MS/Art8/2018/D1-F/Malta/Mediterranean: Ionian Sea & Central Mediterranean Sea

Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D1-F / Malta / Mediterranean: Ionian Sea & Central Mediterranean Sea

Report type	Member State report to Commission
MSFD Article	Art. 8 Initial assessment (and Art. 17 updates)
Report due	2018-10-15
GES Descriptor	D1 Fish
Member State	Malta
Region/subregion	Mediterranean: Ionian Sea & Central Mediterranean Sea
Reported by	Environment and Resources Authority
Report date	2020-04-16
Report access	ART8_GES.xml

Fisheries Management Zone (MIC-MT-MS-01)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F	D1-F
Feature	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish	Demersal shelf fish
Element	Centrophorus granulosus	Centrophorus granulosus	Centrophorus granulosus	Centrophorus granulosus	Chimaera monstrosa	Chimaera monstrosa	Chimaera monstrosa	Chimaera monstrosa	Coelorinchus caelorhincus	Coelorinchus caelorhincus	Coelorinchus caelorhincus	Coelorinchus caelorhincus	Dasyatis pastinaca	Dasyatis pastinaca	Dasyatis pastinaca	Dasyatis pastinaca	Etmopterus spinax	Etmopterus spinax	Etmopterus spinax	Etmopterus spinax	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Galeus melastomus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Helicolenus dactylopterus	Heptranchias perlo	Heptranchias perlo	Heptranchias perlo	Heptranchias perlo	Hexanchus griseus	Hexanchus griseus	Hexanchus griseus	Hexanchus griseus	Hymenocephalus italicus	Hymenocephalus italicus	Hymenocephalus italicus	Hymenocephalus italicus	Myliobatis aquila	Myliobatis aquila	Myliobatis aquila	Myliobatis aquila	Nezumia sclerorhynchus	Nezumia sclerorhynchus	Nezumia sclerorhynchus	Nezumia sclerorhynchus
Element code	105899	105899	105899	105899	105824	105824	105824	105824	398381	398381	398381	398381	105851	105851	105851	105851	105913	105913	105913	105913	105812	105812	105812	105812	127251	127251	127251	127251	105832	105832	105832	105832	105833	105833	105833	105833	158961	158961	158961	158961	105860	105860	105860	105860	126475	126475	126475	126475
Element code source	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP	CFP
Criterion	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4
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	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other
Parameter other	Discards	Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution
Threshold value upper
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative	Declining trend in discards of non-commercially exploited species	Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species	Stable or increased in biomass distribution	Declining trend in discards of non-commercially exploited species	Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species	Stable or increased in biomass distribution	Declining trend in discards of non-commercially exploited species	Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species	Stable or increased in biomass distribution	Declining trend in discards of non-commercially exploited species	Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species	Stable or increased in biomass distribution	Declining trend in discards of non-commercially exploited species	Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species	Stable or increased in biomass distribution	Declining trend in discards of non-commercially exploited species	Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species	Stable or increased in biomass distribution	Declining trend in discards of non-commercially exploited species	Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species	Stable or increased in biomass distribution	Declining trend in discards of non-commercially exploited species	Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species	Stable or increased in biomass distribution	Declining trend in discards of non-commercially exploited species	Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species	Stable or increased in biomass distribution	Declining trend in discards of non-commercially exploited species	Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species	Stable or increased in biomass distribution	Declining trend in discards of non-commercially exploited species	Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species	Stable or increased in biomass distribution	Declining trend in discards of non-commercially exploited species	Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species	Stable or increased in biomass distribution
Threshold value source
Threshold value source other
Value achieved upper
Value achieved lower
Value unit
Value unit other
Proportion threshold value	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Proportion value achieved						2.0	2.0								1.0							2.0	2.0			2.0												1.0				2.0	1.0			2.0
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend	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	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Parameter achieved	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Yes	Not assessed	Yes	Yes	Yes	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	No	Not assessed	No	Unknown	No	Not assessed	No	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Yes	Yes	No	Not assessed	Yes	No	No	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	No	Not assessed	No	Not assessed	Yes	No	Not assessed	Not assessed	Yes	Not assessed	Yes
