Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D1-M / Portugal / NE Atlantic: Macaronesia
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 Mammals |
Member State | Portugal |
Region/subregion | NE Atlantic: Macaronesia |
Reported by | DGRM |
Report date | 2021-03-03 |
Report access | ART8_GES_PT_setembro2020.xml |
Azores Subdivision (AMA-PT-SD-AZO)
GES component |
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Baleen whales
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Element |
Balaenoptera acutorostrata |
Balaenoptera acutorostrata |
Balaenoptera acutorostrata |
Balaenoptera acutorostrata |
Balaenoptera acutorostrata |
Balaenoptera borealis |
Balaenoptera borealis |
Balaenoptera borealis |
Balaenoptera borealis |
Balaenoptera borealis |
Balaenoptera edeni |
Balaenoptera edeni |
Balaenoptera edeni |
Balaenoptera edeni |
Balaenoptera edeni |
Balaenoptera musculus |
Balaenoptera musculus |
Balaenoptera musculus |
Balaenoptera musculus |
Balaenoptera musculus |
Balaenoptera physalus |
Balaenoptera physalus |
Balaenoptera physalus |
Balaenoptera physalus |
Balaenoptera physalus |
Balaenoptera physalus |
Megaptera novaeangliae |
Megaptera novaeangliae |
Megaptera novaeangliae |
Megaptera novaeangliae |
Megaptera novaeangliae |
Globicephala melas |
Globicephala melas |
Globicephala melas |
Globicephala melas |
Globicephala melas |
Grampus griseus |
Grampus griseus |
Grampus griseus |
Grampus griseus |
Grampus griseus |
Grampus griseus |
Hyperoodon ampullatus |
Hyperoodon ampullatus |
Hyperoodon ampullatus |
Hyperoodon ampullatus |
Hyperoodon ampullatus |
Kogia breviceps |
Kogia breviceps |
Kogia breviceps |
Kogia breviceps |
Kogia breviceps |
Mesoplodon bidens |
Mesoplodon bidens |
Mesoplodon bidens |
Mesoplodon bidens |
Mesoplodon bidens |
Mesoplodon europaeus |
Mesoplodon europaeus |
Mesoplodon europaeus |
Mesoplodon europaeus |
Mesoplodon europaeus |
Mesoplodon mirus |
Mesoplodon mirus |
Mesoplodon mirus |
Mesoplodon mirus |
Mesoplodon mirus |
Physeter macrocephalus |
Physeter macrocephalus |
Physeter macrocephalus |
Physeter macrocephalus |
Physeter macrocephalus |
Physeter macrocephalus |
Ziphius cavirostris |
Ziphius cavirostris |
Ziphius cavirostris |
Ziphius cavirostris |
Ziphius cavirostris |
Delphinus delphis |
Delphinus delphis |
Delphinus delphis |
Delphinus delphis |
Delphinus delphis |
Globicephala macrorhynchus |
Globicephala macrorhynchus |
Globicephala macrorhynchus |
Globicephala macrorhynchus |
Globicephala macrorhynchus |
Orcinus orca |
Orcinus orca |
Orcinus orca |
Orcinus orca |
Orcinus orca |
Pseudorca crassidens |
Pseudorca crassidens |
Pseudorca crassidens |
Pseudorca crassidens |
Pseudorca crassidens |
Stenella coeruleoalba |
Stenella coeruleoalba |
Stenella coeruleoalba |
Stenella coeruleoalba |
Stenella coeruleoalba |
Stenella frontalis |
Stenella frontalis |
Stenella frontalis |
Stenella frontalis |
Stenella frontalis |
Stenella frontalis |
Steno bredanensis |
Steno bredanensis |
Steno bredanensis |
Steno bredanensis |
Steno bredanensis |
Tursiops truncatus |
Tursiops truncatus |
Tursiops truncatus |
Tursiops truncatus |
Tursiops truncatus |
Tursiops truncatus |
Element code |
137087 |
137087 |
137087 |
137087 |
137087 |
137088 |
137088 |
137088 |
137088 |
137088 |
137089 |
137089 |
137089 |
137089 |
137089 |
137090 |
137090 |
137090 |
137090 |
137090 |
137091 |
137091 |
137091 |
137091 |
137091 |
137091 |
137092 |
137092 |
137092 |
137092 |
137092 |
137097 |
137097 |
137097 |
137097 |
137097 |
137098 |
137098 |
137098 |
137098 |
137098 |
137098 |
343899 |
343899 |
343899 |
343899 |
343899 |
137113 |
137113 |
137113 |
137113 |
137113 |
137121 |
137121 |
137121 |
137121 |
137121 |
137123 |
137123 |
137123 |
137123 |
137123 |
137126 |
137126 |
137126 |
137126 |
137126 |
137119 |
137119 |
137119 |
137119 |
137119 |
137119 |
137127 |
137127 |
137127 |
137127 |
137127 |
137094 |
137094 |
137094 |
137094 |
137094 |
137096 |
137096 |
137096 |
137096 |
137096 |
137102 |
137102 |
137102 |
137102 |
137102 |
137104 |
137104 |
137104 |
137104 |
137104 |
137107 |
137107 |
137107 |
137107 |
137107 |
137108 |
137108 |
137108 |
137108 |
137108 |
137108 |
137110 |
137110 |
137110 |
137110 |
137110 |
137111 |
137111 |
137111 |
137111 |
137111 |
137111 |
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/
|
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/
|
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 |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
National |
Criterion |
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
D1C1
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
Parameter |
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Other
|
Abundance
|
Survival rate
|
Other
|
Other
|
Abundance
|
Survival rate
|
Other
|
Other
|
Abundance
|
Other
|
Other
|
Abundance
|
Survival rate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter other |
Incidental capture (No individuals) ? Tuna fisheries
|
Incidental capture (No individuals) ? fishing longlining
|
Incidental capture (No individuals) ? Tuna fisheries
|
Incidental capture (No individuals) ? fishing longlining
|
Incidental capture (No individuals) ? Tuna fisheries
|
Incidental capture (No individuals) ? fishing longlining
|
Incidental capture (No individuals) ? Tuna fisheries
|
Incidental capture (No individuals) ? fishing longlining
|
Incidental capture (No individuals) ? Tuna fisheries
|
Incidental capture (No individuals) ? fishing longlining
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value upper |
9.0 |
1.0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value lower |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value source |
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
Other (specify)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value source other |
MISIC SEAS II
|
MISIC SEAS II
|
MISIC SEAS II
|
MISIC SEAS II
|
MISIC SEAS II
|
MISIC SEAS II
|
MISIC SEAS II
|
MISIC SEAS II
|
MISIC SEAS II
|
MISIC SEAS II
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
14.0 |
11.0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value achieved lower |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value unit |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value unit other |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion value achieved |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trend |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parameter achieved |
Yes, based on low risk |
Yes, based on low risk |
Yes, based on low risk |
Yes, based on low risk |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes, based on low risk |
Yes, based on low risk |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Yes, based on low risk |
Yes, based on low risk |
Unknown |
Yes, based on low risk |
Yes, based on low risk |
Unknown |
Unknown |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Description parameter |
South of Pico (photo-ID van der STAP and Hartman, staff).
