Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D1-C / 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 Cephalopods
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-C
D1-C
D1-C
D1-C
D1-C
D1-C
D1-C
D1-C
D1-C
D1-C
D1-C
D1-C
D1-C
D1-C
D1-C
Feature
Coastal/shelf cephalopods
Coastal/shelf cephalopods
Coastal/shelf cephalopods
Coastal/shelf cephalopods
Coastal/shelf cephalopods
Coastal/shelf cephalopods
Deep-sea cephalopods
Deep-sea cephalopods
Deep-sea cephalopods
Deep-sea cephalopods
Deep-sea cephalopods
Deep-sea cephalopods
Deep-sea cephalopods
Deep-sea cephalopods
Deep-sea cephalopods
Element
Alloteuthis spp.
Alloteuthis spp.
Alloteuthis spp.
Loligo vulgaris
Octopus vulgaris
Sepia officinalis
Eledone cirrhosa
Eledone cirrhosa
Eledone cirrhosa
Illex coindetii
Illex coindetii
Illex coindetii
Todaropsis eblanae
Todaropsis eblanae
Todaropsis eblanae
Element code
138138
138138
138138
140271
140605
141444
140600
140600
140600
140621
140621
140621
140625
140625
140625
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/
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
Criterion
D1C1
D1C2
D1C3
D1C1
D1C2
D1C3
D1C1
D1C2
D1C3
D1C1
D1C2
D1C3
Parameter
Biomass
Other
Biomass
Other
Biomass
Other
Biomass
Other
Parameter other
L95
L95
L95
L95
Threshold value upper
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative
Combination of break-point analysis with trend over the last 5 years (Probst and Steelzenmuller, 2015 method)
Combination of break-point analysis with trend over the last 5 years (Probst and Steelzenmuller, 2015 method)
Combination of break-point analysis with trend over the last 5 years (Probst and Steelzenmuller, 2015 method)
Combination of break-point analysis with trend over the last 5 years (Probst and Steelzenmuller, 2015 method)
Threshold value source
Other (specify)
Other (specify)
Other (specify)
Other (specify)
Threshold value source other
Probst, W. N., Stelzenmuller, V. (2015). A benchmarking and assessment framework to operationalise ecological indicators based on time series analysis, Ecological Indicators, 55: 94-106.
Probst, W. N., Stelzenmuller, V. (2015). A benchmarking and assessment framework to operationalise ecological indicators based on time series analysis, Ecological Indicators, 55: 94-106.
Probst, W. N., Stelzenmuller, V. (2015). A benchmarking and assessment framework to operationalise ecological indicators based on time series analysis, Ecological Indicators, 55: 94-106.
Probst, W. N., Stelzenmuller, V. (2015). A benchmarking and assessment framework to operationalise ecological indicators based on time series analysis, Ecological Indicators, 55: 94-106.
Value achieved upper
Value achieved lower
Value unit
Value unit other
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend
Deteriorating
Stable
Improving
Deteriorating
Improving
Stable
Improving
Improving
Parameter achieved
No
Not assessed
Yes
Not assessed
Yes
Not assessed
Yes
Not assessed
Description parameter
GES assessment was based on the method proposed by Problem and Steelzenmuller (2015) ?me-series assessment and benchmarking of ecological indicators?. The average of the series in the assessment period was below the estimated average for the reference period (1.34 and 1.52), respectively), although this difference is not statistically significant. However, the trend analysis indicates that the trend 2013-2017 is negative. For this reason the biomass of the species was not found to be at favourable levels.
The 95th percentile of the annual distribution by length (L95) (ICES, 2017) has been estimated. It will not contribute to the determination of GES because of the need for further studies to verify the appropriateness of the method to meet the criterion, and to define reference points and the respective assessment thresholds (ICES, 2017). ICES (2017). EU request to provide guidance on operational methods for the evaluation of the MSFD Criteria teriion D3C3 (second step 2017). In Report of the ICES Special Request Advice, 2017. ICES Advice 2017, sr.2017.07.
