Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D1-B / Portugal / NE Atlantic: Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast
Report type | Member State report to Commission |
MSFD Article | Art. 8 Initial assessment (and Art. 17 updates) |
Report due | 2018-10-15 |
GES Descriptor | D1 Birds |
Member State | Portugal |
Region/subregion | NE Atlantic: Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast |
Reported by | DGRM |
Report date | 2021-03-03 |
Report access | ART8_GES_PT_setembro2020.xml |
Portuguese Continent Subdivision (ABI-PT-SD-CONT)
GES component |
D1-B
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Benthic-feeding birds
|
Pelagic-feeding birds
|
Surface-feeding birds
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element |
Melanitta nigra |
Phalacrocorax aristotelis |
Alca torda |
Calonectris diomedea borealis |
Fratercula arctica |
Morus bassanus |
Puffinus gravis |
Puffinus griseus |
Puffinus mauretanicus |
Uria aalge |
Gelochelidon nilotica |
Hydrobates pelagicus |
Larus audouinii |
Larus fuscus |
Larus melanocephalus |
Larus michahellis |
Oceanodroma castro |
Oceanodroma leucorhoa |
Rissa tridactyla |
Stercorarius skua |
Sterna hirundo |
Sterna sandvicensis |
Sternula albifrons |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Element code |
137073 |
137178 |
137128 |
226024 |
137131 |
148776 |
137201 |
137202 |
445503 |
137133 |
148798 |
137189 |
137139 |
137142 |
137147 |
232052 |
137191 |
137192 |
137156 |
137174 |
137162 |
137166 |
567480 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Element 2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element 2 code |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element 2 code source |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element source |
National |
National |
National |
EU |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
EU |
EU |
EU |
National |
EU |
National |
EU |
EU |
National |
National |
EU |
EU |
EU |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Criterion |
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C4
|
||||||||||||
Parameter |
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Other
|
Distribution (spatial)
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Distribution (spatial)
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Other
|
Distribution (spatial)
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Distribution (spatial)
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Distribution (spatial)
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Other
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Other
|
Distribution (spatial)
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Other
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Distribution (spatial)
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Other
|
Distribution (spatial)
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Distribution (spatial)
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Distribution (spatial)
|
||||||||||||
Parameter other |
Abundance (number of breeding population pairs)
|
Abundance (number of pairs)
|
Density
|
Abundance (number of pairs)
|
Density
|
Density
|
Abundance (number of pairs)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value upper |
1.3 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value lower |
0.8 |
0.8 |
0.7 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
No improvement in the status of the species compared to the target set in 2014
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value source |
OSPAR Convention
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value source other |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
0.0007 |
116.0 |
0.7 |
23936.0 |
0.0008 |
975.0 |
0.053 |
0.4 |
37807.0 |
0.0023 |
18475.0 |
37808.0 |
0.0008 |
2017.0 |
0.0016 |
6000.0 |
784.0 |
0.2 |
37808.0 |
27246.0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value achieved lower |
87.0 |
800.0 |
4962.0 |
7000.0 |
410.0 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value unit |
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
square kilometre
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
square kilometre
|
Other
|
(number of) individuals
|
square kilometre
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
(number of) individuals
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
(number of) individuals
|
square kilometre
|
(number of) individuals
|
square kilometre
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Value unit other |
number of individuals/fenders
|
Number of spawning stock couples
|
number of individual fishing/haul number
|
Percentage
|
number of individuals/fenders
|
Number of spawning stock couples
|
number of individuals/fenders
|
percentage
|
number of individual fishing/haul number
|
number of individuals/fenders
|
number of individuals/fenders
|
Number of spawning stock couples
|
number of individual fishing/haul number
|
number of individuals/fenders
|
number of individuals/fenders
|
Number of spawning stock couples
|
number of individual fishing/haul number
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value |
100.0 |
100.0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion value achieved |
100.0 |
100.0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% of population achieving threshold value |
% of population achieving threshold value |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trend |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Deteriorating |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Deteriorating |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Improving |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Improving |
Unknown |
Deteriorating |
Stable |
Unknown |
Deteriorating |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
||||||||||||
Parameter achieved |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
No |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
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 |
No |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
||||||||||||
Description parameter |
Incidental catches have been recorded in sets of gears operated using demersal gillnets, trammel nets and longlines. The value reported is the higher of the value (trammel net).
|
There are indications that the number of spawning stock couples has decreased. However, the information available is insufficient to quantify this decrease.
|
No accidental catches have been recorded in the observed sets or surveys operated by trawls, seines, trammel, gill or longline (surface and demersal).
|
Accidental catch events with demersal longlines < 12m and bottom longlining ? 12 m have been recorded. The demersal longline < 12m was the category where the accidental catch was the most significant.
