Member State report / Art8-2024 / 2024 / D1-M / Italy / Mediterranean: Adriatic Sea

Report type Member State report to Commission
MSFD Article Art8
Report due 2024-10-15
GES Descriptor D1 Mammals
Member State Italy
Region/subregion Mediterranean: Adriatic Sea
Report date 2025-09-11 10:38:38

MAD-IT-MS-AS

Regional assessment area
Component MRUs
GES component
D1M
D1M
D1M
D1M
D1M
D1M
D1M
D1M
Feature
Small toothed cetaceans
Small toothed cetaceans
Small toothed cetaceans
Small toothed cetaceans
Small toothed cetaceans
Small toothed cetaceans
Small toothed cetaceans
Small toothed cetaceans
Element
Stenella coeruleoalba
Stenella coeruleoalba
Stenella coeruleoalba
Stenella coeruleoalba
Tursiops truncatus
Tursiops truncatus
Tursiops truncatus
Tursiops truncatus
Element extent
Trend element
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Element 2
Element source
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
Criterion
D1C1
D1C2
D1C4
D1C5
D1C1
D1C2
D1C4
D1C5
Parameter
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
Abundance
Distribution (range)
Habitat condition
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
Abundance
Distribution (range)
Habitat condition
Threshold value upper
Threshold value lower
Threshold value operator
Threshold qualitative
Elevated abundace estimates and no significant deviations between ASI 2018 and 2021 monitoring. The population can be considered in a healthy status .
The distributional range analysed using the Habitat Directive tool aligns with the species' ecological requirements. No significant differences were found compared to previous data related to the pelagic distribution
The species demostrate a distribution within pelagic habitats, in the south Adriatic area and align with the data in leterature
Elevated abundace estimates and no significant deviations between ASI 2018 and 2021 monitoring. The population can be considered in a healthy status .
The ecological needs are meet in the Adriatic costal area; data from range tool map does not express differences among years
The presence of dolphin groups in the coastal habitat shown by the 2018 and 2021 data, are compartable and does not differ from the previous, suggests that habitat provides the necessary resources
Threshold value source
Value achieved upper
30.0
12.004
254.0
243.0
Value achieved lower
587.0
657.0
Value unit
individuals
individuals
individuals
individuals
Proportion threshold value
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
% area of habitat achieving threshold value
% area of habitat achieving threshold value
% area of habitat achieving threshold value
% area of habitat achieving threshold value
% area of habitat achieving threshold value
% area of habitat achieving threshold value
% area of habitat achieving threshold value
% area of habitat achieving threshold value
Trend parameter
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Parameter achieved
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unknown
Yes
Yes
Yes
Description parameter
The value listed in the """"ValueAchievedUpper"""" is referring to the fishey related data reported from Italian stranding database for the Adriatic Sea. Nevertheless, the threshold value of mortality due to fishing activities has not been calculated due to a lack of adequate information on bycatch rates and totals. A threshold value of anthropogenic mortality, considering the ecological requirements of the species and more generally of cetaceans, could be calculated by applying the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) to the best estimate of population abundance and after regional or sub-regional consultation. The parameters of the PBR formula, Recovery factor and Rmax, may be chosen based on the species IUCN conservation status (Lauriano et al., 2023).
Data from MSFD survey in 2021 (95%C.I.=3165 - 17343) and ACCOBAMS 2018 (95%C.I.=3.772 - 27.932) have been compared with the previous six years period (2010-2015). Since differences can be attribuited to different study seasons the parameter can be considered stable. Nevertheless, the lack of consensus among Member States at the sub-regional level prevent the establishment of a population threshold for the Stenella. A threshold value for criterion D1C2 could be estimated based on the species' IUCN conservation status and as indicated in the UNEP/MAP document (UNEP/MED WG514/inf.11). Species listed as Least Concern (LC), based on population size are in GES.
A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. In addition, biotic and abiotic elements might have been negatively influenced by human activities; hence the habitat of a given species might have degraded to the point of not being anymore suitable. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the habitat of the specie.