The 95th percentile of the annual distribution by length (L95) (ICES, 2017) has been estimated. It will not contribute to the determination of GES because of the need for further studies to verify the appropriateness of the method to meet the criterion, and to define reference points and the respective assessment thresholds (ICES, 2017). ICES (2017). EU request to provide guidance on operational methods for the evaluation of the MSFD Criteria teriion D3C3 (second step 2017). In Report of the ICES Special Request Advice, 2017. ICES Advice 2017, sr.2017.07.
GES assessment was based on the method proposed by Problem and Steelzenmuller (2015) ?me-series assessment and benchmarking of ecological indicators?. Although the average of the series in the assessment period is below the estimated average for the reference period (0.36 and 1.40, respectively), the trend analysis indicates that the trend 2013-2017 is positive. For this reason the biomass of the species was found to be at favourable levels.
The 95th percentile of the annual distribution by length (L95) (ICES, 2017) has been estimated. It will not contribute to the determination of GES because of the need for further studies to verify the appropriateness of the method to meet the criterion, and to define reference points and the respective assessment thresholds (ICES, 2017). ICES (2017). EU request to provide guidance on operational methods for the evaluation of the MSFD Criteria teriion D3C3 (second step 2017). In Report of the ICES Special Request Advice, 2017. ICES Advice 2017, sr.2017.07.
The 95th percentile of the annual distribution by length (L95) (ICES, 2017) has been estimated. It will not contribute to the determination of GES because of the need for further studies to verify the appropriateness of the method to meet the criterion, and to define reference points and the respective assessment thresholds (ICES, 2017). ICES (2017). EU request to provide guidance on operational methods for the evaluation of the MSFD Criteria teriion D3C3 (second step 2017). In Report of the ICES Special Request Advice, 2017. ICES Advice 2017, sr.2017.07.
Related indicator
Criteria status
Not assessed
Not good
Not assessed
Not assessed
Good
Not assessed
Not assessed
Good
Not assessed
Not assessed
Good
Not assessed
Description criteria
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. There is little information dependent on fisheries as these non-commercial species are generally rejected by commercial fleets. In view of the above, and given the inaccuracies in the catch estimates, it was concluded that neither the proposed data nor the proposed methods allow to characterise and assess the test with confidence. In addition, thresholds for the classification of GES are not yet defined.
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. There is little information dependent on fisheries as these non-commercial species are generally rejected by commercial fleets. In view of the above, and given the inaccuracies in the catch estimates, it was concluded that neither the proposed data nor the proposed methods allow to characterise and assess the test with confidence. In addition, thresholds for the classification of GES are not yet defined.
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. There is little information dependent on fisheries as these non-commercial species are generally rejected by commercial fleets. In view of the above, and given the inaccuracies in the catch estimates, it was concluded that neither the proposed data nor the proposed methods allow to characterise and assess the test with confidence. In addition, thresholds for the classification of GES are not yet defined.
No assessment of status of criterion D1C1 was carried out. There is little information dependent on fisheries as these non-commercial species are generally rejected by commercial fleets. In view of the above, and given the inaccuracies in the catch estimates, it was concluded that neither the proposed data nor the proposed methods allow to characterise and assess the test with confidence. In addition, thresholds for the classification of GES are not yet defined.
Element status
Not good
Not good
Not good
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Description element
Includes the species Allowits subticulata (Lamarck, 1798) and Allosuthis media (Linnaeus, 1758). Species have been combined with gender due to identification problems in the initial years of the series. Assessment of the status of the species was based on the result of D1C2.
Includes the species Allowits subticulata (Lamarck, 1798) and Allosuthis media (Linnaeus, 1758). Species have been combined with gender due to identification problems in the initial years of the series. Assessment of the status of the species was based on the result of D1C2.
Includes the species Allowits subticulata (Lamarck, 1798) and Allosuthis media (Linnaeus, 1758). Species have been combined with gender due to identification problems in the initial years of the series. Assessment of the status of the species was based on the result of D1C2.
