. |
Two surface feeding birds (roseate tern and northern fulmar) achieved GES while one (black-kittiwake) did not achieve GES. |
Two surface feeding birds (roseate tern and northern fulmar) achieved GES while one (black-kittiwake) did not achieve GES. |
Two surface feeding birds (roseate tern and northern fulmar) achieved GES while one (black-kittiwake) did not achieve GES. |
Two surface feeding birds (roseate tern and northern fulmar) achieved GES while one (black-kittiwake) did not achieve GES. |
Two surface feeding birds (roseate tern and northern fulmar) achieved GES while one (black-kittiwake) did not achieve GES. |
Two surface feeding birds (roseate tern and northern fulmar) achieved GES while one (black-kittiwake) did not achieve GES. |
Two surface feeding birds (roseate tern and northern fulmar) achieved GES while one (black-kittiwake) did not achieve GES. |
Two surface feeding birds (roseate tern and northern fulmar) achieved GES while one (black-kittiwake) did not achieve GES. |
Two surface feeding birds (roseate tern and northern fulmar) achieved GES while one (black-kittiwake) did not achieve GES. |
Two surface feeding birds (roseate tern and northern fulmar) achieved GES while one (black-kittiwake) did not achieve GES. |
Two surface feeding birds (roseate tern and northern fulmar) achieved GES while one (black-kittiwake) did not achieve GES. |
Two surface feeding birds (roseate tern and northern fulmar) achieved GES while one (black-kittiwake) did not achieve GES. |
Two surface feeding birds (roseate tern and northern fulmar) achieved GES while one (black-kittiwake) did not achieve GES. |
Assessments period |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
1998-2021 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test TV |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Test results |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
ACS-IE-SD-002
Regional assessment area |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES component |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
D1B |
Feature |
Grazing birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Grazing birds
|
Wading birds
|
Wading birds
|
Wading birds
|
Wading birds
|
Wading birds
|
Wading birds
|
Wading birds
|
Wading birds
|
Wading birds
|
Wading birds
|
Wading birds
|
Wading birds
|
Wading birds
|
Wading birds
|
Wading birds
|
Element |
Branta leucopsis |
Branta leucopsis |
Branta leucopsis |
Branta leucopsis |
Branta leucopsis |
Mareca penelope |
Mareca penelope |
Mareca penelope |
Mareca penelope |
Mareca penelope |
Spatula clypeata |
Spatula clypeata |
Spatula clypeata |
Spatula clypeata |
Spatula clypeata |
Charadrius hiaticula |
Charadrius hiaticula |
Charadrius hiaticula |
Charadrius hiaticula |
Charadrius hiaticula |
Limosa limosa |
Limosa limosa |
Limosa limosa |
Limosa limosa |
Limosa limosa |
Tringa totanus |
Tringa totanus |
Tringa totanus |
Tringa totanus |
Tringa totanus |
Element extent |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trend element |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element 2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element source |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
BD |
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
|
Parameter |
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Not assessed
|
Threshold value upper |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value lower |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value operator |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value source |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value achieved lower |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value unit |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion value achieved |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trend parameter |
Not relevant |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not relevant |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not relevant |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not relevant |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not relevant |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not relevant |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Parameter achieved |
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 |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description parameter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
Criteria status |
Not relevant |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not relevant |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not relevant |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not relevant |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not relevant |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not relevant |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description criteria |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element status |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Source assessment feature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting method feature |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Trend feature |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Integration rule type parameter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule description parameter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule type criteria |
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
Integration rule description criteria |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