A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. In addition, biotic and abiotic elements might have been negatively influenced by human activities; hence the habitat of a given species might have degraded to the point of not being anymore suitable. In addition, biotic and abiotic elements might have been negatively influenced by human activities; hence the habitat of a given species might have degraded to the point of not being anymore suitable. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the habitat of the specie.
The threshold value for fishing mortality has not been calculated due to a lack of adequate information on bycatch levels within the MRU.The value in the """"ValueAchievedUpper"""", is referring to the fishey related data reported from italian stranding database for the Adriatic Sea. Nevertheless, the threshold value of mortality due to fishing activities has not been calculated due to a lack of adequate information regarding the numerical abundance of bycatches. A limit value of anthropogenic mortality, considering the ecological requirements of the species and more generally of cetaceans, could be calculated by applying the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) to the best estimate of population abundance and after regional or sub-regional consultation. The parameters of the PBR formula, Recovery factor and Rmax, can be chosen based on the species IUCN conservation status (Lauriano et al., 2023).
Distribution and abundance data from 2010 - 2015 monitoring activities have been compared to the 2016-2021 activities. ASI 2018 (95%C.I.= 5.896 - 18.166) and MSFD 2021 (95%C.I.=3762 - 9770). The paremeter is considered stable among the different monitoring activities. Nevertheless, the lack of consensus among Member States at the sub-regional level prevent the establishment of a population threshold. A threshold value for criterion D1C2 could be estimated based on the species' IUCN conservation status and as indicated in the UNEP/MAP document (UNEP/MED WG514/inf.11). Species listed as Least Concern (LC), based on population size are in GES.
A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. In addition, biotic and abiotic elements might have been negatively influenced by human activities; hence the habitat of a given species might have degraded to the point of not being anymore suitable. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the extent of the habitat of the species.
Qualitative thereshold. A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. In addition, biotic and abiotic elements might have been negatively influenced by human activities; hence the habitat of a given species might have degraded to the point of not being anymore suitable. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the habitat of the specie.
Related indicator
  • MAD-IT-MS-AS-D1M-D1R-MR
  • MAD-IT-MS-AS-D1M-D1R-MR
  • MAD-IT-MS-AS-D1M-D1R-MR
  • MAD-IT-MS-AS-D1M-D1R-MR
  • MAD-IT-MS-AS-D1M-D1R-MR
  • MAD-IT-MS-AS-D1M-D1R-MR
  • MAD-IT-MS-AS-D1M-D1R-MR
  • MAD-IT-MS-AS-D1M-D1R-MR
Criteria status
Unknown
Good
Good
Good
Unknown
Good
Good
Good
Description criteria
The lack of comprehensive information regarding bycatch by fishing gear. Lack of agreed method for calculating TVs
Le indicazioni provenienti dai monitoraggi 2018 e 2021 (rispettivamente ASI e MSFD) effettuati nella MRU MAD-IT-MS-AS indicano una consistenza numerica stabile
The criterion is positively assessed based on the distribution parameter. The striped dolphin is predominantly a pelagic species fand in the Adriatic Sea, the highest densities are recorded in the southern sector. For the selection of the gap distance in the application of the Habitat Directive's range tool, the genetic differentiation observed between eastern and western Mediterranean individuals and within the latter (Gaspari et al. 2007) was considered. The Habitat Directive's range tool was applied to the species' sightings obtained from MSFD monitoring and ACCOBAMS research activities (Panigada et al., 2024) and compared to previous (MSFD) 2021 data. The gap distance chosen for the striped dolphin is 150 km
No methodology has been defined - nor agreed for this criterion. However, the general distribution pattern is in line with the generale known habitat for this species
The lack of comprehensive information regarding bycatch by fishing gear. Lack of agreed method for calculating TVs
The abundance parameter values used to assess criterion D1C2 favorably have remained relatively stable between the 2010 - 2015 and the 2016 - 2020 periods. Nevertheless, a more comprehensive evaluation and the establishment of a specific threshold for D1C2 require cooperation with Adriatic coastal nations.