This item was considered in Descriptor 3. The classification of each BEA stock was based on the integration of the assessment according to the values set for criteria D3C1 and D3C2. The method of integration used for the assessment of Good Environmental Status (GES) was ?One All Outside? (OOAO). Thus, the overall assessment for each stock was classified in: GES achieved, when both criteria (D3C1 and D3C2) were within the range defined for the reference values
This item was considered in Descriptor 3. The classification of each BEA stock was based on the integration of the assessment according to the values set for criteria D3C1 and D3C2. The method of integration used for the assessment of Good Environmental Status (GES) was ?One All Outside? (OOAO). Thus, the overall assessment for each stock was classified in: GES achieved, when both criteria (D3C1 and D3C2) were within the range defined for the reference values
This item was considered in Descriptor 3. The classification of each BEA stock was based on the integration of the assessment according to the values set for criteria D3C1 and D3C2. The method of integration used for the assessment of Good Environmental Status (GES) was ?One All Outside? (OOAO). Thus, the overall assessment for each stock was classified in: GES achieved, when both criteria (D3C1 and D3C2) were within the range defined for the reference values
Assessment of the status of the species was based on the result of D1C2. The reported information refers to the south-western and southern mainland of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_AG_CONTAC-AAG_CONTACT), since the information deemed most suitable for assessing its biomass is collected in the IPMA crustacean campaign, which takes place in these areas only. However, the species has a wider distribution and the information presented and its assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast
Assessment of the status of the species was based on the result of D1C2. The reported information refers to the south-western and southern mainland of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_AG_CONTAC-AAG_CONTACT), since the information deemed most suitable for assessing its biomass is collected in the IPMA crustacean campaign, which takes place in these areas only. However, the species has a wider distribution and the information presented and its assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast
Assessment of the status of the species was based on the result of D1C2. The reported information refers to the south-western and southern mainland of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_AG_CONTAC-AAG_CONTACT), since the information deemed most suitable for assessing its biomass is collected in the IPMA crustacean campaign, which takes place in these areas only. However, the species has a wider distribution and the information presented and its assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast
Assessment of the status of the species was based on the result of D1C2. The reported information refers to the south-western and southern mainland of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_AG_CONTAC-AAG_CONTACT), since the information deemed most suitable for assessing its biomass is collected in the IPMA crustacean campaign, which takes place in these areas only. However, the species has a wider distribution and the information presented and its assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast
Assessment of the status of the species was based on the result of D1C2. The reported information refers to the south-western and southern mainland of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_AG_CONTAC-AAG_CONTACT), since the information deemed most suitable for assessing its biomass is collected in the IPMA crustacean campaign, which takes place in these areas only. However, the species has a wider distribution and the information presented and its assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast
Assessment of the status of the species was based on the result of D1C2. The reported information refers to the south-western and southern mainland of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_AG_CONTAC-AAG_CONTACT), since the information deemed most suitable for assessing its biomass is collected in the IPMA crustacean campaign, which takes place in these areas only. However, the species has a wider distribution and the information presented and its assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast
Assessment of the status of the species was based on the result of D1C2. The reported information refers to the south-western and southern mainland of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_AG_CONTAC-AAG_CONTACT), since the information deemed most suitable for assessing its biomass is collected in the IPMA crustacean campaign, which takes place in these areas only. However, the species has a wider distribution and the information presented and its assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast
Assessment of the status of the species was based on the result of D1C2. The reported information refers to the south-western and southern mainland of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_AG_CONTAC-AAG_CONTACT), since the information deemed most suitable for assessing its biomass is collected in the IPMA crustacean campaign, which takes place in these areas only. However, the species has a wider distribution and the information presented and its assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast
Assessment of the status of the species was based on the result of D1C2. The reported information refers to the south-western and southern mainland of mainland Portugal (ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_AG_CONTAC-AAG_CONTACT), since the information deemed most suitable for assessing its biomass is collected in the IPMA crustacean campaign, which takes place in these areas only. However, the species has a wider distribution and the information presented and its assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast
Integration rule type parameter
Integration rule description parameter
Integration rule type criteria
Integration rule description criteria
Only one criterion was assessed.
