Member State report / Art8-2024 / 2024 / D8 / Italy / Mediterranean: Adriatic Sea
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art8 |
| Report due | 2024-10-15 |
| GES Descriptor | D8 Contaminants |
| Member State | Italy |
| Region/subregion | Mediterranean: Adriatic Sea |
| Report date | 2025-09-11 10:38:38 |
MAD-IT-MS-AS
Regional assessment area |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES component |
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
D8
|
Feature |
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
Contaminants - UPBT substances
|
PresEnvAdvEffectsSppHab
|
PresEnvAdvEffectsSppHab
|
PresEnvAdvEffectsSppHab
|
PresEnvAdvEffectsSppHab
|
Acute pollution events
|
Element |
BTEX |
Dioxins and Furans |
Dioxins and Furans |
HOCs |
HOCs |
HOCs |
HOCs |
HOCs |
HOCs |
HOCs |
Metals |
Metals |
Metals |
Metals |
Metals |
Metals |
Metals |
Organotin |
Organotin |
PAH |
PAH |
PAH |
PAH |
PAH |
PAH |
PAH |
PAH |
PAH |
PAH |
PAH |
PAH |
PAH |
PAH |
PBDE |
PFOS |
PFOS |
Pesticides |
Phenols |
Phthalates |
Mullus barbatus |
Mullus barbatus |
Mullus barbatus |
Mullus barbatus |
|
Element extent |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trend element |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
|
Element 2 |
Crustaceans
|
Mollusks
|
Demersal fish
|
Demersal fish
|
Crustaceans
|
Mollusks
|
Demersal fish
|
Demersal fish
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element source |
UNEP/MAP |
UNEP/MAP |
UNEP/MAP |
UNEP/MAP |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criterion |
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C1
|
D8C2
|
D8C2
|
D8C2
|
D8C2
|
D8C3
|
Parameter |
Concentration in water
|
CONC-B-Other
|
CONC-B-Other
|
CONC-B-Muscle
|
CONC-S-2000
|
Concentration in water
|
CONC-B-Muscle
|
CONC-S-2000
|
Concentration in water
|
CONC-B-Muscle
|
CONC-B-Muscle
|
CONC-S-2000
|
Concentration in water
|
CONC-B-Muscle
|
CONC-S-2000
|
Concentration in water
|
CONC-B-Muscle
|
CONC-S-2000
|
Concentration in water
|
CONC-B-Other
|
CONC-B-Other
|
CONC-S-2000
|
Concentration in water
|
CONC-B-Other
|
CONC-B-Other
|
CONC-S-2000
|
Concentration in water
|
CONC-B-Other
|
CONC-B-Other
|
CONC-S-2000
|
Concentration in water
|
CONC-B-Other
|
CONC-B-Other
|
CONC-B-Muscle
|
CONC-B-Muscle
|
CONC-B-Muscle
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
Concentration in water
|
AChE-brain
|
EROD-micr
|
LMS-ESO
|
MN-blood
|
Mass
|
Threshold value upper |
67.4 |
81.11 |
22.31 |
0.79 |
50.0 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value lower |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value operator |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
<= |
>= |
<= |
>= |
<= |
< |
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value 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
|
International Maritime Organisation (MARPOL, Ballast Water Convention, Antifouling Convention)
|
Value achieved upper |
-1.02923076923077 |
-0.843692307692308 |
175.476923076923 |
46.4412628981173 |
-0.088 |
175.476923076923 |
46.4412628981173 |
-0.088 |
175.476923076923 |
24.06 |
33.6 |
5.37307692307692 |
24.06 |
33.6 |
5.37307692307692 |
24.06 |
59.8656 |
80.4 |
-0.345033333333333 |
-0.282333333333333 |
758.85 |
-0.352941176470588 |
-0.345033333333333 |
-0.282333333333333 |
758.85 |
-0.352941176470588 |
-0.345033333333333 |
-0.282333333333333 |
758.85 |
-0.352941176470588 |
-0.345033333333333 |
-0.282333333333333 |
42.9317647058824 |
-0.892747252747253 |
-0.892747252747253 |
-0.77 |
6.46153846153846 |
161.99 |
173.55 |
40.0 |
7.0 |
|||
Value achieved lower |
-1.19298461538462 |
-1.19896615384615 |
-1.18483171973419 |
-1.09945 |
-1.08166666666667 |
-1.18483171973419 |
-1.09945 |
-1.08166666666667 |
-1.18483171973419 |
-1.14 |
-0.724 |
-1.09576923076923 |
-1.14 |
-0.724 |
-1.09576923076923 |
-1.14 |
-1.19988 |
-1.14 |
-1.09706666666667 |
-1.188 |
-1.09998428571429 |
-1.098625 |
-1.09706666666667 |
-1.188 |
-1.09998428571429 |
-1.098625 |
-1.09706666666667 |
-1.188 |
-1.09998428571429 |
-1.098625 |
-1.09706666666667 |
-1.188 |
-0.225882352941177 |
-1.19340659340659 |
-1.19340659340659 |
-1.0725 |
-1.09725 |
-1.19538461538462 |
56.38 |
10.75 |
10.0 |
|||
Value unit |
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
Adimensional
|
nmol/min/mg protein
|
pmol/min/mg protein
|
min
|
‰
|
tonne
|
Proportion threshold value |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
60.0 |
|
Proportion value achieved |
100.0 |
78.6 |
89.3 |
78.6 |
89.3 |
78.6 |
7.7 |
66.7 |
7.7 |
66.7 |
7.7 |
97.2 |
100.0 |
94.7 |
100.0 |
94.7 |
100.0 |
94.7 |
100.0 |
16.6666666666667 |
11.1111111111111 |
16.67 |
5.55555555555556 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
% area of MRU achieving threshold value |