The criterion for T. truncatus in the MAD-IT-MS-AS MSFD is assessed positively. The bottlenose dolphin is a species distributed in coastal areas and characterized by high site fidelity (Genov et al., 2022); although long-range movements of individual animals have been recorded in the Mediterranean Sea (Genov et al., 2022; Bearzi et al., 2011), the average value of movements is around 80 km (Gnone et al., 2011), also considering the presence of well-defined local population units (Natoli et al., 2005; Pleslić et al., 2019). In light of the literature, the value of the gap distance to be used in the application of the Habitat Directive's range tool is 150 km. The Habitat Directive's range tool was applied to the species' sightings obtained from the 2021 MSFD monitoring and ACCOBAMS research activities (Panigada et al., 2024).
No methodology has been defined - nor agreed for this criterion. However, the general distribution pattern is in line with the generale known habitat for this species
Element status
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Description element
Source assessment feature
  • National
  • National
  • National
  • National
  • National
  • National
  • National
  • National
Reporting method feature
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
Integration rule type parameter
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Not relevant
Integration rule description parameter
Integration rule type criteria
2OAO
2OAO
2OAO
2OAO
2OAO
2OAO
2OAO
2OAO
Integration rule description criteria
For the cetacean component, it was decided to apply the two-out-of-all-out rule. The reason for choosing TOAO is linked to the impossibility of expressing an assessment on at least one of the 4 criteria foreseen to define the GSF of the three groups of cetaceans. For criterion D1C1, in fact, there is not enough information available on accidental catches by different fishing gear and applying the one-out-all-out rule all the elements considered would have had a negative assessment. Even though there are no historical series that allow us to investigate on trends of the species, abundance data is available at regional, sub-regional, and national levels that can be supportive for an assessment of the species' status. Criterion D1C2 has therefore been considered of greater importance for the purpose of the assessment also in relation to indication IG.21/3 (2013) of the Barcelona Convention which links the achievement of the GSF to the abundance of populations.
For the cetacean component, it was decided to apply the two-out-of-all-out rule. The reason for choosing TOAO is linked to the impossibility of expressing an assessment on at least one of the 4 criteria foreseen to define the GSF of the three groups of cetaceans. For criterion D1C1, in fact, there is not enough information available on accidental catches by different fishing gear and applying the one-out-all-out rule all the elements considered would have had a negative assessment. Even though there are no historical series that allow us to investigate on trends of the species, abundance data is available at regional, sub-regional, and national levels that can be supportive for an assessment of the species' status. Criterion D1C2 has therefore been considered of greater importance for the purpose of the assessment also in relation to indication IG.21/3 (2013) of the Barcelona Convention which links the achievement of the GSF to the abundance of populations.
For the cetacean component, it was decided to apply the two-out-of-all-out rule. The reason for choosing TOAO is linked to the impossibility of expressing an assessment on at least one of the 4 criteria foreseen to define the GSF of the three groups of cetaceans. For criterion D1C1, in fact, there is not enough information available on accidental catches by different fishing gear and applying the one-out-all-out rule all the elements considered would have had a negative assessment. Even though there are no historical series that allow us to investigate on trends of the species, abundance data is available at regional, sub-regional, and national levels that can be supportive for an assessment of the species' status. Criterion D1C2 has therefore been considered of greater importance for the purpose of the assessment also in relation to indication IG.21/3 (2013) of the Barcelona Convention which links the achievement of the GSF to the abundance of populations.
For the cetacean component, it was decided to apply the two-out-of-all-out rule. The reason for choosing TOAO is linked to the impossibility of expressing an assessment on at least one of the 4 criteria foreseen to define the GSF of the three groups of cetaceans. For criterion D1C1, in fact, there is not enough information available on accidental catches by different fishing gear and applying the one-out-all-out rule all the elements considered would have had a negative assessment. Even though there are no historical series that allow us to investigate on trends of the species, abundance data is available at regional, sub-regional, and national levels that can be supportive for an assessment of the species' status. Criterion D1C2 has therefore been considered of greater importance for the purpose of the assessment also in relation to indication IG.21/3 (2013) of the Barcelona Convention which links the achievement of the GSF to the abundance of populations.