Estimate based on experimental design
|
0,94 (IC 95% = 0.85-0.98) (2004-2007; http://www.nova-atlantis.org) - Sul do Pico e não total RAA
|
345 immature and immature female (AI 95 %
|
0,93 (IC 95% = 0,74-1; CV = 0,12) (julho-agosto 2011-2015; Boys et. al, 2019) Faial-Pico
|
Model-based estimate: 2.324 individuals (95 % CI
|
Management unit I: 431 individuals (95 % CI
|
UG-II: Adults: 0,97 (0.029 IF)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Related indicator |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Criteria status |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Good |
Good |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description criteria |
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine, Turtle, GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 141 pp.
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
D1C1 ? MM_BYC_BR: The evaluation of the incidental catch rates for ordinary whales shall be based on the same monitoring programmes as described above for the Azores. There were no incidental catches of ordinary whales in any of the fisheries monitored in the region, neither in the past nor in the present case, therefore, the management unit is in GES for this criterion (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
D1C1 ? MM_BYC_BR: The evaluation of the incidental catch rates for ordinary whales shall be based on the same monitoring programmes as described above for the Azores. There were no incidental catches of ordinary whales in any of the fisheries monitored in the region, neither in the past nor in the present case, therefore, the management unit is in GES for this criterion (MISTIC EESE II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
D1C2 ? MM_ABU_DS: There is no reference value for the abundance of this species as there was no prior sampling by Distance Sampling in the Azores. The ocean industry of the MISTIC EM II project was carried out outside the period of occurrence of the species in the region and has not been able to estimate its abundance. Therefore, there are no estimates of the size of this management unit for the assessment of GES (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
D1C1 – MM_BYC_BR: Não houve captura acidental de golfinho-de-Risso em nenhuma das pescarias monitorizadas na região no passado nem no presente, pelo que a UG está em BEA para este critério.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
D1C1 – MM_BYC_BR: Não houve captura acidental de golfinho-de-Risso em nenhuma das pescarias monitorizadas na região no passado nem no presente, pelo que a UG está em BEA para este critério.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
D1C2 ? MM_ABU_CMR: The only abundance estimates available for risae were those of the ?island associated with the island? in the southern island of Pico, which was provided by the Fondation Nova Atlantis (http://www.nova-atlantis.org). 452 individuals have been estimated (95 % CI
|
D1C3 ? MM_ABU_SR: The only estimates of survival rates available for risae were those of the ?island associated with the island? in the southern island of Pico, which was provided by the Fondation Nova Atlantis (http://www.nova-atlantis.org). It was estimated at 0,94 (95 % CI
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine, Turtle, GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 141 pp.
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
There is no reference value for the abundance of this species that would allow an assessment of GES, as there were no prior withdrawals with the methodologies applied by the MISIS SEAS II project. A stock size estimate was obtained for sampling per sampling sampling of 333 individuals (20 % CV) on the basis of the oceanic programme of the MISIC SEAS II project, for a 32.804 km² survey area.
