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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |