Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D3 / Italy / Mediterranean: Adriatic 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 | D3 Commercial fish and shellfish |
Member State | Italy |
Region/subregion | Mediterranean: Adriatic Sea |
Reported by | ISPRA - Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research |
Report date | 2020-10-01 |
Report access | MSFD_2018_ART8_GES_IT_2020-07-31.xml |
Mediterranean Sea: Adriatic Sea (IT-AS-0001)
GES component |
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
D3
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Element |
Eledone cirrhosa |
Eledone cirrhosa |
Eledone cirrhosa |
Eledone cirrhosa |
Eledone cirrhosa |
Eledone cirrhosa |
Eledone moschata |
Eledone moschata |
Eledone moschata |
Eledone moschata |
Engraulis encrasicolus |
Engraulis encrasicolus |
Engraulis encrasicolus |
Lophius budegassa |
Lophius budegassa |
Lophius budegassa |
Lophius piscatorius |
Lophius piscatorius |
Lophius piscatorius |
Merluccius merluccius |
Merluccius merluccius |
Merluccius merluccius |
Mullus barbatus |
Mullus barbatus |
Mullus barbatus |
Nephrops norvegicus |
Nephrops norvegicus |
Nephrops norvegicus |
Parapenaeus longirostris |
Parapenaeus longirostris |
Parapenaeus longirostris |
Sardina pilchardus |
Sardina pilchardus |
Sardina pilchardus |
Sepia officinalis |
Sepia officinalis |
Sepia officinalis |
Solea solea (sin. vulgaris) |
Solea solea (sin. vulgaris) |
Solea solea (sin. vulgaris) |
Squilla mantis |
Squilla mantis |
Squilla mantis |
Squilla mantis |
Squilla mantis |
Squilla mantis |
Element code |
140600 |
140600 |
140600 |
140600 |
140600 |
140600 |
140601 |
140601 |
140601 |
140601 |
126426 |
126426 |
126426 |
126554 |
126554 |
126554 |
126555 |
126555 |
126555 |
126484 |
126484 |
126484 |
126985 |
126985 |
126985 |
107254 |
107254 |
107254 |
107109 |
107109 |
107109 |
126421 |
126421 |
126421 |
138477 |
138477 |
138477 |
127160 |
127160 |
127160 |
136137 |
136137 |
136137 |
136137 |
136137 |
136137 |
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/
|
Element 2 |
Horned octopus (Eledone cirrhosa) in GSA 17 (Adriatic Sea) |
Horned octopus (Eledone cirrhosa) in GSA 17 (Adriatic Sea) |
Horned octopus (Eledone cirrhosa) in GSA 17 (Adriatic Sea) |
Horned octopus (Eledone cirrhosa) in GSA 18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Horned octopus (Eledone cirrhosa) in GSA 18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Horned octopus (Eledone cirrhosa) in GSA 18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Musky octopus (Eledone moschata) in GSA 18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Musky octopus (Eledone moschata) in GSA 18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Musky octopus (Eledone moschata) in GSA 18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Musky octopus (Eledone moschata) in GSA 18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Monkfishes nei (Lophius spp) in GSA 18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Monkfishes nei (Lophius spp) in GSA 18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Monkfishes nei (Lophius spp) in GSA 18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Monkfishes nei (Lophius spp) in GSA 18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Monkfishes nei (Lophius spp) in GSA 18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Monkfishes nei (Lophius spp) in GSA 18 (Adriatic Sea) |
European hake (Merluccius merluccius) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea)
|
European hake (Merluccius merluccius) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea)
|
European hake (Merluccius merluccius) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Red mullet (Mullus barbatus) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Red mullet (Mullus barbatus) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Red mullet (Mullus barbatus) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Deep-water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Deep-water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Deep-water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Sardine (Sardina Pilchardus) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea)
|
Sardine (Sardina Pilchardus) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Sardine (Sardina Pilchardus) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea) |
Common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) in GSA 17 (Adriatic Sea) |
Common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) in GSA 17 (Adriatic Sea) |
Common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) in GSA 17 (Adriatic Sea) |
Common sole (Solea solea) in GSA 17 (Adriatic Sea) |