MISIC SEAS II consortium (2019) Technical Report 2 Sub-program A (A-MBT2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP1 ? Monitoring Programs and Data gathering, Task 1.2. Pilot Monitoring Projects Marine Mammals
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not appear to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores (for example, marine turtles reproduce outside the Macaronesian biogeographical region and EU waters) and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an appropriate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
D1C1 ? MM_BYC_BR: The evaluation of the fee for the accidental capture of sperm is based on the same monitoring programmes and follows the same methods as those described for the Atlantic dolphin. There is no record of accidental catches in any of the monitored fisheries in the region in the past, nor in the present one, so that the management unit is in GES for this criterion (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
It has been proposed to monitor the mortality resulting from collisions by vessels. However, the current figures are not sufficient to assess the environmental status in respect of this criterion.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
D1C1 ? MM_BYC_BR: The evaluation of the fee for the accidental capture of sperm is based on the same monitoring programmes and follows the same methods as those described for the Atlantic dolphin. There is no record of accidental catches in any of the monitored fisheries in the region in the past, nor in the present one, so that the management unit is in GES for this criterion (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
It has been proposed to monitor the mortality resulting from collisions by vessels. However, the current figures are not sufficient to assess the environmental status in respect of this criterion.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
D1C2 ? MM_ABU_CMR: The only reliable estimates of the absolute abundance for the cachalote population in the Azores are those indicated by Boys et al. (2019). These authors used the photo-identification of adult male and female immature female, collected in the coastal waters around Faial and Pico during the summer months (July-August) between 2011 and 2015, and applied a robust open model (MSORD ? Multi-State Open Robust Model) to estimate population population and population movements. These estimates do not therefore correspond to the sperm management unit using the coastal waters of the Azores, but only to the part of the management unit using the waters around Faial and Pico. Abundance estimates varied between years since 367 (95 % CI
|
D1C3 ? MM_DE_SR: The only reliable estimates of survival rates available for the cachalote population in the Azores are also reported by Boys et al. (2019). The probability of cachalote annual survival varied during the study period and an average survival rate for the period 2011-2015 is proposed as the initial benchmark for the parameter (i.e. 0,93 survival rate
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine, Turtle, GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 141 pp.
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not appear to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores (for example, marine turtles reproduce outside the Macaronesian biogeographical region and EU waters) and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an appropriate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
There is no reference value for the abundance of this species that would allow an assessment of GES, as there were no prior withdrawals with the methodologies applied by the MISIS SEAS II project. An estimate of stock abundance was obtained by transesterfies online of 205 individuals (60 % CV) on the basis of the oceanic programme of the MISIC SEAS II project, for a 32.804 km² survey area.
MISIC SEAS II consortium (2019) Technical Report 2 Sub-program A (A-MBT2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP1 ? Monitoring Programs and Data gathering, Task 1.2. Pilot Monitoring Projects Marine Mammals
|
Long term data ranges from standardised and comparable methodologies are required to meet this criterion.
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
There is no reference value for the abundance of this species that would allow an assessment of GES, as there were no prior withdrawals with the methodologies applied by the MISIS SEAS II project. An estimate of stock abundance was obtained by transesterfies online of 150 individuals (73 % CV) on the basis of the oceanic programme of the MISIC SEAS II project, for a 32.804 km² survey area.
MISIC SEAS II consortium (2019) Technical Report 2 Sub-program A (A-MBT2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP1 ? Monitoring Programs and Data gathering, Task 1.2. Pilot Monitoring Projects Marine Mammals
|
Long term data ranges from standardised and comparable methodologies are required to meet this criterion.
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine, Turtle, GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 141 pp.
|
Long term data ranges from standardised and comparable methodologies are required to meet this criterion.
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
MM-BY-BR indicator: Information on the rate of incidental catch of this species is available for the fishing of pole-and-line tuna, purse seine fishing for small pelagics, demersal fishing (using line and longlines) and surface longline fisheries (Cruz et al., 2018, Silva et al., 2011). Between 1998 and 2012, 9 Atlantic dolphins were incidentally caught (Cruz et al., 2018), reaching an average catch rate of 0,00048 (SD
|
MM-BY-BR indicator: Information on the rate of incidental catch of this species is available for the fishing of pole-and-line tuna, purse seine fishing for small pelagics, demersal fishing (using line and longlines) and surface longline fisheries (Cruz et al., 2018, Silva et al., 2011). Between 1998 and 2012, 9 Atlantic dolphins were incidentally caught (Cruz et al., 2018), reaching an average catch rate of 0,00048 (SD
|
The population estimates were obtained on the basis of sampling through the deep-sea programme of the MISTIC SEAS II project for a 32.804 km² survey area in the central group of islands in the Azores.
D1C2 ? MM_ABU_DS: Sampling has not been carried out using the sampling method sampling in the past, so there are no previous abundance estimates for the species. The abundance values obtained during the pilot sampling of the SEAS II mixture in July-August 2018 are proposed as reference values for the assessment of GES in the future. These values differ slightly depending on the method used: Based on random sampling (2.328 individuals
|
Long term data ranges from standardised and comparable methodologies are required to meet this criterion.
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
For the purposes of Directive 2008/56/EC (2008), the term habitat addresses both the abiotic characteristics and the associated biological community by treating both elements together in the direction of the term biotope. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for the assessment of the habitat level, also taking into account variations over the gradient of distance to coast and depth (e.g. coast, platform and deep sea). The three criteria for the assessment of habitats are their distribution, extent and condition (for the latter, in particular the condition of the typical species and communities), together with the related indicators for each of them. The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The same reason as for the previous criterion (i.e. D1C5) applies also to this criterion for cetaceans.