|
Trend parameter |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Improving |
Parameter achieved |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Unknown |
Yes |
Yes |
Unknown |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Unknown |
No |
Yes |
Unknown |
No |
Yes |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes |
Yes |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes |
Yes |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes |
Yes |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes |
Description parameter |
The element “BTEX” for the water matrix includes Benzene, Toluene, Xilene, 3-Clorotoluene, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for BTEX in the AS water is 35,1%, which is not sufficent to evaluate GES for this element. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
An index for """"Dioxins and furans"""" (PCDD+PCDF+DL-PCB) in mollusks and crustaceans was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The AS MRU area covered by data for Dioxins and furans in crustaceans is 22%, which is not sufficient to assess GES. However, 100% of the investigated area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
An index for """"Dioxins and furans"""" (PCDD+PCDF+DL-PCB) in mollusks and crustaceans was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data in AS mollusks is 54% and the 100% of the assessed area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “HOCs” for demersal fish includes Total DDT, Dicofol, Hexabromocyclododecanes, HCB, HCBD, Heptachlor and PCDD+PDCF+DL-PCB sum, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for HOCs in AS demersal fish is 77,8% and 78,6% of the assessed area is in good state. Poor+bad state is 0% of the assessed area, so this element is considered to be in GES. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “HOCs” for the sediment matrix includes Aldrin, Dieldrin, α-HCH, β-HCH, γ-HCH, DDD, DDE, DDT, HCB, total PCBs, PCDD+PDCF+DL-PCB sum, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for HOCs in the AS MRU is 86.2% and the 89,3% of the assessed area is in good state. Poor+bad state is 0% of the assessed area, so this element is considered to be in GES. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “HOCs” for the water matrix includes Trichloromethane, Dichloroethane_1_2, Dichloromethane, Alachlor, Cyclodienes ('drins sum), Atrazine, HCH, p_p_DDT, total DDT, Trichlorobenzene, Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, Pentachlorobenzene, C10_13_Chloroalkanes, Heptachlor, Simazine, Carbon_tetrachloride, Hexachlorobenzene, Hexachlorobutadiene, Chlorobenzene, Trichloroethane_1_1_1, Dichlorobenzene_1_2, Dichlorobenzene_1_3, Dichlorobenzene_1_4, Chlorotoluene_2, Chlorotoluene_4, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for HOCs in the AS water is 35,1%, which is not sufficent to evaluate GES for this element. However, 100% of the assessed area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “HOCs” for demersal fish includes Total DDT, Dicofol, Hexabromocyclododecanes, HCB, HCBD, Heptachlor and PCDD+PDCF+DL-PCB sum, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for HOCs in AS demersal fish is 77,8% and 78,6% of the assessed area is in good state. Poor+bad state is 0% of the assessed area, so this element is considered to be in GES. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “HOCs” for the sediment matrix includes Aldrin, Dieldrin, α-HCH, β-HCH, γ-HCH, DDD, DDE, DDT, HCB, total PCBs, PCDD+PDCF+DL-PCB sum, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for HOCs in the AS MRU is 86.2% and the 89,3% of the assessed area is in good state. Poor+bad state is 0% of the assessed area, so this element is considered to be in GES. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “HOCs” for the water matrix includes Trichloromethane, Dichloroethane_1_2, Dichloromethane, Alachlor, Cyclodienes ('drins sum), Atrazine, HCH, p_p_DDT, total DDT, Trichlorobenzene, Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, Pentachlorobenzene, C10_13_Chloroalkanes, Heptachlor, Simazine, Carbon_tetrachloride, Hexachlorobenzene, Hexachlorobutadiene, Chlorobenzene, Trichloroethane_1_1_1, Dichlorobenzene_1_2, Dichlorobenzene_1_3, Dichlorobenzene_1_4, Chlorotoluene_2, Chlorotoluene_4, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for HOCs in the AS water is 35,1%, which is not sufficent to evaluate GES for this element. However, 100% of the assessed area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “HOCs” for demersal fish includes Total DDT, Dicofol, Hexabromocyclododecanes, HCB, HCBD, Heptachlor and PCDD+PDCF+DL-PCB sum, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for HOCs in AS demersal fish is 77,8% and 78,6% of the assessed area is in good state. Poor+bad state is 0% of the assessed area, so this element is considered to be in GES. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “metals” for demersal fish corresponds to Hg, for which an EQS is set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for metals in AS demersal fish is 77,8%. Only 7,1% of the assessed area is in good state, so the MRU is not in GES concerning metals in demersal fish. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “metals” for the sediment matrix includes As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Cr (IV), for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for metals in the AS MRU is 86.2% and the 66,7% of the assessed area is in good state. Poor+bad state is 2,7% of the assessed area, so this element is considered to be in GES. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “metals” for the water matrix includes As, Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for metals in the AS water is 35,1%, which is not sufficent to evaluate GES for this element. However, 81,8% of the assessed area is in good state and poor+bad state is 3% of the assessed area. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “metals” for demersal fish corresponds to Hg, for which an EQS is set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for metals in AS demersal fish is 77,8%. Only 7,1% of the assessed area is in good state, so the MRU is not in GES concerning metals in demersal fish. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “metals” for the sediment matrix includes As, Cd, Cr, Pb, Hg, Cr (IV), for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for metals in the AS MRU is 86.2% and the 66,7% of the assessed area is in good state. Poor+bad state is 2,7% of the assessed area, so this element is considered to be in GES. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “metals” for the water matrix includes As, Cd, Cr, Ni, Pb, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for metals in the AS water is 35,1%, which is not sufficent to evaluate GES for this element. However, 81,8% of the assessed area is in good state and poor+bad state is 3% of the assessed area. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “metals” for demersal fish corresponds to Hg, for which an EQS is set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for metals in AS demersal fish is 77,8%. Only 7,1% of the assessed area is in good state, so the MRU is not in GES concerning metals in demersal fish. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “ORGANOTIN” for the sediment matrix corresponds to the Tributyltin cation, for which EQS is set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for ORGANOTIN in the AS MRU is 82.8% and the 97,2% of the assessed area is in good state. Poor+bad state is 0% of the assessed area, so this element is considered to be in GES. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “ORGANOTIN” for the water matrix corresponds to the Tributyltin cation, for which EQS is set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for organotin in the AS water is 24,5%, which is not sufficent to evaluate GES for this element. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PAH” for molluscks and crustaceans includes Benzo(a)pyrene and Fluoranthene, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The AS MRU area covered by data for PAHs in crustaceans is 28%, which is not sufficient to assess GES. However, 100% of the investigated area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PAH” for molluscks and crustaceans includes Benzo(a)pyrene and Fluoranthene, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area.The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data in AS mollusks is 54% and the 100% of the assessed area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PAH” for the sediment matrix includes Anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Benzo(ghi)perylene, Indeno(123-cd)pyrene, Naphtalene, Fluoranthene, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for PAH in the AS MRU is 86.2% and the 94,7% of the assessed area is in good state. Poor+bad state is 2,7% of the assessed area, so this element is considered to be in GES. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PAH” for the water matrix includes Anthracene, Benzo_a_pyrene, Fluoranthene, Naphtalene, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for PAH in the AS water is 35,1%, which is not sufficent to evaluate GES for this element. However, 100% of the assessed area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PAH” for molluscks and crustaceans includes Benzo(a)pyrene and Fluoranthene, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The AS MRU area covered by data for PAHs in crustaceans is 28%, which is not sufficient to assess GES. However, 100% of the investigated area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PAH” for molluscks and crustaceans includes Benzo(a)pyrene and Fluoranthene, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area.The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data in AS mollusks is 54% and the 100% of the assessed area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PAH” for the sediment matrix includes Anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Benzo(ghi)perylene, Indeno(123-cd)pyrene, Naphtalene, Fluoranthene, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for PAH in the AS MRU is 86.2% and the 94,7% of the assessed area is in good state. Poor+bad state is 2,7% of the assessed area, so this element is considered to be in GES. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PAH” for the water matrix includes Anthracene, Benzo_a_pyrene, Fluoranthene, Naphtalene, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for PAH in the AS water is 35,1%, which is not sufficent to evaluate GES for this element. However, 100% of the assessed area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PAH” for molluscks and crustaceans includes Benzo(a)pyrene and Fluoranthene, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The AS MRU area covered by data for PAHs in crustaceans is 28%, which is not sufficient to assess GES. However, 100% of the investigated area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PAH” for molluscks and crustaceans includes Benzo(a)pyrene and Fluoranthene, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area.The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data in AS mollusks is 54% and the 100% of the assessed area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PAH” for the sediment matrix includes Anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Benzo(ghi)perylene, Indeno(123-cd)pyrene, Naphtalene, Fluoranthene, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for PAH in the AS MRU is 86.2% and the 94,7% of the assessed area is in good state. Poor+bad state is 2,7% of the assessed area, so this element is considered to be in GES. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PAH” for the water matrix includes Anthracene, Benzo_a_pyrene, Fluoranthene, Naphtalene, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for PAH in the AS water is 35,1%, which is not sufficent to evaluate GES for this element. However, 100% of the assessed area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PAH” for molluscks and crustaceans includes Benzo(a)pyrene and Fluoranthene, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The AS MRU area covered by data for PAHs in crustaceans is 28%, which is not sufficient to assess GES. However, 100% of the investigated area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PAH” for molluscks and crustaceans includes Benzo(a)pyrene and Fluoranthene, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area.The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data in AS mollusks is 54% and the 100% of the assessed area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PBDE” for demersal fish corresponds the sum of BDE-28, BDE-47, BDE-99, BDE-100, BDE-153, BDE-154. For this sum an EQS is set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area.The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for PBDE in the AS demersal fish is 16,7%, which is not sufficent to evaluate GES for this element. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
An index for PFOS in fish was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for PFOS in AS demersal fish is 33,3%, which is not sufficent to evaluate GES for this element. However, 100% of the assessed area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
An index for PFOS in fish was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for PFOS in AS demersal fish is 33,3%, which is not sufficent to evaluate GES for this element. However, 100% of the assessed area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PESTICIDES” for the water matrix includes Chlorfenvinphos, Chlorpyriphos, Diuron, Isoproturon, Endosulfan, Trifluralin, Dicofol, Quinoxyfen, aclonifen, bifenox, cybutryne, Cypermethrin, terbutryn, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for pesticides in the AS water is 35,1%, which is not sufficent to evaluate GES for this element. However, 82% of the assessed area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PHENOLS” for the water matrix includes Pentachlorophenol, Nonylphenol_4, Octylphenol, for which EQS are set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS of each contaminant. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for phenols in the AS water is 28,7%, which is not sufficent to evaluate GES for this element. However, 100% of the assessed area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