Description parameter				If the biomass distribution of the species was constant throughout the analysed period, or the species increased its distributional range and biomass within the last three years, this was considered indicative of GES.		If two or more of the recent years were above the long-term historic average the species was considered to be in GES.	If two or more of the recent years were above the long-term historic average the species was considered to be in GES.	If the biomass distribution of the species was constant throughout the analysed period, or the species increased its distributional range and biomass within the last three years, this was considered indicative of GES.		If two or more of the recent years were above the long-term historic average the species was considered to be in GES.		If the biomass distribution of the species was constant throughout the analysed period, or the species increased its distributional range and biomass within the last three years, this was considered indicative of GES.		If two or more of the recent years were above the long-term historic average the species was considered to be in GES.	If two or more of the recent years were above the long-term historic average the species was considered to be in GES. Within the FMZ the 95% percentile of the length distribution was below in 2015 and above the long-term historical in 2016 for which data was available.Therefore, it is not clear if this is indicative of GES or not.	If the biomass distribution of the species was constant throughout the analysed period, or the species increased its distributional range and biomass within the last three years, this was considered indicative of GES.		If two or more of the recent years were above the long-term historic average the species was considered to be in GES.		If the biomass distribution of the species was constant throughout the analysed period, or the species increased its distributional range and biomass within the last three years, this was considered indicative of GES.		If two or more of the recent years were above the long-term historic average the species was considered to be in GES.	If two or more of the recent years were above the long-term historic average the species was considered to be in GES.	If the biomass distribution of the species was constant throughout the analysed period, or the species increased its distributional range and biomass within the last three years, this was considered indicative of GES.		If two or more of the recent years were above the long-term historic average the species was considered to be in GES.	If two or more of the recent years were above the long-term historic average the species was considered to be in GES.	If the biomass distribution of the species was constant throughout the analysed period, or the species increased its distributional range and biomass within the last three years, this was considered indicative of GES.										If two or more of the recent years were above the long-term historic average the species was considered to be in GES.		If the biomass distribution of the species was constant throughout the analysed period, or the species increased its distributional range and biomass within the last three years, this was considered indicative of GES.		If two or more of the recent years were above the long-term historic average the species was considered to be in GES.	If two or more of the recent years were above the long-term historic average the species was considered to be in GES.			If two or more of the recent years were above the long-term historic average the species was considered to be in GES.		If the biomass distribution of the species was constant throughout the analysed period, or the species increased its distributional range and biomass within the last three years, this was considered indicative of GES.
Related indicator
Criteria status	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Good	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not good	Unknown	Not good	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Good	Good	Not good	Not assessed	Good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Good
Description criteria		Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Good		These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).		These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).	These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).	These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).		These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015- 2017).		Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Good.				These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).		These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).	Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Not Good.	Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Good		These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).	These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).	Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Good		These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).	These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).	Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Good		Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Not Good				Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Not Good				These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).		These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).		These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).	These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).			These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).		These results should be interpreted with caution noting that they are based on trends for a relatively short time period (2015-2017).
Element status	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Good	Good	Good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Good	Good	Good
Description element
Integration rule type parameter
Integration rule description parameter
Integration rule type criteria
Integration rule description criteria	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if two criteria were assessed and one was determined to be ‘good’ and the other as ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be as ‘not assessed’; if 2/3 criteria assessed were ‘not good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘not good’. In accordance with the ‘Guidance for Assessments Under Article 8 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive’ integration at species level shall be agreed at Union level taking into account regional or subregional specificities; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for both fish and cephalopods is expected to be achieved later than 2020.
GES extent threshold
GES extent achieved
GES extent unit
GES achieved	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, Article 14 exception reported
Description overall status
Assessments period	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018	2012-2018
Related pressures	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
Related targets	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1	MT_Target_2019_D1C1