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
AMA-MM-BYR-BR-indicator: The evaluation of the incidental catch rates for dolphins is based on the same monitoring programmes and follows the same methods as those described for the Atlantic dolphin. Between 1998 and 2012, a troaz was incidentally caught in tuna fisheries (Cruz et al., 2018), and 11 individuals were caught from 2013 to 2017, an increase of almost 100 times the rate of accidental catch between the two periods. It should be noted, however, that these estimates represent incidental catch rates rather than mortality rates because all the animals were released alive by cutting the fishing line and cannot be determined if they died or not as a result of the interaction. There were no incidental catches of roach in purse seine fisheries, demersal or surface longline fisheries. The current accidental catch figures are higher than 1 % of the best estimate of abundance for the area. However, dolphins are often released alive, so the mortality rate can be lower (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
AMA-MM-BYR-BR-indicator: The evaluation of the incidental catch rates for dolphins is based on the same monitoring programmes and follows the same methods as those described for the Atlantic dolphin. Between 1998 and 2012, a troaz was incidentally caught in tuna fisheries (Cruz et al., 2018), and 11 individuals were caught from 2013 to 2017, an increase of almost 100 times the rate of accidental catch between the two periods. It should be noted, however, that these estimates represent incidental catch rates rather than mortality rates because all the animals were released alive by cutting the fishing line and cannot be determined if they died or not as a result of the interaction. There were no incidental catches of roach in purse seine fisheries, demersal or surface longline fisheries. The current accidental catch figures are higher than 1 % of the best estimate of abundance for the area. However, dolphins are often released alive, so the mortality rate can be lower (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
D1C2 ? MM_ABU_DS: The abundance of the ocean management unit will be assessed using the distance sampling method. No sampling with this technique has been performed in the past and there is therefore no previous abundance estimates for the species. The abundance values obtained during the pilot sampling of SEAS II are proposed as a reference for assessing this parameter and criterion in the future. The number of sightings on sampling by Distance Sampling did not allow spatial analysis for the calculation of abundance in the Azores and only the projected size was able to be estimated at 431 individuals (95 % CI
|
D1C3 ? MM_DE_SR: The survival rate of the coastal management unit shall be assessed using recapture methods. Estimates of baseline survival rates have been calculated between 1999 and 2004 for coastal waters around Faial and Pico using a Cormyo-Seber model applied to photo-identification data (Silva et al., 2009). The survival rate was calculated in 0,97 for adults and 0,82 for subadults for the period 1999-2004. The pilot sampling of SESAS II lasted only a few months and did not make it possible to estimate the annual survival rates. The estimates are insufficient to calculate a trend and assess GES (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
Marine mammals are highly migratory and their ecological range and distribution are much broader than the biogeographical region (at the river basin scale). It was estimated as equivalent to the total area of the marine territory of the Azores (as calculated by the reporting grids to the Habitats Directive)
|
The extent and quality of the Azores Sea habitat do not seem to limit the animal species of megafauna to GES, but there are several species whose life cycle does not entirely follow in the sub-division of the Azores and an assessment of the habitat condition requires an adequate mapping, either in distance to the coast or in depth, and an integrated understanding of the state of the associated communities and species. Additional efforts for a coherent classification of marine habitats, supported by an appropriate mapping, are essential for a habitat assessment, taking into account variations over the gradient of coast and depth (coastal, platform and deep-sea habitat). The assessment of the habitat condition requires an integrated understanding of the status of the associated communities and species, consistent with the requirements laid down in Directive 92/43/EEC (1992) and in Council Directive 2009/147/EC (2009), including, where appropriate, an assessment of their functional characteristics. The explanation given for the unsuitability of criterion D1C4 also applies to D1C5 (MISIC SEAS II Consortium, 2018).
JCC II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) ? Applying a sub-regional close and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 ? Towards a co-beneficiary update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element status |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description element |
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Preliminary results...
|
Preliminary results...
|
Preliminary results...
|
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Preliminary results...
|
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Preliminary results...
|
Preliminary results...
|
Preliminary results...
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Preliminary results...
|
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Preliminary results...
|
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
There is insufficient information to assess D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 (unknown) criteria, while D1C4 and D1C5 were found to be inadequate and were not assessed, so the GES of the species is unknown.
|
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Preliminary results...
|
Os resultados preliminares do projeto MISTIC SEAS revelam que esta espécie se encontra em BEA nos Açores para o critério D1C1. Para os restantes critérios não existe informação suficiente ou foram considerados inadequados e por isso não foram avaliados, pelo que o BEA da espécie foi considerado desconhecido.
MISTIC SEAS II consortium (2018) Macaronesian Roof Report (TRWP2) - Applying a sub-regional coherent and coordinated approach to the monitoring and assessment of marine biodiversity in Macaronesia for the second cycle of the MSFD. WP2 - Towards a coherent update of initial assessment, GES and targets, Task 2.1. Update of the Initial Assessment and Task 2.2. Finding common GES definition and Environmental Targets for the Macaronesia GA No 11.0661/2017/750679/SUB/ENV.C2., Brussels, 132pp. |
Preliminary results...
|
Preliminary results...
|
Integration rule type parameter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule description parameter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule type criteria |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule description criteria |
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
For assessment and integration of environmental status it is essential to collect a wider/diverse set of data, filling gaps for a precision assessment. the suggested integration rule OOAO (WG BEA, 2017) could offer a reliable and robust integration method if the status of each element, criterion, indicator could be assessed with a very high degree of confidence, this is rarely the case.
|
GES extent threshold |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent achieved |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent unit |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES achieved |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Description overall status |
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Only D1C1 was assessed for the different species, whereas the information was found insufficient to characterise and assess D1C2 and D1C3 in this cycle and in those cases GES was classified as ?Unknown?. Criteria D1C4 and D1C5 considered to be unsuitable, taking into account the characteristics of this group of megafauna, have not been assessed.
