MS/Art8/2018/D1-M/France/NE Atlantic: Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast

Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D1-M / France / NE Atlantic: Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast

Report type	Member State report to Commission
MSFD Article	Art. 8 Initial assessment (and Art. 17 updates)
Report due	2018-10-15
GES Descriptor	D1 Mammals
Member State	France
Region/subregion	NE Atlantic: Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast
Reported by	Ministère de la transition Ecologique et Solidaire
Report date	2020-02-19
Report access	ART8_GES_FR_2020-02-17.xml

SRM GdG (ABI-FR-MS-GDG)

Simplified table

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
Feature	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	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 acurostrata	Balaenoptera acurostrata	Balaenoptera acurostrata	Balaenoptera acurostrata	Balaenoptera acurostrata	Balaenoptera physalus	Balaenoptera physalus	Balaenoptera physalus	Balaenoptera physalus	Balaenoptera physalus	Globicephala melas	Globicephala melas	Globicephala melas	Globicephala melas	Globicephala melas	Grampus griseus	Grampus griseus	Grampus griseus	Grampus griseus	Grampus griseus	Delphinus delphis	Delphinus delphis	Delphinus delphis	Delphinus delphis	Delphinus delphis	Phocoena phocoena	Phocoena phocoena	Phocoena phocoena	Phocoena phocoena	Phocoena phocoena	Stenella coeruleoalba	Stenella coeruleoalba	Stenella coeruleoalba	Stenella coeruleoalba	Stenella coeruleoalba	Tursiops truncatus	Tursiops truncatus	Tursiops truncatus	Tursiops truncatus	Tursiops truncatus
Element code	137087	137087	137087	137087	137087	137091	137091	137091	137091	137091	137097	137097	137097	137097	137097	137098	137098	137098	137098	137098	137094	137094	137094	137094	137094	137117	137117	137117	137117	137117	137107	137107	137107	137107	137107	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/
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
Criterion	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	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5
Parameter		Other		Distribution (spatial)					Distribution (spatial)			Other		Distribution (spatial)			Other		Distribution (spatial)		Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other	Distribution (spatial)		Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)						Other		Distribution (spatial)			Other		Distribution (spatial)
Parameter other		Relative abundance within community (short term)										Relative abundance within community (short term)					Relative abundance within community (short term)					Relative abundance within community (short term)	Number of extreme strandings									Relative abundance within community (short term)					Relative abundance within community (short term)
Threshold value upper		-0.5										-0.5					-0.5				1.7	-0.5				1.7						-0.5					-0.5
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative		The parameter is achieved if the percentage mean annual difference in relative abundance of a species over the assessment cycle declines by no more than 0.5% per year, is centred on 0%, and the 80% confidence interval includes 0%.		The upper bound of the 80 % confidence interval of the mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species over the assessment cycle should be greater than 0 %.					The upper bound of the 80 % confidence interval of the mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species over the assessment cycle should be greater than 0 %.			The parameter is achieved if the percentage mean annual difference in relative abundance of a species over the assessment cycle declines by no more than 0.5% per year, is centred on 0%, and the 80% confidence interval includes 0%.		The upper bound of the 80 % confidence interval of the mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species over the assessment cycle should be greater than 0 %.			The parameter is achieved if the percentage mean annual difference in relative abundance of a species over the assessment cycle declines by no more than 0.5% per year, is centred on 0%, and the 80% confidence interval includes 0%.		The upper bound of the 80 % confidence interval of the mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species over the assessment cycle should be greater than 0 %.		The parameter is reached if the bycatch mortality rate is <1.7% of abundance with a probability >80% and the 80% confidence interval of the mean rate, over the generation time of the species (15 years), is less than 1.7%.	The parameter is achieved if the percentage mean annual difference in relative abundance of a species over the assessment cycle declines by no more than 0.5% per year, is centred on 0%, and the 80% confidence interval includes 0%.	The number of strandings actually observed over 3 days does not exceed, over more than one month for two years of the current cycle, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the monthly threshold (predicted from the previous cycle).	The upper bound of the 80 % confidence interval of the mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species over the assessment cycle should be greater than 0 %.		The parameter is reached if the bycatch mortality rate is <1.7% of abundance with a probability >80% and the 80% confidence interval of the mean rate, over the generation time of the species (10 years), is less than 1.7%.						The parameter is achieved if the percentage mean annual difference in relative abundance of a species over the assessment cycle declines by no more than 0.5% per year, is centred on 0%, and the 80% confidence interval includes 0%.		The upper bound of the 80 % confidence interval of the mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species over the assessment cycle should be greater than 0 %.			The parameter is achieved if the percentage mean annual difference in relative abundance of a species over the assessment cycle declines by no more than 0.5% per year, is centred on 0%, and the 80% confidence interval includes 0%.		The upper bound of the 80 % confidence interval of the mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species over the assessment cycle should be greater than 0 %.