Only one criterion was assessed.
Only one criterion was assessed.
Only one criterion was assessed.
Only one criterion was assessed.
Only one criterion was assessed.
Only one criterion was assessed.
Only one criterion was assessed.
Only one criterion was assessed.
GES extent threshold
75.00
75.00
75.00
75.00
75.00
75.00
75.00
75.00
75.00
GES extent achieved
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
GES extent unit
Proportion of species in good status within species group
Proportion of species in good status within species group
Proportion of species in good status within species group
Proportion of species in good status within species group
Proportion of species in good status within species group
Proportion of species in good status within species group
Proportion of species in good status within species group
Proportion of species in good status within species group
Proportion of species in good status within species group
GES achieved
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
GES achieved
GES achieved
GES achieved
GES achieved
GES achieved
GES achieved
GES achieved
GES achieved
GES achieved
Description overall status
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria for the species in this group. Given that only one species was evaluated, it was considered that it was not appropriate to integrate the results at the level of the group and, therefore, to assess GES. The GES assessment has been carried out for all ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_AG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, because 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 in national waters.
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria for the species in this group. Given that only one species was evaluated, it was considered that it was not appropriate to integrate the results at the level of the group and, therefore, to assess GES. The GES assessment has been carried out for all ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_AG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, because 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 in national waters.
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria for the species in this group. Given that only one species was evaluated, it was considered that it was not appropriate to integrate the results at the level of the group and, therefore, to assess GES. The GES assessment has been carried out for all ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_AG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, because 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 in national waters.
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria for the species in this group. Given that only one species was evaluated, it was considered that it was not appropriate to integrate the results at the level of the group and, therefore, to assess GES. The GES assessment has been carried out for all ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_AG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, because 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 in national waters.
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria for the species in this group. Given that only one species was evaluated, it was considered that it was not appropriate to integrate the results at the level of the group and, therefore, to assess GES. The GES assessment has been carried out for all ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_AG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, because 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 in national waters.
The information was considered insufficient to characterise and assess the different criteria for the species in this group. Given that only one species was evaluated, it was considered that it was not appropriate to integrate the results at the level of the group and, therefore, to assess GES. The GES assessment has been carried out for all ABI_PT_AA_CONTAC_AG_CONTAC_ACON_AG_CONT_AG_CONTAC_ACONF_CONTIN_C areas, because 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 in national waters.
GES was integrated at the level of the species group only when the estimated number of species was equal or higher than 3. For the calculation of the ratio only the species with assessment were considered. In the case of deep-sea cephalopods, information has been used in the IPMA crustacean campaign, the series of which starts in 1997. This campaign takes place only in the south-western and southern parts of the continent (ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_AG_CONT_ACON_AG_CONT_B), so the reported information refers only to these areas. However, all species have a wider distribution and the information presented and their assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast. The assessment of the status of each species has thus been integrated at the level of the whole Portuguese coast to assess GES, since all areas are considered to be ecologically relevant for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848.
GES was integrated at the level of the species group only when the estimated number of species was equal or higher than 3. For the calculation of the ratio only the species with assessment were considered. In the case of deep-sea cephalopods, information has been used in the IPMA crustacean campaign, the series of which starts in 1997. This campaign takes place only in the south-western and southern parts of the continent (ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_AG_CONT_ACON_AG_CONT_B), so the reported information refers only to these areas. However, all species have a wider distribution and the information presented and their assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast. The assessment of the status of each species has thus been integrated at the level of the whole Portuguese coast to assess GES, since all areas are considered to be ecologically relevant for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848.
GES was integrated at the level of the species group only when the estimated number of species was equal or higher than 3. For the calculation of the ratio only the species with assessment were considered. In the case of deep-sea cephalopods, information has been used in the IPMA crustacean campaign, the series of which starts in 1997. This campaign takes place only in the south-western and southern parts of the continent (ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_AG_CONT_ACON_AG_CONT_B), so the reported information refers only to these areas. However, all species have a wider distribution and the information presented and their assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast. The assessment of the status of each species has thus been integrated at the level of the whole Portuguese coast to assess GES, since all areas are considered to be ecologically relevant for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848.