|
Assessments period |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
2012-2018 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
Madeira subdivision (AMA-PT-SD-MAD)
GES component |
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
D1-M
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Feature |
Baleen whales
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Deep-diving toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Small toothed cetaceans
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Seals
|
Element |
Balaenoptera edeni |
Globicephala macrorhynchus |
Globicephala macrorhynchus |
Globicephala macrorhynchus |
Physeter macrocephalus |
Delphinus delphis |
Stenella frontalis |
Tursiops truncatus |
Tursiops truncatus |
Tursiops truncatus |
Monachus monachus |
Monachus monachus |
Monachus monachus |
Monachus monachus |
Monachus monachus |
Element code |
137089 |
137096 |
137096 |
137096 |
137119 |
137094 |
137108 |
137111 |
137111 |
137111 |
137081 |
137081 |
137081 |
137081 |
137081 |
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 |
MS in (sub)region |
MS in (sub)region |
MS in (sub)region |
MS in (sub)region |
MS in (sub)region |
MS in (sub)region |
MS in (sub)region |
MS in (sub)region |
MS in (sub)region |
MS in (sub)region |
MS in (sub)region |
MS in (sub)region |
MS in (sub)region |
MS in (sub)region |
MS in (sub)region |
Criterion |
D1C2
|
D1C2
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C2
|
D1C2
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C1
|
D1C2
|
D1C3
|
D1C4
|
D1C5
|
Parameter |
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Other
|
Survival rate
|
Other
|
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Abundance
|
Other
|
Survival rate
|
Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)
|
Abundance
|
Survival rate
|
Distribution (range)
|
Extent
|
Parameter other |
The CMR
|
Gambling rate by ship strke
|
The CMR
|
||||||||||||
Threshold value upper |
|||||||||||||||
Threshold value lower |
|||||||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
|||||||||||||||
Threshold value source |
|||||||||||||||
Threshold value source other |
|||||||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
|||||||||||||||
Value achieved lower |
|||||||||||||||
Value unit |
(number of) individuals
|
(number of) individuals
|
(number of) individuals
|
(number of) individuals
|
(number of) individuals
|
(number of) individuals
|
(number of) individuals
|
(number of) individuals
|
Other
|
Other
|
|||||
Value unit other |
Decimal
|
Square Kilometers
|
|||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value |
|||||||||||||||
Proportion value achieved |
|||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
|||||||||||||||
Trend |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Improving |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Parameter achieved |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Unknown |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Not assessed |
Description parameter |
Estimation based on the experimental design: 37 individuals (95 % CI
|
Estimation based on the experimental method distance sampling:
UG-I: 95 individuals (95 % CI
|
MISTIC SENASII]
UG-II: Animals associated with the island and transient: 662 (AI 95 %
|
MISTIC SENASII]
|
Estimation based on the experimental method Capture Mark Recapture
UG-II South: 103 individuals (95 % CI
|
Results obtained in 2019 through the LIFE marine Madeira lobo-marine project, with the value of D1C4 resulting from the area around the Desertas and Madeira to the 200 m bathymetric measure.
|
|||||||||
Related indicator |
|||||||||||||||
Criteria status |
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 criteria |
There are no previous reference values for this species in the subdivision of Madeira. The current data are not sufficient to assess the GES of this indicator species in the subdivision of Madeira.
|
An abundance of UG-I is proposed to be evaluated using sampling methods for sampling sampling.
An abundance of UG-II is proposed to be evaluated using marking and recapture methods.
|
An abundance of UG-I is proposed to be evaluated using sampling methods for sampling sampling.
An abundance of UG-II is proposed to be evaluated using marking and recapture methods.
|
It is proposed to assess UG-II?s survival rate using marking and recapture methods. It is not possible to assess GES of this UG-II as regards the survival rate in the Madeira subdivision
|
In the course of the SESAS II, the follow-up to collisions with vessels has been proposed. Current data are not sufficient to assess GES in relation to this criterion in the subdivision of Madeira.
|
A prior abundance estimate exists that could be used as a benchmark for such UG ? 741 (CV
|
Currently, it is not possible to determine trends and evaluate BES for this species in the subdivision of Madeira.
|
An abundance of UG-I is proposed to be evaluated using sampling methods by means of sampling sampling.
The size of UG-II is proposed to be assessed using marking and recapture methods.
|
An abundance of UG-I is proposed to be evaluated using sampling methods by means of sampling sampling.
The size of UG-II is proposed to be assessed using marking and recapture methods.
|
UG-II survival is proposed to be evaluated using marking and recapture methods. Currently, it is not possible to determine trends and assess GES for this species in the sub division of Madeira.
|
It is proposed to continue to assess the estimation of the mortality rate through intensive on the spot monitoring, of animals stranded on fishing gear,
Image of caves and GPS system devices
|
It is proposed to continue to evaluate the abundance of the marine wolf population through the technique of capturing images collected systematically through automatic cameras placed in the caves used by the animals.
|
It is proposed to continue the survival rate of the marine wolf by the technique of capturing images collected systematically through automatic cameras placed in the caves used by the animals.
|
It is proposed to assess the habitat for feeding using marking methods using devices with GPS systems.
|
It is proposed to continue to assess the estimation of the current habitat through observations from the community in general, given the sensitivity of the population to communicate the observation of this species.
|
Element status |
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 element |
|||||||||||||||
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 |
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 pilot monitoring programmes carried out as part of the MISIC SEAS II project obtained reference values for the abundance of some stocks of marine mammals. However, it should be noted that these values resulted from planned sampling to test the feasibility of the proposed methodology and as such, caution is advised when comparing these reference values with past or future estimates. No formal assessment has yet been carried out to validate the appropriateness and efficiency of the sampling strategy, but results point to that, at least for some species and/or UGIs, there is a need for more sampling (extending the annual sampling period and several years) to reduce the CV of abundance estimates and to increase the detection power for the MSFD.
In the case of population estimates of sampling by photo-identification, the previous ones covered a longer period (7 years in the case of Madeira) and sampling was carried out during the whole year and not only during a given season, and in the monitoring sampling of the SEAS II mixture. With a longer dataset, more individuals associated with the islands would be considered and, possibly, increase population abundance estimates. Therefore, the estimates presented here should not be used to deduct any trend, but should be considered as a minimum estimate.