|
There are indications that the number of breeding colony pairs has decreased. However, the information available is insufficient to quantify this decrease.
|
The available information does not allow to quantify variations in the area of distribution of breeding colonies. There are, however, indications that this remains stable.
|
Incidental capture events with ? 12m, demersal longlines ? 12m, surface longlines ? 12m, trammel nets of 12 m, trammel net < 12m, < 12m, trawl ? 12m, < 12m, gillnet ? 12m in different areas have been reported. The incidental catches have been more marked on the demersal longlines < 12m.
|
Demersal catching events were recorded ? 12m, surface longline ? 12m, < 12m. The accidental catch was more marked with purse seine gear.
|
There are indications that the population is decreasing. However, the information available is insufficient to quantify this decrease.
|
Incidental catch events with trammel nets ? 12m were recorded.
|
Although there is a decrease in density in all areas where the species occurs, the period during which the species is sampled does not correspond to the period in which the national continental waters are of greater importance for a large number of target species.
|
No accidental catches have been recorded in the observed sets or surveys operated by trawls, seines, trammel, gill or longline (surface and demersal).
|
There is a sharp increase in the population in the main breeding colony, but there is no information to quantify the relative abundance and, consequently, to assess the trend on the basis of the proposed thresholds.
|
There is no information to quantify relative abundance and consequently to assess the trend on the basis of the proposed thresholds.
|
The available information does not allow to quantify variations in the area of distribution of breeding colonies. However, there are indications that it remains stable.
|
No accidental catches have been recorded in the observed sets or surveys operated by trawls, seines, trammel, gill or longline (surface and demersal).
The lack of information made the application of the proposed methodologies conditional on the application of the proposed methodologies and the e...
|
Although there is a decrease in density in all areas, the period for which samples are taken does not correspond to the period in which the national continental waters are of greater importance for the species. There is no information to quantify relative abundance and consequently to assess the trend on the basis of the proposed thresholds.
|
Incidental catches have been recorded in fishing sets operated using demersal seine, trawl, gillnet and demersal longlines. The value reported is the highest value (demersal longline).
|
Refers to the spawning stock. The population has increased but the available data do not allow to quantify if the relative abundance of the species is above the threshold defined by OSPAR B1 Marine Abundance.
|
The area of distribution of the species has increased along the national coast. However, since neither valuation nor threshold methods are defined, it has not been assessed.
|
No accidental catches have been recorded in the observed sets or surveys operated by trawls, seines, trammel, gill or longline (surface and demersal).
|
There are indications that the number of couples in the spawning stock (in the Berlengas archipelago) has decreased. However, no information exists to quantify this decrease. The relative abundance could not be established and consequently the trend on the basis of the proposed thresholds could not be assessed.
|
No accidental catches have been recorded in the observed sets or surveys operated by trawls, seines, trammel, gill or longline (surface and demersal).
The lack of information made the application of the proposed methodologies conditional on the application of the proposed methodologies and the e...
|
The information currently available does not make it possible to identify clearly the cause of this decrease, as anthropogenic pressures are not described with a clear negative effect on this species. One of the possible explanations is the modification of the feeding areas during the non-breedin...
|
No accidental catches have been recorded in the observed sets or surveys operated by trawls, seines, trammel, gill or longline (surface and demersal).
|
The available data do not allow quantifying the relative abundance of the species above the threshold defined by OSPAR B1 Marine Abundance. However, there are indications that the population remains stable.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Related indicator |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria status |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
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 good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
||||||||||||
Description criteria |
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. The lack of adequate information conditioned the application of the proposed methodologies and the establishment of thresholds that would allow the GES to be assessed. It should be noted that the information available was not homogenous, neither in time nor in space.
|
Not assessed criterion. The lack of information made the application of the proposed methodologies conditional. For example, the period which is being sampled does not correspond to the period in which the national continental waters are of greater importance for a large number of target species, as is the case for the species under examination.
|
Não estão definidas as metodologias de avaliação (ICES, 2017).
ICES (2017). Report of the OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Marine Birds (JWG-BIRD), 6-10 November 2017, Riga, Latvia. ICES CM 2017/ACOM:49. 98 pp. |
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. The lack of adequate information conditioned the application of the proposed methodologies and the establishment of thresholds that would allow the GES to be assessed. It should be noted that the information available was not homogenous, neither in time nor in space.
|
Não estão definidas as metodologias de avaliação (ICES, 2017).