Common sole (Solea solea) in GSA 17 (Adriatic Sea) |
Common sole (Solea solea) in GSA 17 (Adriatic Sea) |
Spottail mantis squillid (Squilla mantis) in GSA 17 (Adriatic Sea)
|
Spottail mantis squillid (Squilla mantis) in GSA 17 (Adriatic Sea) |
Spottail mantis squillid (Squilla mantis) in GSA 17 (Adriatic Sea)
|
Spottail mantis squillid (Squilla mantis) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea)
|
Spottail mantis squillid (Squilla mantis) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea)
|
Spottail mantis squillid (Squilla mantis) in GSA 17-18 (Adriatic Sea)
|
Element 2 code |
eoi.17
|
eoi.17
|
eoi.17
|
eoi.18
|
eoi.18
|
eoi.18
|
edt.18
|
edt.18
|
edt.18
|
eoi.18
|
ane.1718
|
ane.1718
|
ane.1718
|
mnz.18
|
mnz.18
|
mnz.18
|
mnz.18
|
mnz.18
|
mnz.18
|
hke.1718
|
hke.1718
|
hke.1718
|
mut.1718
|
mut.1718
|
mut.1718
|
nep.1718
|
nep.1718
|
nep.1718
|
dps.1718
|
dps.1718
|
dps.1718
|
pil.1718
|
pil.1718
|
pil.1718
|
ctc.17
|
ctc.17
|
ctc.17
|
sol.17
|
sol.17
|
sol.17
|
mts.17
|
mts.17
|
mts.17
|
mts.18
|
mts.18
|
mts.18
|
Element 2 code source |
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
Species (D3) http://www.fao.org/fishery/collection/asfis/en
|
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 |
Criterion |
D3C1
|
D3C2
|
D3C3
|
D3C1
|
D3C2
|
D3C3
|
D3C1
|
D3C2
|
D3C3
|
D3C1
|
D3C2
|
D3C3
|
D3C1
|
D3C2
|
D3C3
|
D3C1
|
D3C2
|
D3C3
|
D3C1
|
D3C2
|
D3C3
|
D3C1
|
D3C2
|
D3C3
|
D3C1
|
D3C2
|
D3C3
|
D3C1
|
D3C2
|
D3C3
|
D3C1
|
D3C2
|
D3C3
|
D3C1
|
D3C2
|
D3C3
|
D3C1
|
D3C2
|
D3C3
|
D3C1
|
D3C2
|
D3C3
|
D3C1
|
D3C2
|
D3C3
|
|
Parameter |
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
BIOM-SSB
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
BIOM-SSB
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
BIOM-SSB
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
BIOM-SSB
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
BIOM-SSB
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
BIOM-SSB
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
BIOM-SSB
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
BIOM-SSB
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
BIOM-SSB
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
BIOM-SSB
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter other |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value upper |
0.64 |
45936.0 |
0.21 |
100271.0 |
0.55 |
3977.0 |
0.21 |
6616.0 |
0.9 |
1028.0 |
0.47 |
125318.0 |
0.48 |
9940.0 |
0.26 |
5263.0 |
0.51 |
6417.0 |
0.38 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value lower |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value source |
Common Fisheries Policy
|
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
|
Common Fisheries Policy
|
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
|
Common Fisheries Policy
|
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
|
Common Fisheries Policy
|
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
|
Common Fisheries Policy
|
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
|
Common Fisheries Policy
|
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
|
Common Fisheries Policy
|
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
|
Common Fisheries Policy
|
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
|
Common Fisheries Policy
|
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
|
Common Fisheries Policy
|
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value source other |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
1.43 |
57469.0 |
0.33 |
59335.0 |
0.2 |
18394.0 |
0.49 |
2119.0 |
0.43 |
1644.0 |
1.3 |
161294.0 |
0.39 |
6980.0 |
0.41 |
6567.0 |
0.99 |
3219.0 |
0.65 |
14071.0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value achieved lower |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value unit |
Other
|
tonne
|
Other
|
tonne
|
Other
|
tonne
|
Other
|
tonne
|
Other
|
tonne
|
Other
|
tonne
|
Other
|
tonne
|
Other
|
tonne
|
Other
|
tonne
|
Other
|
tonne
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value unit other |
Natural logarithm of the ratio individuals over time |
Natural logarithm of the ratio individuals over time |
Natural logarithm of the ratio individuals over time |
Natural logarithm of the ratio individuals over time |
Natural logarithm of the ratio individuals over time |
Natural logarithm of the ratio individuals over time |
Natural logarithm of the ratio individuals over time |
Natural logarithm of the ratio individuals over time |
Natural logarithm of the ratio individuals over time |
Natural logarithm of the ratio individuals over time |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion value achieved |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trend |
Deteriorating |
Unknown |