GES was integrated at the level of the species group only when the estimated number of species was equal or higher than 3. For the calculation of the ratio only the species with assessment were considered. In the case of deep-sea cephalopods, information has been used in the IPMA crustacean campaign, the series of which starts in 1997. This campaign takes place only in the south-western and southern parts of the continent (ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_AG_CONT_ACON_AG_CONT_B), so the reported information refers only to these areas. However, all species have a wider distribution and the information presented and their assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast. The assessment of the status of each species has thus been integrated at the level of the whole Portuguese coast to assess GES, since all areas are considered to be ecologically relevant for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848.
GES was integrated at the level of the species group only when the estimated number of species was equal or higher than 3. For the calculation of the ratio only the species with assessment were considered. In the case of deep-sea cephalopods, information has been used in the IPMA crustacean campaign, the series of which starts in 1997. This campaign takes place only in the south-western and southern parts of the continent (ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_AG_CONT_ACON_AG_CONT_B), so the reported information refers only to these areas. However, all species have a wider distribution and the information presented and their assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast. The assessment of the status of each species has thus been integrated at the level of the whole Portuguese coast to assess GES, since all areas are considered to be ecologically relevant for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848.
GES was integrated at the level of the species group only when the estimated number of species was equal or higher than 3. For the calculation of the ratio only the species with assessment were considered. In the case of deep-sea cephalopods, information has been used in the IPMA crustacean campaign, the series of which starts in 1997. This campaign takes place only in the south-western and southern parts of the continent (ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_AG_CONT_ACON_AG_CONT_B), so the reported information refers only to these areas. However, all species have a wider distribution and the information presented and their assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast. The assessment of the status of each species has thus been integrated at the level of the whole Portuguese coast to assess GES, since all areas are considered to be ecologically relevant for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848.
GES was integrated at the level of the species group only when the estimated number of species was equal or higher than 3. For the calculation of the ratio only the species with assessment were considered. In the case of deep-sea cephalopods, information has been used in the IPMA crustacean campaign, the series of which starts in 1997. This campaign takes place only in the south-western and southern parts of the continent (ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_AG_CONT_ACON_AG_CONT_B), so the reported information refers only to these areas. However, all species have a wider distribution and the information presented and their assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast. The assessment of the status of each species has thus been integrated at the level of the whole Portuguese coast to assess GES, since all areas are considered to be ecologically relevant for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848.
GES was integrated at the level of the species group only when the estimated number of species was equal or higher than 3. For the calculation of the ratio only the species with assessment were considered. In the case of deep-sea cephalopods, information has been used in the IPMA crustacean campaign, the series of which starts in 1997. This campaign takes place only in the south-western and southern parts of the continent (ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_AG_CONT_ACON_AG_CONT_B), so the reported information refers only to these areas. However, all species have a wider distribution and the information presented and their assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast. The assessment of the status of each species has thus been integrated at the level of the whole Portuguese coast to assess GES, since all areas are considered to be ecologically relevant for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848.
GES was integrated at the level of the species group only when the estimated number of species was equal or higher than 3. For the calculation of the ratio only the species with assessment were considered. In the case of deep-sea cephalopods, information has been used in the IPMA crustacean campaign, the series of which starts in 1997. This campaign takes place only in the south-western and southern parts of the continent (ABI_PT_AAG_CONTAC_AG_CONT_ACON_AG_CONT_B), so the reported information refers only to these areas. However, all species have a wider distribution and the information presented and their assessments are expected to reflect the population trend on our coast. The assessment of the status of each species has thus been integrated at the level of the whole Portuguese coast to assess GES, since all areas are considered to be ecologically relevant for this species group as proposed in Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848.
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
Related pressures
  • Changes to hydrological conditions
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Changes to hydrological conditions
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Changes to hydrological conditions
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Changes to hydrological conditions
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Changes to hydrological conditions
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Changes to hydrological conditions
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
  • Extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities)
Related targets