MS/Art8/2018/D1-B/Portugal/NE Atlantic: Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast

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)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B
Feature	Benthic-feeding birds	Benthic-feeding birds	Benthic-feeding birds	Benthic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds
Element	Melanitta nigra	Phalacrocorax aristotelis	Phalacrocorax aristotelis	Phalacrocorax aristotelis	Alca torda	Alca torda	Alca torda	Calonectris diomedea borealis	Calonectris diomedea borealis	Calonectris diomedea borealis	Fratercula arctica	Morus bassanus	Morus bassanus	Morus bassanus	Puffinus gravis	Puffinus griseus	Puffinus mauretanicus	Puffinus mauretanicus	Puffinus mauretanicus	Uria aalge	Uria aalge	Gelochelidon nilotica	Hydrobates pelagicus	Larus audouinii	Larus audouinii	Larus audouinii	Larus audouinii	Larus fuscus	Larus melanocephalus	Larus melanocephalus	Larus michahellis	Larus michahellis	Larus michahellis	Oceanodroma castro	Oceanodroma castro	Oceanodroma castro	Oceanodroma leucorhoa	Rissa tridactyla	Stercorarius skua	Stercorarius skua	Stercorarius skua	Sterna hirundo	Sterna sandvicensis	Sterna sandvicensis	Sterna sandvicensis	Sternula albifrons
Element code	137073	137178	137178	137178	137128	137128	137128	226024	226024	226024	137131	148776	148776	148776	137201	137202	445503	445503	445503	137133	137133	148798	137189	137139	137139	137139	137139	137142	137147	137147	232052	232052	232052	137191	137191	137191	137192	137156	137174	137174	137174	137162	137166	137166	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/	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	National	National	National	National	EU	EU	EU	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	EU	EU	EU	EU	EU	EU	National	EU	EU	National	National	National	EU	EU	EU	EU	National	National	National	National	EU	EU	EU	EU	EU
Criterion		D1C1	D1C2	D1C4	D1C1	D1C2	D1C4	D1C1	D1C2	D1C4		D1C1	D1C2	D1C4			D1C1	D1C2	D1C4	D1C1	D1C2			D1C1	D1C2	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	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	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			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 establishment of thresholds for the assessment of GES. It should be noted that the information available was not homogenous, neither in time nor in space.	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 establishment of thresholds for the assessment of GES. It should be noted that the information available was not homogenous, neither in time nor in space.	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-breeding period, which may not be linked to a poor environmental status of our marine waters. The results achieved reinforce the need to monitor this species.			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		Seabirds Bycatch	Seabirds Abundance3	Seabirds Distribution	Seabirds Bycatch	Seabirds Abundance	Seabirds Distribution	Seabirds Bycatch	Seabirds Abundance3	Seabirds Distribution		Seabirds Bycatch	Seabirds Abundance	Seabirds Distribution			Seabirds Bycatch	Seabirds Abundance2	Seabirds Distribution	Seabirds Bycatch	Seabirds density			Seabirds Bycatch	Seabirds Abundance3	Seabirds density	Seabirds Distribution		Seabirds Bycatch	Seabirds density	Seabirds Bycatch	Seabirds Abundance2	Seabirds Distribution	Seabirds Bycatch	Seabirds Abundance3	Seabirds Distribution			Seabirds Bycatch	Seabirds Abundance	Seabirds Distribution		Seabirds Bycatch	Seabirds Abundance2	Seabirds Distribution
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 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 last report of the Birds Directive (2013) and has led to the establishment of the additional target for the MSFD as explained in the Monitoring Programme and Programme of Measures of the MSFD: ?to contribute to the protection of the people of Balearic shearus (Puffinus mauretanicus)? (MAM, SRMCT, SRA, 2014). Considering that there is no information indicating the existence of an improvement in the status of the species, it was decided to assess its status as negative. MAM, SRMCT, SRA (2014). Marine Marine Strategies. Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Monitoring Programme and Programme of Measures. The Ministry of Agriculture and the Sea, the Regional Secretariat of the Sea, Science and Technology, Regional Secretariat for the Environment and Natural Resources. November 2014. 192 p.	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.	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, neither in time nor in space. The lack of information made the application of the proposed methodologies conditional on the application of the proposed methodologies and the establishment of thresholds for the assessment of GES. 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. 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 assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not good	Not good	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 good	Not good	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	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.	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.	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	Evaluation based on D1C2	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 scientific evidence should be taken into account suggesting a clear separation between the stocks that reproduce in the Atlantic of the Mediterranean populations, bringing these differences to the level of the species. Such separation implies a considerable reduction in the size of populations and areas of occupation at global level. 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). It should be noted that, although this report is reporting back to subspecies, new scientific evidence should be taken into account suggesting a clear separation between the stocks that reproduce in the Atlantic of the Mediterranean populations, bringing these differences to the level of the species. Such separation implies a considerable reduction in the size of populations and areas of occupation at global level. 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). It should be noted that, although this report is reporting back to subspecies, new scientific evidence should be taken into account suggesting a clear separation between the stocks that reproduce in the Atlantic of the Mediterranean populations, bringing these differences to the level of the species. Such separation implies a considerable reduction in the size of populations and areas of occupation at global level. 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).	Evaluation based on D1C2	Evaluation based on D1C2	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	Evaluation based on D1C2	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 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 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 spawning stock of this species is distributed in the south of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AA_CONTIN_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 spawning stock of this species is distributed in the south of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AA_CONTIN_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 spawning stock of this species is distributed in the south of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AA_CONTIN_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 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 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 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 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 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 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 of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AAG_CONAG_CONTACT, ABI_PT_ACONAG_CONT_AG_CONT_AAG_CONT_C).	Evaluation based on D1C2	Evaluation based on D1C2	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 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 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 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 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	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	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 assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	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 refers to the area of distribution of the species on the mainland coast of Portugal, considered on an environmentally sound scale as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 (ABI_PT_AAG_CONAG_CONAG_CONAG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_C).	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 refers to the area of distribution of the species on the mainland coast of Portugal, considered on an environmentally sound scale as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 (ABI_PT_AAG_CONAG_CONAG_CONAG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_C).	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 refers to the area of distribution of the species on the mainland coast of Portugal, considered on an environmentally sound scale as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 (ABI_PT_AAG_CONAG_CONAG_CONAG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_C).	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 refers to the area of distribution of the species on the mainland coast of Portugal, considered on an environmentally sound scale as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 (ABI_PT_AAG_CONAG_CONAG_CONAG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_C).	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.	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 been carried out for all ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, since it is considered that this is the environmentally relevant scale for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848. In this case, and for all species except Larus auridovini, the assessment area coincides with its distribution area.
Assessments period	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017
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)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown	Disturbance of species (e.g. where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) Unknown
Related targets					ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T4-D1Cont ABIPT-T5-D1Cont ABIPT-T6-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont	ABIPT-T5-D1Cont