MS/Art8/2018/D3/Malta/Mediterranean: Ionian Sea & Central Mediterranean Sea

Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D3 / 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	D3 Commercial fish and shellfish
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	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3	D3
Feature	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish	Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
Element	Aristaeomorpha foliacea	Aristaeomorpha foliacea	Aristaeomorpha foliacea	Auxis rochei rochei	Auxis rochei rochei	Auxis rochei rochei	Boops boops	Boops boops	Boops boops	Centrophorus granulosus	Centrophorus granulosus	Centrophorus granulosus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Chelidonichthys cuculus	Coryphaena hippurus	Coryphaena hippurus	Coryphaena hippurus	Dicentrarchus labrax	Dicentrarchus labrax	Dicentrarchus labrax	Diplodus annularis	Diplodus annularis	Diplodus annularis	Diplodus sargus	Diplodus sargus	Diplodus sargus	Epinephelus aeneus	Epinephelus aeneus	Epinephelus aeneus	Epinephelus caninus	Epinephelus caninus	Epinephelus caninus	Epinephelus marginatus	Epinephelus marginatus	Epinephelus marginatus	Hexanchus griseus	Hexanchus griseus	Hexanchus griseus	Illex coindetii	Illex coindetii	Illex coindetii	Lepidopus caudatus	Lepidopus caudatus	Lepidopus caudatus	Lithognathus mormyrus	Lithognathus mormyrus	Lithognathus mormyrus	Loligo vulgaris	Loligo vulgaris	Loligo vulgaris	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Lophius piscatorius	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Merluccius merluccius	Mullus barbatus	Mullus barbatus	Mullus barbatus	Mullus surmuletus	Mullus surmuletus	Mullus surmuletus	Mustelus mustelus	Mustelus mustelus	Mustelus mustelus	Nephrops norvegicus	Nephrops norvegicus	Nephrops norvegicus	Octopus vulgaris	Octopus vulgaris	Octopus vulgaris	Pagellus acarne	Pagellus acarne	Pagellus acarne	Pagellus bogaraveo	Pagellus bogaraveo	Pagellus bogaraveo	Pagellus erythrinus	Pagellus erythrinus	Pagellus erythrinus	Pagrus pagrus	Pagrus pagrus	Pagrus pagrus	Palinurus elephas	Palinurus elephas	Palinurus elephas	Parapenaeus longirostris	Parapenaeus longirostris	Parapenaeus longirostris	Polyprion americanus	Polyprion americanus	Polyprion americanus	Prionace glauca	Prionace glauca	Prionace glauca	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Raja clavata	Raja montagui	Raja montagui	Raja montagui	Sardina pilchardus	Sardina pilchardus	Sardina pilchardus	Sardinella aurita	Sardinella aurita	Sardinella aurita	Scomber japonicus	Scomber japonicus	Scomber japonicus	Scomber scombrus	Scomber scombrus	Scomber scombrus	Scorpaena scrofa	Scorpaena scrofa	Scorpaena scrofa	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Scyliorhinus canicula	Sepia officinalis	Sepia officinalis	Sepia officinalis	Sparus aurata	Sparus aurata	Sparus aurata	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Squalus acanthias	Squalus blainville	Squalus blainville	Squalus blainville	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Thunnus thynnus	Trachurus mediterraneus	Trachurus mediterraneus	Trachurus mediterraneus	Trachurus trachurus	Trachurus trachurus	Trachurus trachurus	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius	Xiphias gladius
Element code	158326	158326	158326	236487	236487	236487	127047	127047	127047	105899	105899	105899	127259	127259	127259	126846	126846	126846	126975	126975	126975	127049	127049	127049	127053	127053	127053	127032	127032	127032	127033	127033	127033	127036	127036	127036	105833	105833	105833	140621	140621	140621	127088	127088	127088	127055	127055	127055	140271	140271	140271	126555	126555	126555	126484	126484	126484	126985	126985	126985	126986	126986	126986	105822	105822	105822	107254	107254	107254	140605	140605	140605	127057	127057	127057	127059	127059	127059	127060	127060	127060	127063	127063	127063	107703	107703	107703	107109	107109	107109	126998	126998	126998	105801	105801	105801	105883	105883	105883	105887	105887	105887	126421	126421	126421	126422	126422	126422	127022	127022	127022	127023	127023	127023	127248	127248	127248	105814	105814	105814	138477	138477	138477	151523	151523	151523	105923	105923	105923	105924	105924	105924	127029	127029	127029	126820	126820	126820	126822	126822	126822	127094	127094	127094
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/	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/	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	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS	National stock of MS
Element 2 code	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Element 2 code source	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant	Link to other vocabulary or code lists that may be relevant
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	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	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	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3	D3C1	D3C2	D3C3
Parameter	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other
Parameter other		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass Index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution		Biomass index or LPUE	95% percentile of the length distribution
Threshold value upper	1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0			1.0
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species		Above the long-term average for the species	Above the long-term average for the species
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	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	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	1.0																																							1.0															2.0			2.0		1.0				1.0		1.0	1.0											2.0	3.0								1.0									3.0	1.0		2.0	3.0																	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	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	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	Yes	No	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	No	No	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 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	No	No	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	No	Yes	Not assessed	No	Yes	Not assessed	No	No	Not assessed	No	No	Not assessed	No	No	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Yes	Yes	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	No	No	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Yes	No	Not assessed	Yes	Yes	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	Yes	No	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	No	No	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	No	Yes	Not assessed	Not assessed	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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
Related indicator
Criteria status	Not assessed	Good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	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 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 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	Good	Not assessed	Not good	Good	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not good	Not assessed	Good	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	Good	Not good	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 assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed
Description criteria	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).		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			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		Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Not 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			Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Good			Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Good			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			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	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 Good			Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was 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).	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).	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).	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).	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).	Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Not Good	Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Not Good			Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Good			Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was 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 Not Good	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		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).		Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Good			Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was 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 Not 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		Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Not 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	Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Not Good		Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Good	Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was 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 Not Good	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 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			Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Not Good	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 Not Good	Assessment of status at a scale beyond the FMZ was Not Good
Element status	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not 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 assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not 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 good	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	Good	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Good	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 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 assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed
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 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species is expected to be achieved later than 2020.	The integration method used for the criteria was the following: If 2/2 criteria assessed were ‘good’, the overall status of the species was determined to be ‘good’; if one criterion 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 2/2 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’ there is no integration at species level; however, since the majority of the species were found to be in ‘not good’ status, on the basis of expert judgement, GES for commercially exploited species 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	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	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	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	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)	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)	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_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3	MT_Target_2019_D1C3_D3C1_C3