ICES (2017). Report of the OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Marine Birds (JWG-BIRD), 6-10 November 2017, Riga, Latvia. ICES CM 2017/ACOM:49. 98 pp.
|
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. The lack of adequate information conditioned the application of the proposed methodologies and the establishment of thresholds that would allow the GES to be assessed. It should be noted that the information available was not homogenous, neither in time nor in space.
|
Not assessed criterion. The lack of information made the application of the proposed methodologies conditional. For example, the period which is being sampled does not correspond to the period in which the national continental waters are of greater importance for a large number of target species, as is the case for the species under examination.
|
Não estão definidas as metodologias de avaliação (ICES, 2017).
ICES (2017). Report of the OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Marine Birds (JWG-BIRD), 6-10 November 2017, Riga, Latvia. ICES CM 2017/ACOM:49. 98 pp. |
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. The lack of adequate information conditioned the application of the proposed methodologies and the establishment of thresholds that would allow the GES to be assessed. It should be noted that the information available was not homogenous, neither in time nor in space.
|
Não estão definidas as metodologias de avaliação (ICES, 2017).
ICES (2017). Report of the OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Marine Birds (JWG-BIRD), 6-10 November 2017, Riga, Latvia. ICES CM 2017/ACOM:49. 98 pp.
|
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. The lack of adequate information conditioned the application of the proposed methodologies and the establishment of thresholds that would allow the GES to be assessed. It should be noted that the information available was not homogenous, neither in time nor in space.
|
The lack of information made the application of the proposed methodologies conditional.
However, there is a marked decrease in the number of individuals in this population in recent years, justifying their current status of critically at danger (IUCN). This decrease has been identified in the l...
|
Não estão definidas as metodologias de avaliação (ICES, 2017).
ICES (2017). Report of the OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Marine Birds (JWG-BIRD), 6-10 November 2017, Riga, Latvia. ICES CM 2017/ACOM:49. 98 pp. |
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. The lack of adequate information conditioned the application of the proposed methodologies and the establishment of thresholds that would allow the GES to be assessed. It should be noted that the information available was not homogenous, neither in time nor in space.
|
Not assessed criterion. The lack of information made the application of the proposed methodologies conditional. For example, the period which is being sampled does not correspond to the period in which the national continental waters are of greater importance for a large number of target species, as is the case for the species under examination.
|
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. The lack of adequate information conditioned the application of the proposed methodologies and the establishment of thresholds that would allow the GES to be assessed. It should be noted that the information available was not homogenous, neither in time nor in space.
|
Not assessed criterion. The lack of adequate information has conditioned the implementation of the proposed methodologies. On the other hand, the period sampled does not correspond to the period in which the national continental waters are of greater importance for a large number of target species, as is the case for the species under examination.
|
Insufficient information is available to characterise this criterion. On the other hand, evaluation methodologies (ICES, 2017) are not defined.
ICES (2017). Report of the OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Marine Birds (JWG-BIRD), 6-10 November 2017, Riga, Latvia. ICES CM 2017/ACOM: 49. 98 pp.
|
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. The lack of adequate information conditioned the application of the proposed methodologies and the establishment of thresholds that would allow the GES to be assessed. It should be noted that the information available was not homogenous, neither in time nor in space.
|
Not assessed criterion. The lack of adequate information has conditioned the implementation of the proposed methodologies. On the other hand, the period sampled does not correspond to the period in which the national continental waters are of greater importance for a large number of target species, as is the case for the species under examination.
|
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. The lack of adequate information conditioned the application of the proposed methodologies and the establishment of thresholds that would allow the GES to be assessed. It should be noted that the information available was not homogenous, neither in time nor in space.
|
Not assessed criterion. The lack of adequate information has conditioned the implementation of the proposed methodologies. For example, the period which is being sampled does not correspond to the period in which the national continental waters are of greater importance for a large number of target species, as is the case for the species under examination.
|
Insufficient information is available to characterise this criterion. On the other hand, evaluation methodologies (ICES, 2017) are not defined.
|
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. The lack of adequate information conditioned the application of the proposed methodologies and the establishment of thresholds that would allow the GES to be assessed. It should be noted that the information available was not homogenous, ...
|
Not assessed criterion. The lack of adequate information has conditioned the implementation of the proposed methodologies. For example, the period which is being sampled does not correspond to the period in which the national continental waters are of greater importance for a large number of target species, as is the case for the species under examination.
|
Insufficient information is available to characterise this criterion. On the other hand, evaluation methodologies (ICES, 2017) are not defined.
ICES (2017). Report of the OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Marine Birds (JWG-BIRD), 6-10 November 2017, Riga, Latvia. ICES CM 2017/ACOM: 49. 98 pp.
|
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. The lack of adequate information conditioned the application of the proposed methodologies and the establishment of thresholds that would allow the GES to be assessed. It should be noted that the information available was not homogenous, neither in time nor in space.
|
Não estão definidas as metodologias de avaliação (ICES, 2017).