For the pilot?s online sample testing, also prior estimates included a longer period and, in addition, during the design of the online transcript studies using the distance sampling methodology, it was decided to concentrate the effort on high-density areas of the Madeira archipelago. Thus, the estimates given are for these areas and not for all the coastal waters of the Madeira archipelago. For the reasons explained, again no direct comparison should be made with the initial reference values, and therefore no trends should be obtained from the values obtained from the pilot monitoring pilot projects of the SEAS II project.
The sampling projects carried out during MISTIC SEAS II have tested sampling strategies (area to be sampled, period to be sampled and effort required) following the methodologies proposed in the SEAS project to monitor the Macaronesian oceanic species in Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands.
Despite esf
|
The pilot monitoring programmes carried out as part of the MISIC SEAS II project obtained reference values for the abundance of some stocks of marine mammals. However, it should be noted that these values resulted from planned sampling to test the feasibility of the proposed methodology and as such, caution is advised when comparing these reference values with past or future estimates. No formal assessment has yet been carried out to validate the appropriateness and efficiency of the sampling strategy, but results point to that, at least for some species and/or UGIs, there is a need for more sampling (extending the annual sampling period and several years) to reduce the CV of abundance estimates and to increase the detection power for the MSFD.
In the case of population estimates of sampling by photo-identification, the previous ones covered a longer period (7 years in the case of Madeira) and sampling was carried out during the whole year and not only during a given season, and in the monitoring sampling of the SEAS II mixture. With a longer dataset, more individuals associated with the islands would be considered and, possibly, increase population abundance estimates. Therefore, the estimates presented here should not be used to deduct any trend, but should be considered as a minimum estimate.
For the pilot?s online sample testing, also prior estimates included a longer period and, in addition, during the design of the online transcript studies using the distance sampling methodology, it was decided to concentrate the effort on high-density areas of the Madeira archipelago. Thus, the estimates given are for these areas and not for all the coastal waters of the Madeira archipelago. For the reasons explained, again no direct comparison should be made with the initial reference values, and therefore no trends should be obtained from the values obtained from the pilot monitoring pilot projects of the SEAS II project.
The sampling projects carried out during MISTIC SEAS II have tested sampling strategies (area to be sampled, period to be sampled and effort required) following the methodologies proposed in the SEAS project to monitor the Macaronesian oceanic species in Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands.
|
The pilot monitoring programmes carried out as part of the MISIC SEAS II project obtained reference values for the abundance of some stocks of marine mammals. However, it should be noted that these values resulted from planned sampling to test the feasibility of the proposed methodology and as such, caution is advised when comparing these reference values with past or future estimates. No formal assessment has yet been carried out to validate the appropriateness and efficiency of the sampling strategy, but results point to that, at least for some species and/or UGIs, there is a need for more sampling (extending the annual sampling period and several years) to reduce the CV of abundance estimates and to increase the detection power for the MSFD.
In the case of population estimates of sampling by photo-identification, the previous ones covered a longer period (7 years in the case of Madeira) and sampling was carried out during the whole year and not only during a given season, and in the monitoring sampling of the SEAS II mixture. With a longer dataset, more individuals associated with the islands would be considered and, possibly, increase population abundance estimates. Therefore, the estimates presented here should not be used to deduct any trend, but should be considered as a minimum estimate.
For the pilot?s online sample testing, also prior estimates included a longer period and, in addition, during the design of the online transcript studies using the distance sampling methodology, it was decided to concentrate the effort on high-density areas of the Madeira archipelago. Thus, the estimates given are for these areas and not for all the coastal waters of the Madeira archipelago. For the reasons explained, again no direct comparison should be made with the initial reference values, and therefore no trends should be obtained from the values obtained from the pilot monitoring pilot projects of the SEAS II project.
The sampling projects carried out during MISTIC SEAS II have tested sampling strategies (area to be sampled, period to be sampled and effort required) following the methodologies proposed in the SEAS project to monitor the Macaronesian oceanic species in Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands.
|
The pilot monitoring programmes carried out as part of the MISIC SEAS II project obtained reference values for the abundance of some stocks of marine mammals. However, it should be noted that these values resulted from planned sampling to test the feasibility of the proposed methodology and as such, caution is advised when comparing these reference values with past or future estimates. No formal assessment has yet been carried out to validate the appropriateness and efficiency of the sampling strategy, but results point to that, at least for some species and/or UGIs, there is a need for more sampling (extending the annual sampling period and several years) to reduce the CV of abundance estimates and to increase the detection power for the MSFD.
In the case of population estimates of sampling by photo-identification, the previous ones covered a longer period (7 years in the case of Madeira) and sampling was carried out during the whole year and not only during a given season, and in the monitoring sampling of the SEAS II mixture. With a longer dataset, more individuals associated with the islands would be considered and, possibly, increase population abundance estimates. Therefore, the estimates presented here should not be used to deduct any trend, but should be considered as a minimum estimate.
For the pilot?s online sample testing, also prior estimates included a longer period and, in addition, during the design of the online transcript studies using the distance sampling methodology, it was decided to concentrate the effort on high-density areas of the Madeira archipelago. Thus, the estimates given are for these areas and not for all the coastal waters of the Madeira archipelago. For the reasons explained, again no direct comparison should be made with the initial reference values, and therefore no trends should be obtained from the values obtained from the pilot monitoring pilot projects of the SEAS II project.