Deteriorating |
Deteriorating |
Improving |
Unknown |
Deteriorating |
Deteriorating |
Improving |
Unknown |
Deteriorating |
Deteriorating |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Improving |
Improving |
Unknown |
Improving |
Improving |
Improving |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter achieved |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
Not assessed |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Description parameter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria status |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Good |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Good |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
|
Description criteria |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element status |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not 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 |
Description element |
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C1, D3C2 e D3C3 not assessed. Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed. Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed. Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed. Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed. Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed. Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed. Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
D3C3 not assessed- Stock selected being included as main stock or associated stock in the National Management Plan for demersal resources, i.e. "Decreto Ministeriale 30 gennaio 2018 - Adozione dei Piani di gestione nazionale relativi alle flotte di pesca per la cattura delle risorse demersali nell'ambito delle GSA 9, GSA 10, GSA 11, GSA 16, GSA 17 e 18, GSA 19".
|
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
|
Integration rule description parameter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule type criteria |
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
TREE
|
Integration rule description criteria |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
To the purpose of this assessment we considered only D3C1 anbd D3C2 criteria, since methodologies for assessing D3C3 criteria are not yet consolidated at Mediterranean and suregional level. for GES assessement at stock level, the outcomes of assessments of criteria D3C1 and D3C2 were integrated: i) when both criteria provided a "good" status, the related stock was considered to be in "good" status; ii) when according to at least one criteria stock was assesed as being "no" good, the stock was reported to be in "no" good status; iii) when no criteria was available, or only one criteria was applied indicating the presence of a "good" status, status status was defined as being "unknown". GES was expressed as number (and percentage) of stocks that were in good status, no good status and unkonwn status. |
GES extent threshold |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent achieved |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
14.28 |
GES extent unit |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
Proportion of populations in good status |
GES achieved |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported |
Description overall status |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
As already known for the Mediterranean Sea, large share of the stocks assessed within each subregion is subject to unsustainable exploitation. In general, this condition is determined by excessive fishing mortality and, in some cases, inadequate spawning stock biomass. In addition, a high percentage of stocks (in particular in the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions) is not analytically assessed via stock assessment. In details, the Adriatic Sea is the subregion with the highest percentage of stocks within biological limits (14%); however, at the same time, it is the subregion presenting the highest percentage of stocks showing inadequate conditions (above 50% of stocks). In both the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregions 76% of stocks are not assessed. However, while in the first case of the remaining stocks the 7% are in good conditions and 17% are not in good status, in the in the Central Mediterranean and Ionian Sea subregion all the remaining stocks (24%) are not within safe biological limits. Analyses to assess the status of each single stock in relation to F and SSB were applied according to the approach used by UNEP-MAP, 2018 (i.e. 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report, 539pp.), updated utilizing the lastest stock assessment from GFCM and STECF. |
Assessments period |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|