Fewer than 5 species were assessed within each species group per criterion, therefore integration required all species to be in GES per criterion to achieve GES for the species group (Feature). |
GES extent threshold |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
GES extent achieved |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
33.33 |
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 |
GES achieved |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported |
Description overall status |
Among grazing birds assessed only the barnacle goose is found to have achieved GES while the eurasian widgeon and the northern shoveler have not achieved GES. |
Among grazing birds assessed only the barnacle goose is found to have achieved GES while the eurasian widgeon and the northern shoveler have not achieved GES. |
Among grazing birds assessed only the barnacle goose is found to have achieved GES while the eurasian widgeon and the northern shoveler have not achieved GES. |
Among grazing birds assessed only the barnacle goose is found to have achieved GES while the eurasian widgeon and the northern shoveler have not achieved GES. |
Among grazing birds assessed only the barnacle goose is found to have achieved GES while the eurasian widgeon and the northern shoveler have not achieved GES. |
Among grazing birds assessed only the barnacle goose is found to have achieved GES while the eurasian widgeon and the northern shoveler have not achieved GES. |
Among grazing birds assessed only the barnacle goose is found to have achieved GES while the eurasian widgeon and the northern shoveler have not achieved GES. |
Among grazing birds assessed only the barnacle goose is found to have achieved GES while the eurasian widgeon and the northern shoveler have not achieved GES. |
Among grazing birds assessed only the barnacle goose is found to have achieved GES while the eurasian widgeon and the northern shoveler have not achieved GES. |
Among grazing birds assessed only the barnacle goose is found to have achieved GES while the eurasian widgeon and the northern shoveler have not achieved GES. |
Among grazing birds assessed only the barnacle goose is found to have achieved GES while the eurasian widgeon and the northern shoveler have not achieved GES. |
Among grazing birds assessed only the barnacle goose is found to have achieved GES while the eurasian widgeon and the northern shoveler have not achieved GES. |
Among grazing birds assessed only the barnacle goose is found to have achieved GES while the eurasian widgeon and the northern shoveler have not achieved GES. |
Among grazing birds assessed only the barnacle goose is found to have achieved GES while the eurasian widgeon and the northern shoveler have not achieved GES. |
Among grazing birds assessed only the barnacle goose is found to have achieved GES while the eurasian widgeon and the northern shoveler have not achieved GES. |
Among wading birds assessed only the black-tailed godwit is found to have achieved GES while the common ringed plover and the common redshank have not achieved GES. |
Among wading birds assessed only the black-tailed godwit is found to have achieved GES while the common ringed plover and the common redshank have not achieved GES. |
Among wading birds assessed only the black-tailed godwit is found to have achieved GES while the common ringed plover and the common redshank have not achieved GES. |
Among wading birds assessed only the black-tailed godwit is found to have achieved GES while the common ringed plover and the common redshank have not achieved GES. |
Among wading birds assessed only the black-tailed godwit is found to have achieved GES while the common ringed plover and the common redshank have not achieved GES. |
Among wading birds assessed only the black-tailed godwit is found to have achieved GES while the common ringed plover and the common redshank have not achieved GES. |
Among wading birds assessed only the black-tailed godwit is found to have achieved GES while the common ringed plover and the common redshank have not achieved GES. |
Among wading birds assessed only the black-tailed godwit is found to have achieved GES while the common ringed plover and the common redshank have not achieved GES. |
Among wading birds assessed only the black-tailed godwit is found to have achieved GES while the common ringed plover and the common redshank have not achieved GES. |
Among wading birds assessed only the black-tailed godwit is found to have achieved GES while the common ringed plover and the common redshank have not achieved GES. |
Among wading birds assessed only the black-tailed godwit is found to have achieved GES while the common ringed plover and the common redshank have not achieved GES. |
Among wading birds assessed only the black-tailed godwit is found to have achieved GES while the common ringed plover and the common redshank have not achieved GES. |
Among wading birds assessed only the black-tailed godwit is found to have achieved GES while the common ringed plover and the common redshank have not achieved GES. |
Among wading birds assessed only the black-tailed godwit is found to have achieved GES while the common ringed plover and the common redshank have not achieved GES. |
Among wading birds assessed only the black-tailed godwit is found to have achieved GES while the common ringed plover and the common redshank have not achieved GES. |
Assessments period |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
1994/1995-2021 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test TV |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Test results |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |
Correct |