Threshold value source		Other (specify)		Other (specify)					Other (specify)			Other (specify)		Other (specify)			Other (specify)		Other (specify)		Other (specify)	Other (specify)	Other (specify)	Other (specify)		Other (specify)						Other (specify)		Other (specify)			Other (specify)		Other (specify)
Threshold value source other		National		National					National			National		National			National		National		National	National	National	National		National						National		National			National		National
Value achieved upper		1.0										0.9					1.4				2.7	-0.1				7.9						1.1					0.3
Value achieved lower																					0.6					2.8
Value unit		percentage										percentage					percentage				percentage	percentage				percentage						percentage					percentage
Value unit other
Proportion threshold value		100.0										100.0					100.0				100.0	100.0				100.0						100.0					100.0
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit		% of population achieving threshold value										% of population achieving threshold value					% of population achieving threshold value				% of population achieving threshold value	% of population achieving threshold value				% of population achieving threshold value						% of population achieving threshold value					% of population achieving threshold value
Trend		Unknown		Unknown					Unknown			Unknown		Unknown			Unknown		Unknown		Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown		Unknown						Unknown		Unknown			Unknown		Unknown
Parameter achieved		Yes		Yes					Yes			Yes		Yes			Yes		Yes		No	Yes	Yes	Yes		No						Yes		Yes			Yes		Yes
Description parameter		This parameter, relating to criterion D1C2, allows the estimation of a percentage annual mean difference in relative abundance of a species, calculated over the assessment cycle (2011-2016), and an 80 % confidence interval. The results obtained for the common minke whales show that there is no decline above the 0.5% threshold, that the upper bound of the 80% confidence interval includes the value 0%, and that the mean percentage difference is centred on 0. The parameter "relative abundance (short-term calculation)" is therefore considered to be met for minke whales in this MRU.		This parameter, related to criterion D1C4, allows the estimation of a mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species over the assessment cycle (2011-2016), as well as an 80% confidence interval. The results obtained for the common minke whales show that the 80% confidence interval of the mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species is [-1.6% - 2.6%] for the 2011-2016 period. The upper bound of the 80% confidence interval is therefore above the 0% threshold. The "Distribution (spatial)" parameter is considered to have been met for minke whales in this MRU.					This parameter, related to criterion D1C4, allows the estimation of a mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species over the assessment cycle (2011-2016), as well as an 80% confidence interval. The results obtained for fin whales show that the 80% confidence interval of the mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species is [-0.5% - 1.6%] for the 2011-2016 period. The upper bound of the 80% confidence interval is therefore above the 0% threshold. The "Distribution (spatial)" parameter is considered to have been met for fin whales in this MRU.			This parameter, relating to criterion D1C2, allows the estimation of a percentage annual mean difference in relative abundance of a species, calculated over the assessment cycle (2011-2016), and an 80 % confidence interval. The results for pilot whales show that there is no decline above the 0.5% threshold, that the upper bound of the 80% confidence interval includes the 0% value, and that the mean percent difference is centred on 0. The parameter 'relative abundance (short-term calculation)' is therefore considered to be met for pilot whales in this MRU.		This parameter, related to criterion D1C4, allows the estimation of a mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species over the assessment cycle (2011-2016), as well as an 80% confidence interval. The results obtained for pilot whales show that the 80% confidence interval of the mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species is [-0.6% - 0.8%] for the period 2011-2016. The upper bound of the 80% confidence interval is therefore above the 0% threshold. The "Distribution (spatial)" parameter is considered to be met for pilot whales in this MRU.			This parameter, relating to criterion D1C2, allows the estimation of a percentage annual mean difference in relative abundance of a species, calculated over the assessment cycle (2011-2016), and an 80 % confidence interval. The results obtained for Risso's dolphin show that there is no decline above the 0.5% threshold, that the upper bound of the 80% confidence interval includes the value 0%, and that the mean percentage difference is centred on 0. The parameter 'relative abundance (short-term calculation)' is therefore considered to be met for Risso's dolphin in this MRU.		This parameter, related to criterion D1C4, allows the estimation of a mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species over the assessment cycle (2011-2016), as well as an 80% confidence interval. The results obtained for the Risso's dolphin show that the 80% confidence interval of the mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species is [-1.5% - 1.0%] for the period 2011-2016. The upper bound of the 80% confidence interval is therefore above the 0% threshold. The parameter "Distribution (spatial)" is considered as reached for the Risso's dolphin in this MRU.		This parameter, related to criterion D1C1, allows to estimate an annual rate of incidental catches for the period 2012-2015 (ratio of the number of individuals dead by accidental capture on the total abundance of the species), as well as a confidence interval at 80 % of the average rate of incidental catches calculated over the whole generation time of the species (15 years for the common dolphin). The evaluation of this parameter shows that the mortality rate by accidental catches of common dolphins is higher than the threshold of 1.7% of the total abundance of this species, for the year 2013 using the abundance estimate resulting from the SAMM-summer campaigns (Aerial Monitoring of the Marine Megafauna), and for the years 2013 and 2014 using the abundance estimate resulting from SCANS-III. Moreover, at the generation time scale of the common dolphin, the 80% confidence intervals systematically frame the 1.7% threshold. The conditions required to reach the parameter are thus not met for the common dolphin. The evaluation of the indicator MM_Capt leads to the non-achievement of the parameter in the maritime sub-region Celtic Seas for common dolphins.	