ICES (2017). Report of the OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Marine Birds (JWG-BIRD), 6-10 November 2017, Riga, Latvia. ICES CM 2017/ACOM:49. 98 pp. |
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. The lack of adequate information conditioned the application of the proposed methodologies and the establishment of thresholds that would allow the GES to be assessed. It should be noted that the information available was not homogenous, neither in time nor in space.
|
Not assessed criterion. The lack of adequate information has conditioned the implementation of the proposed methodologies. For example, the period which is being sampled does not correspond to the period in which the national continental waters are of greater importance for a large number of target species, as is the case for the species under examination.
|
Não estão definidas as metodologias de avaliação (ICES, 2017).
ICES (2017). Report of the OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Marine Birds (JWG-BIRD), 6-10 November 2017, Riga, Latvia. ICES CM 2017/ACOM:49. 98 pp.
|
|||||||||||||||
Element status |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not good |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
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 assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Description element |
The element was not assessed because there is no information to characterise and assess the different criteria or because no threshold was defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
The population of this species is distributed in the northern area of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AA_CONTIN_A).
|
The item was not assessed because the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria or because no threshold was defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
The information reported for this species relates to ABI_PT_AA_CONTIN_A, ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_CONTIN_SA.
|
Evaluation based on D1C2
|
The item was not assessed because the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria or because no threshold was defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
It should be noted that, although this report is reporting back to subspecies, new ...
|
The element was not assessed because there is no information to characterise and assess the different criteria, this is insufficient and/or because no thresholds were defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
|
Evaluation based on D1C2
|
The element was not assessed because there is no information to characterise and assess the different criteria, this is insufficient and/or because no thresholds were defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
|
The element was not assessed because there is no information to characterise and assess the different criteria, this is insufficient and/or because no thresholds were defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
|
Evaluation based on D1C2
|
The element was not assessed because there is no information to characterise and assess the different criteria, this is insufficient and/or because no thresholds were defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
The population of this species is spread throughout the territory ...
|
The element was not assessed because there is no information to characterise and assess the different criteria, this is insufficient and/or because no thresholds were defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
The population of this species is spread throughout the territory ...
|
The item was not assessed because the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria or because no threshold was defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
The spawning stock of this species is distributed in the south of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AA_CONTIN_C).
Element source
|
The element was not assessed because there is no information to characterise and assess the different criteria, this is insufficient and/or because no thresholds were defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
The population of this species is spread throughout the territory of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AAG_CONAG_CONTACT, ABI_PT_ACONAG_CONT_AG_CONT_AAG_CONT_C).
|
The item was not assessed because the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria or because no threshold was defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
The population of this species is spread throughout the territory of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AAG_CONAG_CONTACT, ABI_PT_ACONAG_CONT_AG_CONT_AAG_CONT_C).
Element source
|
The item was not assessed because the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria or because no threshold was defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
|
The item was not assessed because the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria or because no threshold was defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
The population of this species is spread throughout the territory of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AAG_CONAG_CONTACT, ABI_PT_ACONAG_CONT_AG_CONT_AAG_CONT_C).
Element source
|
The element was not assessed because there is no information to characterise and assess the different criteria, this is insufficient and/or because no thresholds were defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
The population of this species is spread throughout the territory ...
|
The element was not assessed because there is no information to characterise and assess the different criteria, this is insufficient and/or because no thresholds were defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
The population of this species is spread throughout the territory of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AAG_CONAG_CONTACT, ABI_PT_ACONAG_CONT_AG_CONT_AAG_CONT_C).
|
Evaluation based on D1C2
|
The element was not assessed because there is no information to characterise and assess the different criteria, this is insufficient and/or because no thresholds were defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
The population of this species is spread throughout the territory ...
|
The item was not assessed because the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria or because no threshold was defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
The population of this species is spread throughout the territory of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AAG_CONAG_CONTACT, ABI_PT_ACONAG_CONT_AG_CONT_AAG_CONT_C).
Element source
|
The element was not assessed because there is no information to characterise and assess the different criteria, this is insufficient and/or because no thresholds were defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
The population of this species is distributed in the south of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AA_CONTIN_C).
Element source
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule type parameter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule description parameter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule type criteria |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule description criteria |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent threshold |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent achieved |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent unit |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES achieved |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Description overall status |
The GES of this group has not been assessed because the information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria at the level of the species and/or because no thresholds were defined which would allow the assessment of the criterion (s).
The information reported...
|
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria for most species. Given the low number of species assessed, it was considered that it was not appropriate to integrate the results at the level of the group and therefore to assess GES.
Evaluations have...
|
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria for most species. Given the low number of species assessed, it was considered that it was not appropriate to integrate the results at the level of the group and therefore to assess GES.
Evaluations have...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Assessments period |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
2012-2017 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Related targets |
|
|