The element “PHTHALATES” for the water matrix corresponds to the Di(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate (DEHP), for which EQS is set by Dir 2013/39/UE and D.lgs 172/2015. An index for the element was calculated based on the differences between concentration and EQS. The value 0 of this index was taken as threshold for GES evaluation. In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of total MRU area. The element index is integrated over the MRU area and the MRU is considered to be in GES for the element if two conditions are fulfilled: 60% of the assessed area has an index classified as good, while, at the same time, no more than 25% of the assessed area is not in a good state. The MRU area covered by data for phthalates in the AS water is 28,7%, which is not sufficent to evaluate GES for this element. However, 100% of the assessed area is in good state. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
Areas with depths exceeding 500 m have been excluded in the calculation of the percentage assessable MRU areas, because Mullus barbatus (corresponding to the """"Element"""") cannot be found in those deeper regions (in accordance with relevant scientific literature). Therefore, the """"Proportion Threshold Value"""" and the """"ProportionValueAchieved"""" are referred only to the """"sampleable area"""" of the MRU (and not to the entire MRU), corresponding to the area within 500 m of depth. The sampleable area considered for D8C2 is 100% of the MRU area for AS, 41% for ISCMS and 56% for WMS.
In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of the MRU sampleable area.
The """"ParameterAchieved"""" is """"Unknown"""", because the sampled area is less than 50% of MRU sampleable area.
The """"TrendParameter"""" is set as """"Unknown"""", because D8C2 was not assessed in the previous 6-years reporting period. |
Areas with depths exceeding 500 m have been excluded in the calculation of the percentage assessable MRU areas, because Mullus barbatus (corresponding to the """"Element"""") cannot be found in those deeper regions (in accordance with relevant scientific literature). Therefore, the """"Proportion Threshold Value"""" and the """"ProportionValueAchieved"""" are referred only to the """"sampleable area"""" of the MRU (and not to the entire MRU), corresponding to the area within 500 m of depth. The sampleable area considered for D8C2 is 100% of the MRU area for AS, 41% for ISCMS and 56% for WMS.
In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of the MRU sampleable area.
The """"ParameterAchieved"""" is """"Unknown"""", because the sampled area is less than 50% of MRU sampleable area.
The """"TrendParameter"""" is set as """"Unknown"""", because D8C2 was not assessed in the previous 6-years reporting period. |
Areas with depths exceeding 500 m have been excluded in the calculation of the percentage assessable MRU areas, because Mullus barbatus (corresponding to the """"Element"""") cannot be found in those deeper regions (in accordance with relevant scientific literature). Therefore, the """"Proportion Threshold Value"""" and the """"ProportionValueAchieved"""" are referred only to the """"sampleable area"""" of the MRU (and not to the entire MRU), corresponding to the area within 500 m of depth. The sampleable area considered for D8C2 is 100% of the MRU area for AS, 41% for ISCMS and 56% for WMS.
In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of the MRU sampleable area.
The """"ParameterAchieved"""" is """"Unknown"""", because the sampled area is less than 50% of MRU sampleable area.
The """"TrendParameter"""" is set as """"Unknown"""", because D8C2 was not assessed in the previous 6-years reporting period. |
Areas with depths exceeding 500 m have been excluded in the calculation of the percentage assessable MRU areas, because Mullus barbatus (corresponding to the """"Element"""") cannot be found in those deeper regions (in accordance with relevant scientific literature). Therefore, the """"Proportion Threshold Value"""" and the """"ProportionValueAchieved"""" are referred only to the """"sampleable area"""" of the MRU (and not to the entire MRU), corresponding to the area within 500 m of depth. The sampleable area considered for D8C2 is 100% of the MRU area for AS, 41% for ISCMS and 56% for WMS.
In order to assess GES, the MRU area covered by data should be at least 50% of the MRU sampleable area.
