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

Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D1-C / 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 Cephalopods
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-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C	D1-C
Feature	Coastal/shelf cephalopods	Coastal/shelf cephalopods	Coastal/shelf cephalopods	Coastal/shelf cephalopods	Coastal/shelf cephalopods	Coastal/shelf cephalopods	Coastal/shelf cephalopods	Coastal/shelf cephalopods	Coastal/shelf cephalopods	Coastal/shelf cephalopods	Deep-sea cephalopods	Deep-sea cephalopods	Deep-sea cephalopods	Deep-sea cephalopods	Deep-sea cephalopods	Deep-sea cephalopods	Deep-sea cephalopods	Deep-sea cephalopods	Deep-sea cephalopods	Deep-sea cephalopods	Deep-sea cephalopods	Deep-sea cephalopods	Deep-sea cephalopods	Deep-sea cephalopods	Deep-sea cephalopods
Element	Eledone cirrhosa	Eledone cirrhosa	Eledone cirrhosa	Eledone cirrhosa	Eledone cirrhosa	Eledone moschata	Eledone moschata	Eledone moschata	Eledone moschata	Eledone moschata	Scaeurgus unicirrhus	Scaeurgus unicirrhus	Scaeurgus unicirrhus	Scaeurgus unicirrhus	Scaeurgus unicirrhus	Sepia orbignyana	Sepia orbignyana	Sepia orbignyana	Sepia orbignyana	Sepia orbignyana	Todarodes sagittatus	Todarodes sagittatus	Todarodes sagittatus	Todarodes sagittatus	Todarodes sagittatus
Element code	140600	140600	140600	140600	140600	140601	140601	140601	140601	140601	140607	140607	140607	140607	140607	141445	141445	141445	141445	141445	140624	140624	140624	140624	140624
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/
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
Criterion	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5
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
Parameter other	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	No parameter assessed	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	No parameter assessed	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	No parameter assessed	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	No parameter assessed	Discards	Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution	Biomass Distribution	No parameter assessed
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	Threshold not yet established	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 not yet established	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 not yet established	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 not yet established	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 not yet established
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
Proportion value achieved		1.0										1.0										1.0
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
Parameter achieved	Not assessed	No	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	No	No	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	No	Not assessed	No	Not assessed	Not assessed	No	Not assessed	No	Not assessed	Not assessed	No	Not assessed	No	Not assessed
Description parameter		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 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 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 good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed
Description criteria		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 for this criterion not possible at this stage.		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 for this criterion not possible at this stage.		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 for this criterion not possible at this stage.		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 for this criterion not possible at this stage.		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 for this criterion not possible at this stage.
Element status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not 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.
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
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
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)
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