This parameter, relating to criterion D1C2, allows the estimation of a percentage annual mean difference in relative abundance of a species, calculated over the assessment cycle (2011-2016), and an 80 % confidence interval. The results obtained for the common dolphin show that there is no decline above the 0.5% threshold, that the upper bound of the 80% confidence interval includes the value 0%, and that the mean percentage difference is centred on 0. The parameter 'relative abundance (short-term calculation)' is therefore considered to be met for the common dolphin in this MRU.	This parameter, relative to criterion D1C3, allows changes in the occurrence of extreme mortality events to be detected. The results of this parameter show no exceedance of the monthly threshold over the period 2011-2016 for common dolphins. In the Celtic Seas marine sub-region, the assessment of the MM_EME indicator shows that the conditions for reaching the parameter are respected with regard to the events of extreme mortality of common dolphins (D1C3).	This parameter, related to criterion D1C4, allows the estimation of a mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species over the assessment cycle (2011-2016), as well as an 80% confidence interval. The results obtained for the common dolphin show that the 80% confidence interval of the mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species is [-0.5% - 2.9%] for the period 2011-2016. The upper bound of the 80% confidence interval is therefore above the 0% threshold. The "Distribution (spatial)" parameter is considered as reached for the common dolphin in this MRU.		This parameter, relating to criterion D1C1, makes it possible to estimate an annual incidental catch rate for the period 2012-2015 (ratio of the number of individuals killed by accidental capture to the total abundance of the species), as well as an 80% confidence interval of the average incidental catch rate calculated over the entire generation time of the species (10 years for the harbour porpoise). The evaluation of this parameter shows that the incidental catch mortality rate of harbour porpoises is strictly above the threshold of 1.7% of the total abundance of this species, whatever the estimate considered (SCANS III or Aerial Monitoring of the Marine Megafauna campaign). Moreover, on the scale of harbour porpoise generation times (i.e. from 2005 to 2015), the 80% confidence intervals systematically frame the 1.7% threshold. The conditions required to reach the parameter are therefore not met for harbour porpoise. The assessment of the MM_Capt indicator leads to the non-achievement of the parameter in the maritime sub-region Celtic Seas for harbour porpoises.						This parameter, relating to criterion D1C2, allows the estimation of a percentage annual mean difference in relative abundance of a species, calculated over the assessment cycle (2011-2016), and an 80 % confidence interval. The results obtained for the blue and white dolphin show that there is no decline above the 0.5% threshold, that the upper bound of the 80% confidence interval includes the value 0%, and that the mean percentage difference is centred on 0. The parameter 'relative abundance (short-term calculation)' is therefore considered to be met for the blue and white dolphin in this MRU.		This parameter, related to criterion D1C4, allows the estimation of a mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species over the assessment cycle (2011-2016), as well as an 80% confidence interval. The results obtained for the blue and white dolphin show that the 80% confidence interval of the mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species is [-0.7% - 0.9%] for the period 2011-2016. The upper bound of the 80% confidence interval is therefore above the 0% threshold. The "Distribution (spatial)" parameter is considered as reached for the blue and white dolphin in this MRU.			This parameter, relating to criterion D1C2, allows the estimation of a percentage annual mean difference in relative abundance of a species, calculated over the assessment cycle (2011-2016), and an 80 % confidence interval. The results obtained for the bottlenose dolphin show that there is no decline above the 0.5% threshold, that the upper bound of the 80% confidence interval includes the value 0%, and that the mean percentage difference is centered on 0. The parameter "relative abundance (short-term calculation)" is therefore considered to be met for bottlenose dolphins in this MRU.		This parameter, related to criterion D1C4, allows the estimation of a mean annual percentage difference in the proportion of area occupied by the species over the assessment cycle (2011-2016), as well as an 80% confidence interval. The results obtained for the bottlenose dolphin show that the 80% confidence interval of the mean annual percentage difference of the proportion of area occupied by the species is [-1.6% - 0.6%] for the period 2011-2016. The upper bound of the 80% confidence interval is therefore above the 0% threshold. The "Distribution (spatial)" parameter is considered as reached for bottlenose dolphins in this MRU.
Related indicator		Abondance des cétacés		Distribution des cétacés					Distribution des cétacés			Abondance des cétacés		Distribution des cétacés			Abondance des cétacés		Distribution des cétacés		Taux de mortalité par captures accidentelles des petits cétacés	Abondance des cétacés	Evènements de mortalité extrêmes des cétacés	Distribution des cétacés		Taux de mortalité par captures accidentelles des petits cétacés						Abondance des cétacés		Distribution des cétacés			Abondance des cétacés		Distribution des cétacés
Criteria status	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed
Description criteria		Criterion D1C2 is in good condition with respect to minke whales in this MRU.	No indicators are currently available for the assessment of criterion D1C3 for this species. The methodological standards for criterion D1C3 for marine mammals will be further developed following additional studies, as provided for in the Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.	Criterion D1C4 is in good condition with respect to minke whales in this MRU.				No indicators are currently available for the assessment of criterion D1C3 for this species. The methodological standards for criterion D1C3 for marine mammals will be further developed following additional studies, as provided for in the Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.	Criterion D1C4 is in good condition with respect to fin whales in this MRU.			Criterion D1C2 is in good condition with respect to pilot whales in this MRU.	No indicators are currently available for the assessment of criterion D1C3 for this species. The methodological standards for criterion D1C3 for marine mammals will be further developed following additional studies, as provided for in the Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.	Criterion D1C4 is in good condition with respect to pilot whales in this RMU.			Criterion D1C2 is in good condition with respect to the Risso's dolphin in this MRU.	No indicators are currently available for the assessment of criterion D1C3 for this species. The methodological standards for criterion D1C3 for marine mammals will be further developed following additional studies, as provided for in the Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.	Criterion D1C4 is in good condition with respect to the Risso's dolphin in this MRU.		Criterion D1C1 is not in good condition with respect to the common dolphin in this MRU	Criterion D1C2 is in good condition with respect to the common dolphin in this MRU.	Criterion D1C3 is in good condition with respect to the common dolphin in this MRU.	Criterion D1C4 is in good condition with regard to the common dolphin in this MRU.		Criterion D1C1 is not in good condition with respect to harbour porpoise in this MRU.		No indicators are currently available for the assessment of criterion D1C3 for this species. The methodological standards for criterion D1C3 for marine mammals will be further developed following additional studies, as provided for in the Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.				Criterion D1C2 is in good condition with regard to the blue and white dolphin in this MRU.	No indicators are currently available for the assessment of criterion D1C3 for this species. The methodological standards for criterion D1C3 for marine mammals will be further developed following additional studies, as provided for in the Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.	Criterion D1C4 is in good condition with respect to the blue and white dolphin in this MRU.			Criterion D1C2 is in good condition with regard to the bottlenose dolphin in this MRU.	No indicators are currently available for the assessment of criterion D1C3 for this species. The methodological standards for criterion D1C3 for marine mammals will be further developed following additional studies, as provided for in the Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.	Criterion D1C4 is in good condition with respect to the bottlenose dolphin in this MRU.
Element status	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good
Description element	Minke whale populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) appear to be stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of indicators related to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely the result of the low number of observations: the data used to calculate these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas minke whales are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Furthermore, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Minke whale populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) appear to be stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of indicators related to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely the result of the low number of observations: the data used to calculate these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas minke whales are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Furthermore, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Minke whale populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) appear to be stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of indicators related to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely the result of the low number of observations: the data used to calculate these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas minke whales are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Furthermore, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Minke whale populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) appear to be stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of indicators related to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely the result of the low number of observations: the data used to calculate these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas minke whales are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Furthermore, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Minke whale populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) appear to be stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of indicators related to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely the result of the low number of observations: the data used to calculate these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas minke whales are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Furthermore, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Fin whale populations are considered to be in good condition as their distribution (D1C4) appears to be stable between 2011 and 2016. However, the statistical precision of the distribution indicator (MM_Distri) for cetaceans is low. This is largely the result of the low number of observations: the data used to calculate these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas fin whales are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. It should be noted that only one criterion could be evaluated for this species.	