For the cetacean component, it was decided to apply the two-out-of-all-out rule. The reason for choosing TOAO is linked to the impossibility of expressing an assessment on at least one of the 4 criteria foreseen to define the GSF of the three groups of cetaceans. For criterion D1C1, in fact, there is not enough information available on accidental catches by different fishing gear and applying the one-out-all-out rule all the elements considered would have had a negative assessment. Even though there are no historical series that allow us to investigate on trends of the species, abundance data is available at regional, sub-regional, and national levels that can be supportive for an assessment of the species' status. Criterion D1C2 has therefore been considered of greater importance for the purpose of the assessment also in relation to indication IG.21/3 (2013) of the Barcelona Convention which links the achievement of the GSF to the abundance of populations.
For the cetacean component, it was decided to apply the two-out-of-all-out rule. The reason for choosing TOAO is linked to the impossibility of expressing an assessment on at least one of the 4 criteria foreseen to define the GSF of the three groups of cetaceans. For criterion D1C1, in fact, there is not enough information available on accidental catches by different fishing gear and applying the one-out-all-out rule all the elements considered would have had a negative assessment. Even though there are no historical series that allow us to investigate on trends of the species, abundance data is available at regional, sub-regional, and national levels that can be supportive for an assessment of the species' status. Criterion D1C2 has therefore been considered of greater importance for the purpose of the assessment also in relation to indication IG.21/3 (2013) of the Barcelona Convention which links the achievement of the GSF to the abundance of populations.
For the cetacean component, it was decided to apply the two-out-of-all-out rule. The reason for choosing TOAO is linked to the impossibility of expressing an assessment on at least one of the 4 criteria foreseen to define the GSF of the three groups of cetaceans. For criterion D1C1, in fact, there is not enough information available on accidental catches by different fishing gear and applying the one-out-all-out rule all the elements considered would have had a negative assessment. Even though there are no historical series that allow us to investigate on trends of the species, abundance data is available at regional, sub-regional, and national levels that can be supportive for an assessment of the species' status. Criterion D1C2 has therefore been considered of greater importance for the purpose of the assessment also in relation to indication IG.21/3 (2013) of the Barcelona Convention which links the achievement of the GSF to the abundance of populations.
For the cetacean component, it was decided to apply the two-out-of-all-out rule. The reason for choosing TOAO is linked to the impossibility of expressing an assessment on at least one of the 4 criteria foreseen to define the GSF of the three groups of cetaceans. For criterion D1C1, in fact, there is not enough information available on accidental catches by different fishing gear and applying the one-out-all-out rule all the elements considered would have had a negative assessment. Even though there are no historical series that allow us to investigate on trends of the species, abundance data is available at regional, sub-regional, and national levels that can be supportive for an assessment of the species' status. Criterion D1C2 has therefore been considered of greater importance for the purpose of the assessment also in relation to indication IG.21/3 (2013) of the Barcelona Convention which links the achievement of the GSF to the abundance of populations.
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
GES achieved
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
Description overall status
Assessments period
2016-2021
2016-2021
2016-2021
2016-2021
2016-2021
2016-2021
2016-2021
2016-2021
Related pressures
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter)
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter)
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter)
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter)
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter)
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter)
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter)
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter)
  • Input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources
Related targets
  • MAD-IT-D01-T002
  • MAD-IT-D01-T002
  • MAD-IT-D01-T002
  • MAD-IT-D01-T002
  • MAD-IT-D01-T002
  • MAD-IT-D01-T002
  • MAD-IT-D01-T002
  • MAD-IT-D01-T002
Test TV
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Test results
Correct
False
False
False
Correct
False
False
False