The """"ParameterAchieved"""" is """"Unknown"""", because the sampled area is less than 50% of MRU sampleable area.
The """"TrendParameter"""" is set as """"Unknown"""", because D8C2 was not assessed in the previous 6-years reporting period. |
The Annual Summary Report of Incidental Spillages, prepared pursuant to the IMO MEPC/Circ.318 circular of June 26, 1996, in reference to Article 11 of Protocol I and Article 12 MARPOL 73/78, reports one Acute Pollution Event in 2018 exceeding 50 tons. However, this event occurred outside of the Marine Reporting Units (MRUs) and is therefore not considered for MSFD Reporting purposes. |
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criteria status |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Good |
Description criteria |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the criteria status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the criteria status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is more than 50%, and all the assessed area is in a good state. Therefore, the status is not good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For HOCs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For HOCs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For HOCs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
The MRU area covered by data is wide (equal to 77,8%) and 78,6% of the assessed area is in good state. Therefore, the status is good. |
The MRU area covered by data is wide (equal to 77,8%) and 78,6% of the assessed area is in good state. Therefore, the status is good. |
The MRU area covered by data is wide (equal to 77,8%) and 78,6% of the assessed area is in good state. Therefore, the status is good. |
The MRU area covered by data is wide (equal to 77,8%) and 78,6% of the assessed area is in good state. Therefore, the status is good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For metals in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For metals in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For metals in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
The MRU area covered by data is wide (equal to 77,8%), however less than 60% of the assessed area is in a good state. Therefore, the status is not good. |
The MRU area covered by data is wide (equal to 77,8%), however less than 60% of the assessed area is in a good state. Therefore, the status is not good. |
The MRU area covered by data is wide (equal to 77,8%), however less than 60% of the assessed area is in a good state. Therefore, the status is not good. |
The MRU area covered by data is wide (equal to 77,8%), however less than 60% of the assessed area is in a good state. Therefore, the status is not good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For organotin in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For organotin in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
The MRU area covered by data is more than 50%, and all the assessed area is in a good state. Therefore, the status is not good. |
The MRU area covered by data is more than 50%, and all the assessed area is in a good state. Therefore, the status is not good. |
The MRU area covered by data is more than 50%, and all the assessed area is in a good state. Therefore, the status is not good. |
The MRU area covered by data is more than 50%, and all the assessed area is in a good state. Therefore, the status is not good. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the criteria status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the criteria status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the criteria status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the criteria status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the criteria status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is more than 50%, and all the assessed area is in a good state. Therefore, the status is not good. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the criteria status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the criteria status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the criteria status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the criteria status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the criteria status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the criteria status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The CriteriaStatus value is set as """"unknown"""", because the minimum assessment area (50% of the sampleable MRU area) was not achieved |
The CriteriaStatus value is set as """"unknown"""", because the minimum assessment area (50% of the sampleable MRU area) was not achieved |
The CriteriaStatus value is set as """"unknown"""", because the minimum assessment area (50% of the sampleable MRU area) was not achieved |
The CriteriaStatus value is set as """"unknown"""", because the minimum assessment area (50% of the sampleable MRU area) was not achieved |
|
Element status |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Not good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Good |
Unknown |
Good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
|
Description element |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the element status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the element status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
Good
|
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For HOCs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For HOCs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For HOCs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For HOCs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For HOCs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For HOCs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
The MRU area covered by data is wide (equal to 77,8%) and 78,6% of the assessed area is in good state. Therefore, the status is good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For metals in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For metals in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For metals in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For metals in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For metals in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For metals in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
The MRU area covered by data is wide (equal to 77,8%), however less than 60% of the assessed area is in a good state. Therefore, the status is not good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For organotin in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For organotin in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
In order to integrate evaluation results between water and sediment matrix, sediment was considered as the predominant matrix in determining the environmental status. Water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. For PAHs in the AS MRU, water quality status is """"unknown"""" due to the low spatial coverage of data (even if collected data show a good quality). On the other hand, sediment status is good. Therefore, the status can be considered as good. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the element status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
Good
|
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the element status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the element status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the element status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the element status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the element status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The MRU area covered by data is less than 50% of total MRU area. Therefore, the element status across the MRU cannot be assessed. |
The ElementStatus is set as """"Unknown"""", because the minimum assessment area (50% of the sampleable MRU area) was not achieved.