The sampling projects carried out during MISTIC SEAS II have tested sampling strategies (area to be sampled, period to be sampled and effort required) following the methodologies proposed in the SEAS project to monitor the Macaronesian oceanic species in Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands.
|
The pilot monitoring programmes carried out as part of the MISIC SEAS II project obtained reference values for the abundance of some stocks of marine mammals. However, it should be noted that these values resulted from planned sampling to test the feasibility of the proposed methodology and as such, caution is advised when comparing these reference values with past or future estimates. No formal assessment has yet been carried out to validate the appropriateness and efficiency of the sampling strategy, but results point to that, at least for some species and/or UGIs, there is a need for more sampling (extending the annual sampling period and several years) to reduce the CV of abundance estimates and to increase the detection power for the MSFD.
In the case of population estimates of sampling by photo-identification, the previous ones covered a longer period (7 years in the case of Madeira) and sampling was carried out during the whole year and not only during a given season, and in the monitoring sampling of the SEAS II mixture. With a longer dataset, more individuals associated with the islands would be considered and, possibly, increase population abundance estimates. Therefore, the estimates presented here should not be used to deduct any trend, but should be considered as a minimum estimate.
For the pilot?s online sample testing, also prior estimates included a longer period and, in addition, during the design of the online transcript studies using the distance sampling methodology, it was decided to concentrate the effort on high-density areas of the Madeira archipelago. Thus, the estimates given are for these areas and not for all the coastal waters of the Madeira archipelago. For the reasons explained, again no direct comparison should be made with the initial reference values, and therefore no trends should be obtained from the values obtained from the pilot monitoring pilot projects of the SEAS II project.
The sampling projects carried out during MISTIC SEAS II have tested sampling strategies (area to be sampled, period to be sampled and effort required) following the methodologies proposed in the SEAS project to monitor the Macaronesian oceanic species in Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands.
|
The pilot monitoring programmes carried out as part of the MISIC SEAS II project obtained reference values for the abundance of some stocks of marine mammals. However, it should be noted that these values resulted from planned sampling to test the feasibility of the proposed methodology and as such, caution is advised when comparing these reference values with past or future estimates. No formal assessment has yet been carried out to validate the appropriateness and efficiency of the sampling strategy, but results point to that, at least for some species and/or UGIs, there is a need for more sampling (extending the annual sampling period and several years) to reduce the CV of abundance estimates and to increase the detection power for the MSFD.
In the case of population estimates of sampling by photo-identification, the previous ones covered a longer period (7 years in the case of Madeira) and sampling was carried out during the whole year and not only during a given season, and in the monitoring sampling of the SEAS II mixture. With a longer dataset, more individuals associated with the islands would be considered and, possibly, increase population abundance estimates. Therefore, the estimates presented here should not be used to deduct any trend, but should be considered as a minimum estimate.
For the pilot?s online sample testing, also prior estimates included a longer period and, in addition, during the design of the online transcript studies using the distance sampling methodology, it was decided to concentrate the effort on high-density areas of the Madeira archipelago. Thus, the estimates given are for these areas and not for all the coastal waters of the Madeira archipelago. For the reasons explained, again no direct comparison should be made with the initial reference values, and therefore no trends should be obtained from the values obtained from the pilot monitoring pilot projects of the SEAS II project.
The sampling projects carried out during MISTIC SEAS II have tested sampling strategies (area to be sampled, period to be sampled and effort required) following the methodologies proposed in the SEAS project to monitor the Macaronesian oceanic species in Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands.
Despite esf
|
The pilot monitoring programmes carried out as part of the MISIC SEAS II project obtained reference values for the abundance of some stocks of marine mammals. However, it should be noted that these values resulted from planned sampling to test the feasibility of the proposed methodology and as such, caution is advised when comparing these reference values with past or future estimates. No formal assessment has yet been carried out to validate the appropriateness and efficiency of the sampling strategy, but results point to that, at least for some species and/or UGIs, there is a need for more sampling (extending the annual sampling period and several years) to reduce the CV of abundance estimates and to increase the detection power for the MSFD.
In the case of population estimates of sampling by photo-identification, the previous ones covered a longer period (7 years in the case of Madeira) and sampling was carried out during the whole year and not only during a given season, and in the monitoring sampling of the SEAS II mixture. With a longer dataset, more individuals associated with the islands would be considered and, possibly, increase population abundance estimates. Therefore, the estimates presented here should not be used to deduct any trend, but should be considered as a minimum estimate.
For the pilot?s online sample testing, also prior estimates included a longer period and, in addition, during the design of the online transcript studies using the distance sampling methodology, it was decided to concentrate the effort on high-density areas of the Madeira archipelago. Thus, the estimates given are for these areas and not for all the coastal waters of the Madeira archipelago. For the reasons explained, again no direct comparison should be made with the initial reference values, and therefore no trends should be obtained from the values obtained from the pilot monitoring pilot projects of the SEAS II project.
The sampling projects carried out during MISTIC SEAS II have tested sampling strategies (area to be sampled, period to be sampled and effort required) following the methodologies proposed in the SEAS project to monitor the Macaronesian oceanic species in Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands.
Despite esf
|
The pilot monitoring programmes carried out as part of the MISIC SEAS II project obtained reference values for the abundance of some stocks of marine mammals. However, it should be noted that these values resulted from planned sampling to test the feasibility of the proposed methodology and as such, caution is advised when comparing these reference values with past or future estimates. No formal assessment has yet been carried out to validate the appropriateness and efficiency of the sampling strategy, but results point to that, at least for some species and/or UGIs, there is a need for more sampling (extending the annual sampling period and several years) to reduce the CV of abundance estimates and to increase the detection power for the MSFD.
In the case of population estimates of sampling by photo-identification, the previous ones covered a longer period (7 years in the case of Madeira) and sampling was carried out during the whole year and not only during a given season, and in the monitoring sampling of the SEAS II mixture. With a longer dataset, more individuals associated with the islands would be considered and, possibly, increase population abundance estimates. Therefore, the estimates presented here should not be used to deduct any trend, but should be considered as a minimum estimate.
