Article 17 web tool

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Caretta caretta"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Caretta caretta"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Seule une fraction de la population de tortues caouannes, représentée presque exclusivement de juvéniles, est observée sur cette aire de répartition où aucun site de nidification n'y a été constaté. L'évaluation de l'aire de répartition est donc à prendre avec précaution pour évaluer l'état de conservation de cette espèce. ||
->Population: La population de Caretta caretta signalée dans les trois sous-régions marines concernées ne représente qu'une fraction de la population à l'échelle de l'Atlantique Nord (représentée en majorité par des individus juvéniles et sans aucun site de nidification signalé sur la zone étudiée) ce qui ne permet pas de faire une évaluation globale de l'état de cette population. Toutefois, il est à noter que les individus juvéniles qui parviendraient jusqu'à la zone considérée sont soumis à de nombreuses menaces anthropiques qui peuvent engager leur survie dans nos eaux. ||
->HabInfo: Seule une fraction de la population de tortues caouannes, composée presque exclusivement d'individus juvéniles, est observée dans cette zone d'étude (cette espèce est migratrice, elle réalise son cycle de vie à l'échelle de l'Atlantique Nord et aucun site de nidification n'a été signalé sur la zone considérée par l'évaluation). Cependant, il peut être constaté que les individus signalés ont, pour certains d'entre eux, trouvé des ressources alimentaires mais que la dégradation du milieu marin, notamment au regard des débris marins, a un impact négatif sur cette fraction de la population de tortues caouannes. Si en terme de superficie, l'habitat peut être qualifié de favorable, puisqu'il correspond à l'aire de répartition, l'évaluation de l'habitat au regard des ressources nécessaires à toutes les étapes du cycle de vie de la tortue caouanne n'est pas réalisable. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Caretta caretta"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Caretta caretta"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: The survey was carried out in the frame of the MISTIC SEAS II Project covering not the whole Canary Islands waters but only the ones reaching up to 12mn from the coast (total surface surveyed was 36, 613 km2) ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: MISTIC project (see references) was carried out in collaboration with Portuguese macaronesian Islands: Azores and Madeira. Experts from both countries working together to improve current data on populletions, trends, and abundance.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Caretta caretta"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: 5.1 Considering that marine turtles are highly migratory species, range surface area is assumed as the maritime waters under Azores and Madeira jurisdiction (including internal and territorial waters and the portuguese sub-areas of the Exclusive Economic Zone). ||
->Population: As estimativas populacionais foram elaboradas com base em amostragem dirigida obtida através do programa oceânico do projeto MISTIC SEAS II. Correspondem à soma das estimativas populacionais dos 2 arquipélagos para uma área de 32.804 km2 para o Arquipélago dos Açores e de 1.907 km2 para o arquipélago da Madeira (34.711km2 de um total MMAC PT = 1.450.200km2=2.39% do total do range MMAC PT). Por esta razão as estimativas MMAC foram consideradas como correspondendo a um valor mínimo (reportado como best single value) conforme indicam as guidelines do Art. 17, para casos em que a área amostrada corresponde a uma subestimativa considerável da área total da região biogeográfica.

"6.2. Azores: Design-based Abundance=5187 2,170-12,399 95%CI 46%CV Area=32804 km2
calculated under the oceanic program of MISTIC SEAS II


6.9 Short-term magnitude: The calculated trend between 2004-2015 is 5,6%/year (95% bootstrap confidence interval BCI = -0,9%/year - 17%/year) or 67% for the whole 12 year period (2004-2015) (95%BCI = -11%-200%). The trend is positive but not significant so trend direction was considered as stable, based on expert opinion." ||
->HabInfo: 7.1 Sufficiency of area and quality of occupied habitat unknown according to the guidelines (habitat area is stable but the quality is unknown - Table 4: Assessing trend direction of habitat for the species) ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: Açores: Baseado na opinião dos peritos ainda não há dados suficientes para se poder avaliar o estado de conservação atual da espécie, pelo que se reportou unknown em todos os campos de avaliação. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: "Para a Região da Madeira considerou-se o seguinte: Trend information is based
on time series modelling of relative abundance indices measured as turtles
sighted per boat search hour at sea. Dados genéticos sugerem que os indivíduos
desta espécie que ocorrem nos Açores são provinientes da Costa Sudeste dos
EUA passando em águas da região durante a suafase de vida oceânica (juvenil). A
nível mundial a redução dos efectivos populacionais desta espécie é devida
essencialmente às ameaças que actuam sobre as praias de nidificação de onde
são originárias. Na sub-area dos Açores da ZEE portuguesa o principal factor de
ameaça à espécie é a captura acidental por artes de pesca, especialmente o
palangre de superfície que tem como alvo o espadarte e(Xiphias glaudius) e a
tintureira (Prionage glauca). Outra grande ameaça à conservação desta espécie é
a poluição dos oceanos Uma das causas principais de morte de tartarugas é a
ingestão de plásticos, que se acumulam no estômago pois não são digeridos.
Outra causa é a asfixia causada por hidrocarbonetos resultants da lavagem de
porões dos navios e/ou desastres ambientais."

Açores:
Campo 2. Os mapas de distribuição foram elaborados com base em registos de ocorrências do Programa de Observação das Pescas dos Açores (POPA) e que são de observação de cariz oportunista e não amostragens dirigidas. No entanto, cobrem uma área de cerca de 20% do range total do Mar dos Açores (200.000km2 de 984.900km2), uma área muito mais abrangente que as áreas de estudo do projeto MISTIC SEAS II (<3% da área total do range MMAC PT).

Campo 6. As estimativas populacionais foram elaboradas com base em amostragem dirigida obtidas através do programa oceânico do projeto MISTIC SEAS II. Correspondem à soma das estimativas populacionais dos 2 arquipélagos para uma área de 32.804 km2 para o Arquipélago dos Açores e de 1.907 km2 para o arquipélago da Madeira (34.711km2 de um total MMAC PT = 1.450.200km2=2.39% do total do range MMAC PT). Por esta razão as estimativas MMAC foram consideradas como correspondendo a um valor mínimo (reportado como best single value) conforme indicam as guidelines do Art. 17, para casos em que a área amostrada corresponde a uma subestimativa considerável da área total da região biogeográfica.

Azores: For the distribution map the data were collected under the Azorean Fisheries Observer Program (POPA; www.popaobserver.org) and consisted of dedicated visual transects, which were performed following a fixed protocol by fishery observers on-board pole-and-line tuna vessels. The data were, also, collected under the framework of the project COSTA, Consolidating Sea Turtle conservation in the Azores (US Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Turtle Conservation Fund, n° F15AP00577, F16AP00626, F17AP00403, F18AP00321; Archie Carr Center for Sea Turtle Research through funds from Disney conservation Fund)

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Caretta caretta"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The species' distribution was calculated from the records of nests, using the 1x1km grid. Range was calculated using scientific literature and expert opinion.
Range has been set considering the distribution of the species in the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus as well as in the occupied area and British Sovereign Base Areas.
The adoption of new method for Range calculation, results in differences in shape and appearance of range maps as well as differences in area calculation. ||
->Population: The number of individuals (i) was calculated by the number of breeding females under the assumption that the male/female ratio is 1:1. Since there is no pair-bonding in turtles, this assumption is not necessarily valid and may lead to population overestimation. Therefore, a value closer to the minimum number of individuals reported is probably more reliable. The number of breeding females (bfemales) is a reliable population unit for the species and it was calculated on the average number of nests made in the preceding six years, knowing that the species nests every other year, laying 3 clutches of eggs (i.e. 3 nest) in that year. Genuine change (increase) in the population size is manly due to te long-term (40 years) nest protection meausres. ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Caretta caretta"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: The populetion size values are estimating from standarized bycatch from Spanish surface longline targeting tunas and tunas likes (To major explanation in Báez et al. (2019). Fishery strategy affects the loggerhead sea turtle mortality trend due to the longline bycatch. Fisheries Research, 212: 21-28). ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Caretta caretta"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: Les caouannes présentes dans les eaux françaises de Méditerranée sont issues de populations d'origine diverses dont on ne connait ni l'importance ni la dynamique. L'approche de précaution impose de préserver le potentiel de géniteurs de ces populations en réduisant les risques de mortalité engendrés par les diverses pressions anthropiques qui s'exercent dans les eaux françaises. ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Caretta caretta"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: The estimated habitat surface area is 557407,8 km2 (equal to range) and its quality is assesed as Moderate. This is based mainly on the quality of the habitat at the major nesting areas taking into consideration the pressures on land and at sea. Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) populations use different foraging, over-wintering, breeding and nesting areas, as well as migratory routes between these areas, which results in their presence practically within the entire Mediterranean basin. Therefore, they can be found in diverse types of habitat, depending on their particular life-stage. Caretta caretta is largely dependent on sandy coasts for their reproduction (oviposition, incubation, hatching). Suitable habitat types for this stage are generally sandy beaches with gentle slopes that in many cases are backed by dunes. Besides the known nesting areas, most of which are monitored, foraging and over-wintering areas as well as major migrating routes remain largely unidentified. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: The population unit used to calculate the population size for Caretta caretta is "breeding females per year" which apparently refers to a proportion of the existing adult individuals at sea (Caretta caretta exhibits a 2-3 year reproduction cycle). No reliable method exists to estimate the total polulation including adults, sub-adults and juveniles of both genders. Furthermore Caretta caretta in the Mediterranean starts reaching maturity in 14-15 years (Casale et al. 2011). As such, activities/events at the nesting site, having a detrimental effect on the population (e.g. habitat loss/degradation, human disturbances, egg predation, destruction/inundation of nests), manifest their impact after many years, through the concommitant decrease of nests. Although the nationwide annual population of breeding females appears over the period 2001-2014 as more or less "stable", with intense annual fluctuations, in several nesting areas (e.g. Chania, Rethymno) there is a significant downward trend which has been compensated by the "artificial" increase of breeding females in southern Kyparissia Bay due to long-term protection of nests (Margaritoulis et al. 2013). Indeed, all nests in this 9.5km long beach are protected, every year since 1992 (against predation, inundation, bright lights & trampling), and this has caused a gradual increase of nesting females since 2006 with the elapsed time (14 years) coinciding with the minimum age at maturity of Caretta caretta. Therefore, the southern Kyparissia Bay nesting population is considered "conservation-dependent" and massive nest protection measures should continue. A number of breeding females migrate, after their nesting in Greece, to long distances with main concentration areas the Gulf of Gabes in northern Africa and the northern Adriatic Sea, where they remain for 2-3 years until their next breeding migration to Greece. Both areas are subject to intensive fishing activity which impacts these females as shown by the captured tagged animals (Margaritoulis et al. 2003). In addition, pressures outside the EU boundaries include occasional consumption in some northern African countries. Therefore, co-operation among states within and outside EU, for the effective protection of the species, is imperative.

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Caretta caretta"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: Total Adriatic: corrected: 27,230 (CV=6.54 %), not-corrected - estimation 2010. for the
whole Adriatic; North Adriatic: 18,200 (C.I. 17,700-20,000)
Total Adriatic: corrected : 213,000 ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Caretta caretta"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Given the species’ migratory nature, wide geographic distribution and high population numbers in the Mediterranean sea, it is hypothesized that its distribution range, known to encompass all Italian seas, be unaffected within a 12 year reporting period timeframe. The distribution map was produced on the basis of: loggerhead turtle distribution data used in the Italian MSFD reporting (2013 and 2018), public national stranding data (Centro Studi Cetacei 2013-2018) , live sightings/nests reported from the administrative regional authorities, and data reported in the Natura2000 SDFs. Sighting data occurring on the land/sea interface (live strandings/nests) was reported by considering the grid cell containing the immediately adjacent marine area. The resulting distribution map is different from that reported during the 2013 reporting because the resolution standard used in the previous reporting was 50x50km2. ||
->Population: The population value reported is a minimum population abundance value not corrected for availability and bias. The population value was obtained by summing the data available for the population surveys conducted between 2013-2016. The following datasets referring to the following areas and years was considered: Central and southern Thyrrhenian sea (summer 2013, winter 2014; ; ISPRA/Tethys), Sicilian channel-Gulf of Gabes (spring 2016; ISPRA/Tethys), Italian territorial and midline waters of the Adriatic sea (summer 2010 and 2013 combined; ISPRA/Blue World/ Museum of Zagabria). Geographic coverage of Italian waters in this overall estimate is not exhaustive and the estimate also includes the population estimate of turtles observed in non-Italian waters (Gulf of Gabes).
Future reiterations of aerial surveys, conducted during the same season across the entire marine waters of Italian jurisdiction, corrected for bias, and concerted at subregional and regional level through mandatory international coordination procedures, can lead to definition of improved population estimates for the portions of sea under Italian jurisdiction and can be used to define reference threshold values ||
->HabInfo: There is evidence from stranding data and bibliography of mortality from bycatch in fishing gear in wintering and feeding grounds. Public national stranding records (Centro Studi Cetacei, 2019) occurring between 2013-2018 indicate 1950 stranded individuals of which 1587 were dead. Considering the limitations of this dataset with respect to total strandings occurring along Italian territory, and the limitations of stranding data with respect to actual mortality rates occurring at sea, it cannot be excluded that continued mortality due to anthropogenic pressures is within sustainable limits. Although many rehabilitation centers exist, the absence of by-catch mitigation measures in situ support the opinion that habitat condition is still not favourable. This opinion is reinforced considering that the species disperses in wintering/feeding/ reproductive grounds of EU and non-EU Mediterranean states where pressures are high ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Caretta caretta"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: The Range indicated is based on sporadic sightings of live healthy turtles, sighted during surveys undertaken by BirdLife Malta in 2008 and 2012 as part of the LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project and the LIFE Malta Seabird Project respectively; the LIFE+ MIGRATE project carried out in summer 2013 and 2014; and surveys carried out through LIFE BaĦAR for N2K within the Maltese Fisheries Management Zone during June-August of 2015 and 2016.

There are some limitations with these datasets. The LIFE+ MIGRATE project although targeting specifically the species, does not take into account issues related to seasonality, while LIFE BaĦAR for N2K, targeted habitats rather than the species. Meanwhile, the data from the LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater Project and the LIFE Malta Seabird Project is based on sporadic sightings of live healthy turtles sighted during surveys undertaken by BirdLife Malta in 2008 and 2012 respectively, where the projects focused on seabirds.

The observations made between 2013 and 2016 have augmented the relevance of the range assessment for the species made in the previous report, which was mainly based on sporadic data and expert judgement. This, coupled with the constant presence of this species throughout the Maltese waters, both before 2008 and after 2016, indicate that this species’ distribution within the assessment area remained stable throughout the years. Furthermore, noting that the distribution already extends throughout all Maltese waters, the Favourable Reference Range is being assessed as equal to the current value.

The change in the range of the species being reported is partly due to improved knowledge, and mostly due to the fact that the past report covered Maltese waters up to the 12Nm boundary. On the other hand, this report has been extended to the 25Nm of the Fisheries Management Zone for Malta. ||
->Population: Caretta caretta was reported as very common by Gulia (1890), also remarking that it bred in the Maltese Islands; this is confirmed by Despott (1915), who reported its breeding on unfrequented sandy beaches in Gozo. Other localities have been cited by fishermen, but remain unconfirmed.

There have been three recorded C. caretta nesting events in Malta between 2012 and 2018 within two different sandy beaches, located in close proximity to one another on Malta’s Western coastline. In June 2012, an individual nested at Ġnejna Bay, l-Imġarr (Malta), after nearly a century from the last officially recorded nesting. The eggs of this nest failed to hatch, probably due to the amount of clay material in the nest area, which possibly inhibited normal gas exchange. However, in September 2016, 66 turtles hatched from a nest in Golden Bay, il-Mellieħa (Malta), and in August 2018, 98 turtles hatched from another nest in Ġnejna Bay.

On the basis of genetic studies carried out by Garofalo et al. (2013), the central Mediterranean area represents a crucial crossing of migration routes for Mediterranean turtles. Turtles observed in Malta are normally of Mediterranean origin, predominantly Turkish individuals and juveniles from Mediterranean rookeries. These sites, noting their physical properties and current uses, and the characteristics of the Maltese coastline in general (rocky shoreline), are unlikely to expand over the coming decades.

C. caretta populations in local waters are thought to be transient migrants. Therefore, the assessment of the Favourable Reference Population is based on partial data. However, noting that C. caretta population trends are increasing in the Mediterranean (Casale, 2015), the reported 861 individuals (Section 6.2) is likely to be an underestimation of the actual number of individuals, migrating through Maltese waters. ||
->HabInfo: From the results of the LIFE+ MIGRATE project, three Natura 2000 sites (MT0000113, MT0000115 and MT0000116) have been identified according to the Habitats Directive criteria as being potentially important for turtles, both as foraging grounds for juveniles and sub-adult specimens, and also because they form part of a migratory route that passes through Maltese waters. ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: The genuine change being reported in the overall trend in conservation status for Caretta caretta is a result of international legislative protection under a number of treaties and laws (Wold 2002), which led to various designations and agreements in decreasing many of the impacts directed at sea turtles at a global level. This increase in C. caretta population trends in the Mediterranean was confirmed by Casale in 2015. ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Caretta caretta"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: Change of state border! ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: N/A

Open Original Report  

Scientific name used in original MS report if different than recommended: "Caretta caretta"
Information provided in the field 2.8.2: Reported additionnal information: ||
->Range: N/A ||
->Population: N/A ||
->HabInfo: N/A ||
->Future: N/A ||
->Conclusion: N/A ||
->JustificationThreshold: N/A ||
->Other: Due to its characteristic opportunistic feeding on bait attached to surface longlines and fish caught in gill nets, the Caretta caretta is often captured with this gear. Trawling also usually causes Caretta caretta catches. Another threat to the Caretta caretta is the ingestion of plastic and other debris that can eventually lead to blockages or perforations in the digestive tract. Loggerhead turtles spend certain time of day on the surface, so that sometimes individuals are injured after colliding with ships.

Open Original Report