Fin whale populations are considered to be in good condition as their distribution (D1C4) appears to be stable between 2011 and 2016. However, the statistical precision of the distribution indicator (MM_Distri) for cetaceans is low. This is largely the result of the low number of observations: the data used to calculate these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas fin whales are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. It should be noted that only one criterion could be evaluated for this species.	Fin whale populations are considered to be in good condition as their distribution (D1C4) appears to be stable between 2011 and 2016. However, the statistical precision of the distribution indicator (MM_Distri) for cetaceans is low. This is largely the result of the low number of observations: the data used to calculate these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas fin whales are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. It should be noted that only one criterion could be evaluated for this species.	Fin whale populations are considered to be in good condition as their distribution (D1C4) appears to be stable between 2011 and 2016. However, the statistical precision of the distribution indicator (MM_Distri) for cetaceans is low. This is largely the result of the low number of observations: the data used to calculate these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas fin whales are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. It should be noted that only one criterion could be evaluated for this species.	Fin whale populations are considered to be in good condition as their distribution (D1C4) appears to be stable between 2011 and 2016. However, the statistical precision of the distribution indicator (MM_Distri) for cetaceans is low. This is largely the result of the low number of observations: the data used to calculate these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas fin whales are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. It should be noted that only one criterion could be evaluated for this species.	Pilot whale populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) appear to be stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of indicators relating to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used to calculate these indicators come from fishing campaigns and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas pilot whales are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Pilot whale populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) appear to be stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of indicators relating to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used to calculate these indicators come from fishing campaigns and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas pilot whales are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Pilot whale populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) appear to be stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of indicators relating to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used to calculate these indicators come from fishing campaigns and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas pilot whales are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Pilot whale populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) appear to be stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of indicators relating to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used to calculate these indicators come from fishing campaigns and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas pilot whales are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Pilot whale populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) appear to be stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of indicators relating to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used to calculate these indicators come from fishing campaigns and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas pilot whales are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Risso's dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) seem stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of the indicators relative to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used for the calculation of these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas Risso's dolphins are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Risso's dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) seem stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of the indicators relative to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used for the calculation of these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas Risso's dolphins are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Risso's dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) seem stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of the indicators relative to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used for the calculation of these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas Risso's dolphins are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Risso's dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) seem stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of the indicators relative to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used for the calculation of these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas Risso's dolphins are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Risso's dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) seem stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of the indicators relative to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used for the calculation of these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas Risso's dolphins are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	The common dolphin is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this cycle of the MSFD in the common dolphin is of concern. Such rates are likely to durably affect the population dynamics of the species. The reduction of this pressure is a major stake for the species.	The common dolphin is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this cycle of the MSFD in the common dolphin is of concern. Such rates are likely to durably affect the population dynamics of the species. The reduction of this pressure is a major stake for the species.	