The TrendElement is set as """"Unknown"""", because the criteria D8C2 was not assessed in the previous 6-years reporting period. |
The ElementStatus is set as """"Unknown"""", because the minimum assessment area (50% of the sampleable MRU area) was not achieved.
The TrendElement is set as """"Unknown"""", because the criteria D8C2 was not assessed in the previous 6-years reporting period. |
The ElementStatus is set as """"Unknown"""", because the minimum assessment area (50% of the sampleable MRU area) was not achieved.
The TrendElement is set as """"Unknown"""", because the criteria D8C2 was not assessed in the previous 6-years reporting period. |
The ElementStatus is set as """"Unknown"""", because the minimum assessment area (50% of the sampleable MRU area) was not achieved.
The TrendElement is set as """"Unknown"""", because the criteria D8C2 was not assessed in the previous 6-years reporting period. |
|
Source assessment feature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting method feature |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Trend feature |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Improving |
Integration rule type parameter |
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
MULTIMETRIC
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description parameter |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The integration between water and sediment matrix was done considering sediment as the predominant matrix in determination of the environmental status assessment. Indeed, water is not a conservative matrix and therefore it is less useful to assess the marine environmental status. |
The Categorized Biological Effect Index (CBEI) is an integrative weighted index, developed at national level. It synthetizes data from multiple levels of biological responses, with the goal of deriving a single index that reflects the overall biological effects of environmental contaminants on the target species. The CBEI is based on comparing, for each biomarker, the measured values to their respective national threshold values (IT-BAC). The index takes also into account the magnitude of the difference between meaured and threshold values, as well as the """"weight"""" that each biological response (biomarker) has in defining the overall health status of the species. The output of CBEI is expressed by four categories: GOOD, MODERATE, POOR and BAD, according to the health status measured in the target species. |
The Categorized Biological Effect Index (CBEI) is an integrative weighted index, developed at national level. It synthetizes data from multiple levels of biological responses, with the goal of deriving a single index that reflects the overall biological effects of environmental contaminants on the target species. The CBEI is based on comparing, for each biomarker, the measured values to their respective national threshold values (IT-BAC). The index takes also into account the magnitude of the difference between meaured and threshold values, as well as the """"weight"""" that each biological response (biomarker) has in defining the overall health status of the species. The output of CBEI is expressed by four categories: GOOD, MODERATE, POOR and BAD, according to the health status measured in the target species. |
The Categorized Biological Effect Index (CBEI) is an integrative weighted index, developed at national level. It synthetizes data from multiple levels of biological responses, with the goal of deriving a single index that reflects the overall biological effects of environmental contaminants on the target species. The CBEI is based on comparing, for each biomarker, the measured values to their respective national threshold values (IT-BAC). The index takes also into account the magnitude of the difference between meaured and threshold values, as well as the """"weight"""" that each biological response (biomarker) has in defining the overall health status of the species. The output of CBEI is expressed by four categories: GOOD, MODERATE, POOR and BAD, according to the health status measured in the target species. |
The Categorized Biological Effect Index (CBEI) is an integrative weighted index, developed at national level. It synthetizes data from multiple levels of biological responses, with the goal of deriving a single index that reflects the overall biological effects of environmental contaminants on the target species. The CBEI is based on comparing, for each biomarker, the measured values to their respective national threshold values (IT-BAC). The index takes also into account the magnitude of the difference between meaured and threshold values, as well as the """"weight"""" that each biological response (biomarker) has in defining the overall health status of the species. The output of CBEI is expressed by four categories: GOOD, MODERATE, POOR and BAD, according to the health status measured in the target species. |
|
Integration rule type criteria |
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Not relevant
|
Integration rule description criteria |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent threshold |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
80.00 |
|||||
GES extent achieved |
0.33 |
0.33 |
0.33 |
0.33 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent unit |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Proportion of substances in good status |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
Not relevant |
|
GES achieved |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
GES achieved by 2018 |
Description overall status |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
In order to assess GES for the feature, at least 80% of the elements should have an assessable status (i.e. at least 80% of the elements should have a spatial coverage ≥50% of total MRU area). If this condition is fulfilled, the feature is considered to be in good status if at least 80% of the elements are in good status. In the AS MRU, the elements with sufficient spatial coverage are less than 80% of all elements. Therefore, the feature status cannot be assessed. Trend in status is """"unknown"""" because data collected in the present and previous 6-years reporting period did not achieve a sufficient spatial coverage (MRU investigated area <50% of total MRU area). |
Although the Assessment period is 2016-2021, only data relating to the 2019-2021 period are available and usable for the assessment.
The """"GESextentThresholdValue"""" refers to the percentage of sampleable MRU area that must achieve the GES value.
The """"GESextentAchieved"""" value refers to percentage of area achieving GES respect to the MRU area covered by data. The assessment is expressed only if the MRU area covered by data is at least 50% of the MRU sampleable area. However, for MAD-IT-MS-AS MRU the area covered by data is equal to 17% of the sampleable MRU area.
The """"TrendFeature"""" is set as """"unknown"""" because D8C2 was not assessed in the previous 6-years reporting period.
The """"GESachievedDate"""" is """"unknown"""" because the minimum assessment area (50% of the sampleable MRU area) was not achieved. |
Although the Assessment period is 2016-2021, only data relating to the 2019-2021 period are available and usable for the assessment.
The """"GESextentThresholdValue"""" refers to the percentage of sampleable MRU area that must achieve the GES value.
The """"GESextentAchieved"""" value refers to percentage of area achieving GES respect to the MRU area covered by data. The assessment is expressed only if the MRU area covered by data is at least 50% of the MRU sampleable area. However, for MAD-IT-MS-AS MRU the area covered by data is equal to 17% of the sampleable MRU area.
The """"TrendFeature"""" is set as """"unknown"""" because D8C2 was not assessed in the previous 6-years reporting period.
The """"GESachievedDate"""" is """"unknown"""" because the minimum assessment area (50% of the sampleable MRU area) was not achieved. |
Although the Assessment period is 2016-2021, only data relating to the 2019-2021 period are available and usable for the assessment.
The """"GESextentThresholdValue"""" refers to the percentage of sampleable MRU area that must achieve the GES value.
The """"GESextentAchieved"""" value refers to percentage of area achieving GES respect to the MRU area covered by data. The assessment is expressed only if the MRU area covered by data is at least 50% of the MRU sampleable area. However, for MAD-IT-MS-AS MRU the area covered by data is equal to 17% of the sampleable MRU area.
The """"TrendFeature"""" is set as """"unknown"""" because D8C2 was not assessed in the previous 6-years reporting period.
The """"GESachievedDate"""" is """"unknown"""" because the minimum assessment area (50% of the sampleable MRU area) was not achieved. |
Although the Assessment period is 2016-2021, only data relating to the 2019-2021 period are available and usable for the assessment.
The """"GESextentThresholdValue"""" refers to the percentage of sampleable MRU area that must achieve the GES value.
The """"GESextentAchieved"""" value refers to percentage of area achieving GES respect to the MRU area covered by data. The assessment is expressed only if the MRU area covered by data is at least 50% of the MRU sampleable area. However, for MAD-IT-MS-AS MRU the area covered by data is equal to 17% of the sampleable MRU area.
The """"TrendFeature"""" is set as """"unknown"""" because D8C2 was not assessed in the previous 6-years reporting period.
The """"GESachievedDate"""" is """"unknown"""" because the minimum assessment area (50% of the sampleable MRU area) was not achieved. |
|
Assessments period |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test TV |
NA |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
Yes |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
Test results |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
False |
False |
False |
False |
False |
False |
Correct |
False |
False |
Correct |
False |
False |
Correct |
False |
False |
False |
Correct |
False |
False |
False |
Correct |
False |
False |
False |
Correct |
False |
False |
False |
Correct |
False |
False |
False |
False |
False |
False |
False |
False |
False |
False |
Correct |