For the pilot?s online sample testing, also prior estimates included a longer period and, in addition, during the design of the online transcript studies using the distance sampling methodology, it was decided to concentrate the effort on high-density areas of the Madeira archipelago. Thus, the estimates given are for these areas and not for all the coastal waters of the Madeira archipelago. For the reasons explained, again no direct comparison should be made with the initial reference values, and therefore no trends should be obtained from the values obtained from the pilot monitoring pilot projects of the SEAS II project.
The sampling projects carried out during MISTIC SEAS II have tested sampling strategies (area to be sampled, period to be sampled and effort required) following the methodologies proposed in the SEAS project to monitor the Macaronesian oceanic species in Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands.
Despite esf
|
The pilot monitoring programmes carried out as part of the MISIC SEAS II project obtained reference values for the abundance of some stocks of marine mammals. However, it should be noted that these values resulted from planned sampling to test the feasibility of the proposed methodology and as such, caution is advised when comparing these reference values with past or future estimates. No formal assessment has yet been carried out to validate the appropriateness and efficiency of the sampling strategy, but results point to that, at least for some species and/or UGIs, there is a need for more sampling (extending the annual sampling period and several years) to reduce the CV of abundance estimates and to increase the detection power for the MSFD.
In the case of population estimates of sampling by photo-identification, the previous ones covered a longer period (7 years in the case of Madeira) and sampling was carried out during the whole year and not only during a given season, and in the monitoring sampling of the SEAS II mixture. With a longer dataset, more individuals associated with the islands would be considered and, possibly, increase population abundance estimates. Therefore, the estimates presented here should not be used to deduct any trend, but should be considered as a minimum estimate.
For the pilot?s online sample testing, also prior estimates included a longer period and, in addition, during the design of the online transcript studies using the distance sampling methodology, it was decided to concentrate the effort on high-density areas of the Madeira archipelago. Thus, the estimates given are for these areas and not for all the coastal waters of the Madeira archipelago. For the reasons explained, again no direct comparison should be made with the initial reference values, and therefore no trends should be obtained from the values obtained from the pilot monitoring pilot projects of the SEAS II project.
The sampling projects carried out during MISTIC SEAS II have tested sampling strategies (area to be sampled, period to be sampled and effort required) following the methodologies proposed in the SEAS project to monitor the Macaronesian oceanic species in Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands.
Despite esf
|
The pilot monitoring programmes carried out as part of the MISIC SEAS II project obtained reference values for the abundance of some stocks of marine mammals. However, it should be noted that these values resulted from planned sampling to test the feasibility of the proposed methodology and as such, caution is advised when comparing these reference values with past or future estimates. No formal assessment has yet been carried out to validate the appropriateness and efficiency of the sampling strategy, but results point to that, at least for some species and/or UGIs, there is a need for more sampling (extending the annual sampling period and several years) to reduce the CV of abundance estimates and to increase the detection power for the MSFD.
In the case of population estimates of sampling by photo-identification, the previous ones covered a longer period (7 years in the case of Madeira) and sampling was carried out during the whole year and not only during a given season, and in the monitoring sampling of the SEAS II mixture. With a longer dataset, more individuals associated with the islands would be considered and, possibly, increase population abundance estimates. Therefore, the estimates presented here should not be used to deduct any trend, but should be considered as a minimum estimate.
For the pilot?s online sample testing, also prior estimates included a longer period and, in addition, during the design of the online transcript studies using the distance sampling methodology, it was decided to concentrate the effort on high-density areas of the Madeira archipelago. Thus, the estimates given are for these areas and not for all the coastal waters of the Madeira archipelago. For the reasons explained, again no direct comparison should be made with the initial reference values, and therefore no trends should be obtained from the values obtained from the pilot monitoring pilot projects of the SEAS II project.
The sampling projects carried out during MISTIC SEAS II have tested sampling strategies (area to be sampled, period to be sampled and effort required) following the methodologies proposed in the SEAS project to monitor the Macaronesian oceanic species in Madeira, the Azores and the Canary Islands.
Despite esf
|
Currently, the species is monitored and assessed within the framework of the LIFE13 NAT/ES/000974 and other governmental management plans coordinated by the Regional Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources (SRA) and by the Institute for Forestry and Nature Conservation (IFCN, IP-RAM).
|
Currently, the species is monitored and assessed within the framework of the LIFE13 NAT/ES/000974 and other governmental management plans coordinated by the Regional Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources (SRA) and by the Institute for Forestry and Nature Conservation (IFCN, IP-RAM).
|
Currently, the species is monitored and assessed within the framework of the LIFE13 NAT/ES/000974 and other governmental management plans coordinated by the Regional Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources (SRA) and by the Institute for Forestry and Nature Conservation (IFCN, IP-RAM).
|
Currently, the species is monitored and assessed within the framework of the LIFE13 NAT/ES/000974 and other governmental management plans coordinated by the Regional Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources (SRA) and by the Institute for Forestry and Nature Conservation (IFCN, IP-RAM).
|
Currently, the species is monitored and assessed within the framework of the LIFE13 NAT/ES/000974 and other governmental management plans coordinated by the Regional Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources (SRA) and by the Institute for Forestry and Nature Conservation (IFCN, IP-RAM).
|
Assessments period |
2014-2018 |
2014-2018 |
2014-2018 |
2014-2018 |
2014-2018 |
2014-2018 |
2014-2018 |
2014-2018 |
2014-2018 |
2014-2018 |
2014-2018 |
2014-2018 |
2014-2018 |
2014-2018 |
2014-2018 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|