The threshold value for fishing mortality has not been calculated due to a lack of adequate information on bycatch levels within the MRU. The threshold value of mortality due to fishing activities has not been calculated due to a lack of adequate information regarding the numerical abundance of bycatches. A limit value of anthropogenic mortality, considering the ecological requirements of the species and more generally of cetaceans, could be calculated by applying the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) to the best estimate of population abundance and after regional or sub-regional consultation. The parameters of the PBR formula, Recovery factor and Rmax, can be chosen based on the species IUCN conservation status (Lauriano et al., 2023). However, fishing activities are not considered a significant threat to the fin whale

The distribution and abundance data collected over the preceding six years provided only partial coverage of the MRU, consequently precluding the assessment of the parameter. A monitoring survey was conducted in the study area during autumn 2020 produced an estimate of 514 individuals (CV 0.33) in the Tyrrhenian sea and 293 (CV=0.44) in the west Pelagos where the species is concentrated for feeding activities in summer. Data from 2018 ACCOBAMS summer monitoring are181 individuals (CV 0.87) and 254 (CV=0.39), fro the two area, respectively. Nevertheless, It is not possible to define a threshold value of criterion D1C2 due to the lack of historical time series for the species and the absence of sub-regional coordination.

A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the habitat of the specie.

A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. In addition, biotic and abiotic elements might have been negatively influenced by human activities; hence the habitat of a given species might have degraded to the point of not being anymore suitable. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the habitat of the specie.

Elusive species with very low density, hence the data are insufficient to estimates a robust abundances

A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the habitat of the specie.

A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. In addition, biotic and abiotic elements might have been negatively influenced by human activities; hence the habitat of a given species might have degraded to the point of not being anymore suitable. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the habitat of the specie.

Elusive species with low density, hence the data are insufficient to estimates a robust abundances

A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the habitat of the specie.

A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. In addition, biotic and abiotic elements might have been negatively influenced by human activities; hence the habitat of a given species might have degraded to the point of not being anymore suitable. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the habitat of the specie.

The threshold value for fishing mortality has not been calculated due to a lack of adequate information on bycatch levels within the MRU. The value reported in the """"ValueAchievedUpper""""is referring to the italian stranding database and fishery related. A limit value of anthropogenic mortality, considering the ecological requirements of the species and more generally of cetaceans, could be calculated by applying the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) to the best estimate of population abundance and after regional or sub-regional consultation. The parameters of the PBR formula, Recovery factor and Rmax, can be chosen based on the species IUCN conservation status (Lauriano et al., 2023).

The Mediterranean subpopulation of sperm whales is assessed as Endangered according to criterion C2a(ii) (Pirotta et al., 2021). Historical time series are lacking, and population size estimates vary depending on the study methods used. The highest abundance estimate of 4600 individuals was produced by the ACCOBAMS summer survey using visual-acoustic surveys, but this value does not align with local information from photo-identification studies. Currently, the lack of certainty about population size and the absence of necessary regional coordination prevent the establishment of a threshold value. However, considering that the number of mature individuals is estimated to be less than 2550 and given the anthropogenic pressures at the regional level, non-natural mortality should be zero.

A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the habitat of the specie.

A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. In addition, biotic and abiotic elements might have been negatively influenced by human activities; hence the habitat of a given species might have degraded to the point of not being anymore suitable. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the habitat of the specie.

Elusive species with low density, hence the data are insufficient to estimates a robust abundances

A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the habitat of the specie.

A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. In addition, biotic and abiotic elements might have been negatively influenced by human activities; hence the habitat of a given species might have degraded to the point of not being anymore suitable. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the habitat of the specie.

The data reported in the """"ValueAchievedUpper""""is referring to the stranding report for the Ligurian Sea and all the Tyrrhenina Sea and fishery related. Nevertheless, a threshold value for fishing mortality has not been calculated due to a lack of adequate information on bycatch levels within the MRU. A limit value of anthropogenic mortality, considering the ecological requirements of the species and more generally of cetaceans, could be calculated by applying the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) to the best estimate of population abundance and after regional or sub-regional consultation. The parameters of the PBR formula, Recovery factor and Rmax, can be chosen based on the species IUCN conservation status (Lauriano et al., 2023).

The distribution and abundance data collected over the preceding six years provided only partial coverage of the MRU, consequently precluding the assessment of the parameter. A monitoring survey was conducted in the study area during autumn 2020 (N= 70960;CV=0.12). The data from summer 2018 ACCOBAMS survey over a sligh larger area were utilized for the evaluation (N=44.367). Nevertheless, data were insufficient to determine a threshold value and the lack of consensus among Member States at the sub-regional level and the absence of historical time series. A threshold value for criterion D1C2 could be estimated based on the species' IUCN conservation status and as indicated in the UNEP/MAP document (UNEP/MED WG514/inf.11). Species listed as Least Concern (LC), based on population size are in GES.

A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the habitat of the specie.

A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. In addition, biotic and abiotic elements might have been negatively influenced by human activities; hence the habitat of a given species might have degraded to the point of not being anymore suitable. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance). A range map is provided indicating the habitat of the species.

Similar to the approach for S. coeruleoalba, a threshold value for fishing mortality has not been calculated for the bottlenose dolphin due to a lack of adequate information on bycatch levels within the MRU. A limit reference point for anthropogenic mortality, considering the species' ecological requirements and those of cetaceans in general, can be calculated by applying the Potential Biological Removal (PBR) to the best estimate of population abundance, following regional or sub-regional consultation. The PBR formula parameters, Recovery factor and R max, can be selected based on the IUCN conservation status (Lauriano et al., 2023).

The distribution and abundance data collected over the preceding six years provided only partial coverage of the MRU, consequently precluding the assessment of the parameter. A monitoring survey conducted in autumn 2020 produced an estimate of 6195 individuals (CV=0.47). The 2018 ACCOBAMS summer monitoring data is considered for the evaluation (N=4.628). The abundance values for the species in the MRU is considered stable between 2018 and 2020 aerial surveys. Neverthelss, it is not possible set a limit reference point for population abundance due to the lack of historical time series for the species within the MRU. Available abundance estimates for the species exhibit high variability, influenced by factors such as study season and the methodology. A threshold value for D1C2 could be estimated based on the species' IUCN conservation status and as indicated in the UNEP/MAP document (UNEP/MED WG514/inf.11). Species listed as Least Concern (LC), based on population size are in GES.

A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance).

A standardized method for quantifying threshold values for criteria D1C4 and D1C5, which are closely correlated, is currently unavailable. Furthermore, habitats, characterized by biotic and abiotic elements essential for the species' life cycle, are dynamic and subject to changes influenced by fluctuations in abiotic factors. In addition, biotic and abiotic elements might have been negatively influenced by human activities; hence the habitat of a given species might have degraded to the point of not being anymore suitable. For the qualitative assessment of the criterion, the distribution parameter was considered using distribution maps obtained from MSFD monitoring activities and research conducted before 2016 during the previous reporting cycle, applying the Habitat Directive's range tool. In this regard, Directive 2017/848 references the Habitat Directive for range delineation using an algorithm (range tool) (http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/App/RangeTool/) that generates a polygon based on species occurrence data. However, the application of this method yields imprecise results due to its dependence on the extent of surveyed areas, sampling effort, and the arbitrary selection of a threshold distance beyond which species occurrences are excluded from the polygon (gap distance).