in general, a very high variability in time, and how in a number of cases there are significant changes in the trend of the first cycle to the second, but it is difficult to assess on a case-by-case basis and the 6-year cycle compared to the 20 years of the previous cycle does not make it easy to draw clear conclusions.

in general, a very high variability in time, and how in a number of cases there are significant changes in the trend of the first cycle to the second, but it is difficult to assess on a case-by-case basis and the 6-year cycle compared to the 20 years of the previous cycle does not make it easy to draw clear conclusions.

This indicator has been calculated for each sampling year, in this case 2011 to 2017, for a fixed species group. The species in this group are the same species as used in the other D1 indicators as in the D1C2 or D1C4 evaluation. The species have been grouped according to the size in ‘large’ species (species for which the 95th percentile of the size reached or exceeded by at least one year the threshold of 35 cm), and “small” species (species for which the 95th percentile of the size has never reached the threshold of 35 cm). For small species, this indicator shows a fairly stable pattern over the years for most of the species considered. And only in the cases of Eutrigla gurnardus and Helicolenus dactylotus shows a slight decrease of the 95 % that should be followed in future evaluations. It is noteworthy that according to the results of the first assessment (Figure 6) it is precisely H. dactylotus, together with M. poutassou and T. minutus, the species that showed a highly unstable pattern, probably due to the coincidence of sampling with some recruitment peaks of those species in certain years, but it is true that in the 6-year cycle it is more difficult to assess the aforementioned instability. In the large species, the results are very similar to the small species, there are no marked trends and the variability is reduced compared to what was observed in the previous evaluation. Therefore, we can conclude that the situation is stable for all species studied with respect to the first assessment. As already stated in the previous evaluation of the results of this indicator, considering that it mainly responds to fishing pressures and the vast majority of these species remain stable, it can be argued that, although the trend towards growth is not significant, the stability of the 95th percentile is noted. It can therefore be argued that these populations are in a good environmental state.

The species not meeting the criteria for increase/stability in the range are 5 in total, in particular 4 susceptible species and one opportunistic approach. With these results, there is still no result that differs from natural variability, therefore it would be within the BEA as maintenance of the proportion of species that meet the proposed criteria.