The common dolphin is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this cycle of the MSFD in the common dolphin is of concern. Such rates are likely to durably affect the population dynamics of the species. The reduction of this pressure is a major stake for the species.	The common dolphin is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this cycle of the MSFD in the common dolphin is of concern. Such rates are likely to durably affect the population dynamics of the species. The reduction of this pressure is a major stake for the species.	The common dolphin is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this cycle of the MSFD in the common dolphin is of concern. Such rates are likely to durably affect the population dynamics of the species. The reduction of this pressure is a major stake for the species.	The harbour porpoise is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this MSFD cycle in porpoise is of concern. Such rates are likely to permanently affect the population dynamics of the species. Reducing this pressure is a major issue for the species.	The harbour porpoise is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this MSFD cycle in porpoise is of concern. Such rates are likely to permanently affect the population dynamics of the species. Reducing this pressure is a major issue for the species.	The harbour porpoise is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this MSFD cycle in porpoise is of concern. Such rates are likely to permanently affect the population dynamics of the species. Reducing this pressure is a major issue for the species.	The harbour porpoise is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this MSFD cycle in porpoise is of concern. Such rates are likely to permanently affect the population dynamics of the species. Reducing this pressure is a major issue for the species.	The harbour porpoise is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this MSFD cycle in porpoise is of concern. Such rates are likely to permanently affect the population dynamics of the species. Reducing this pressure is a major issue for the species.	Blue and white dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) seem stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of the indicators relative to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used for the calculation of these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas blue and white dolphins are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Blue and white dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) seem stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of the indicators relative to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used for the calculation of these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas blue and white dolphins are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Blue and white dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) seem stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of the indicators relative to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used for the calculation of these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas blue and white dolphins are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Blue and white dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) seem stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of the indicators relative to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used for the calculation of these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas blue and white dolphins are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Blue and white dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) seem stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of the indicators relative to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used for the calculation of these indicators come from fishing cruises and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas blue and white dolphins are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Bottlenose dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) seem stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of the indicators relative to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used for the calculation of these indicators come from fishing campaigns and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas bottlenose dolphins are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Bottlenose dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) seem stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of the indicators relative to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used for the calculation of these indicators come from fishing campaigns and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas bottlenose dolphins are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Bottlenose dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) seem stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of the indicators relative to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used for the calculation of these indicators come from fishing campaigns and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas bottlenose dolphins are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Bottlenose dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) seem stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of the indicators relative to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used for the calculation of these indicators come from fishing campaigns and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas bottlenose dolphins are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.	Bottlenose dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) seem stable between 2011 and 2016. It should be noted, however, that the statistical precision of the indicators relative to the abundance (MM_Abond) and distribution (MM_Distri) of cetaceans is low. This is largely due to the low number of observations: the data used for the calculation of these indicators come from fishing campaigns and essentially cover the continental shelf of the Bay of Biscay, whereas bottlenose dolphins are rather oceanic and abundant at and beyond the continental slope. Moreover, the statistical power to detect changes in absolute abundance is quite low and only major changes can be identified.
Integration rule type parameter	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant
Integration rule description parameter	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.	The assessment obtained by calculating the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion, for a given marine mammal species, without an integration rule.
Integration rule type criteria	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other
Integration rule description criteria	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status. An exception exists for fin whales, where only one criterion could be entered in this assessment. Therefore, the assessment of the status of Criterion D1C4 directly informs the status of the species, i.e. fin whale, without an integration rule.
GES extent threshold	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
GES extent achieved	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00	50.00
GES extent unit	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group
GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported
Description overall status	The mysticete species group reaches the GES because both species of mysticetes (minke and fin whales), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammals component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The mysticete species group reaches the GES because both species of mysticetes (minke and fin whales), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammals component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The mysticete species group reaches the GES because both species of mysticetes (minke and fin whales), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammals component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The mysticete species group reaches the GES because both species of mysticetes (minke and fin whales), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammals component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The mysticete species group reaches the GES because both species of mysticetes (minke and fin whales), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammals component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The mysticete species group reaches the GES because both species of mysticetes (minke and fin whales), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammals component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The mysticete species group reaches the GES because both species of mysticetes (minke and fin whales), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammals component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The mysticete species group reaches the GES because both species of mysticetes (minke and fin whales), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammals component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The mysticete species group reaches the GES because both species of mysticetes (minke and fin whales), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammals component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The mysticete species group reaches the GES because both species of mysticetes (minke and fin whales), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammals component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The group of species of deep-diving odontocetes reaches the GES because both species of deep-diving odontocetes (pilot whale and Risso's dolphin), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The group of species of deep-diving odontocetes reaches the GES because both species of deep-diving odontocetes (pilot whale and Risso's dolphin), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The group of species of deep-diving odontocetes reaches the GES because both species of deep-diving odontocetes (pilot whale and Risso's dolphin), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The group of species of deep-diving odontocetes reaches the GES because both species of deep-diving odontocetes (pilot whale and Risso's dolphin), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The group of species of deep-diving odontocetes reaches the GES because both species of deep-diving odontocetes (pilot whale and Risso's dolphin), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The group of species of deep-diving odontocetes reaches the GES because both species of deep-diving odontocetes (pilot whale and Risso's dolphin), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The group of species of deep-diving odontocetes reaches the GES because both species of deep-diving odontocetes (pilot whale and Risso's dolphin), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The group of species of deep-diving odontocetes reaches the GES because both species of deep-diving odontocetes (pilot whale and Risso's dolphin), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The group of species of deep-diving odontocetes reaches the GES because both species of deep-diving odontocetes (pilot whale and Risso's dolphin), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The group of species of deep-diving odontocetes reaches the GES because both species of deep-diving odontocetes (pilot whale and Risso's dolphin), out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the four assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of the descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, if the evaluation of certain species such as common dolphins appears robust, many cetacean species could not be evaluated. For the assessed species, the results show no statistically significant variation in the abundance (D1C2) and distribution (D1C4) of cetaceans. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1. Indeed, in this MRU, the incidental catch rates of harbour porpoise and common dolphin exceed the threshold values of good ecological status and are likely to affect the population dynamics of these two species.
Assessments period	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016
Related pressures																					Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Related targets