MS/Art8/2018/D1-B/France/NE Atlantic: Celtic Seas — Marine Information System for Europe

Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D1-B / France / NE Atlantic: Celtic Seas

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 Birds
Member State	France
Region/subregion	NE Atlantic: Celtic Seas
Reported by	Ministère de la transition Ecologique et Solidaire
Report date	2020-02-19
Report access	ART8_GES_FR_2020-02-17.xml

SRM MC (ACS-FR-MS-MC)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B	D1-B
Feature	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Pelagic-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds	Surface-feeding birds
Element	Alca torda	Alca torda	Alca torda	Alca torda	Alca torda	Fratercula arctica	Fratercula arctica	Fratercula arctica	Fratercula arctica	Fratercula arctica	Morus bassanus	Morus bassanus	Morus bassanus	Morus bassanus	Morus bassanus	Phalacrocorax aristotelis	Phalacrocorax aristotelis	Phalacrocorax aristotelis	Phalacrocorax aristotelis	Phalacrocorax aristotelis	Phalacrocorax carbo	Phalacrocorax carbo	Phalacrocorax carbo	Phalacrocorax carbo	Phalacrocorax carbo	Uria aalge	Uria aalge	Uria aalge	Uria aalge	Uria aalge	Fulmarus glacialis	Fulmarus glacialis	Fulmarus glacialis	Fulmarus glacialis	Fulmarus glacialis	Hydrobates pelagicus	Hydrobates pelagicus	Hydrobates pelagicus	Hydrobates pelagicus	Hydrobates pelagicus	Larus argentatus	Larus argentatus	Larus argentatus	Larus argentatus	Larus argentatus	Larus fuscus	Larus fuscus	Larus fuscus	Larus fuscus	Larus fuscus	Larus marinus	Larus marinus	Larus marinus	Larus marinus	Larus marinus	Puffinus puffinus	Puffinus puffinus	Puffinus puffinus	Puffinus puffinus	Puffinus puffinus	Rissa tridactyla	Rissa tridactyla	Rissa tridactyla	Rissa tridactyla	Rissa tridactyla	Sterna albifrons	Sterna albifrons	Sterna albifrons	Sterna albifrons	Sterna albifrons	Sterna dougallii	Sterna dougallii	Sterna dougallii	Sterna dougallii	Sterna dougallii	Sterna hirundo	Sterna hirundo	Sterna hirundo	Sterna hirundo	Sterna hirundo	Sterna sandvicensis	Sterna sandvicensis	Sterna sandvicensis	Sterna sandvicensis	Sterna sandvicensis
Element code	137128	137128	137128	137128	137128	137131	137131	137131	137131	137131	148776	148776	148776	148776	148776	137178	137178	137178	137178	137178	137179	137179	137179	137179	137179	137133	137133	137133	137133	137133	137195	137195	137195	137195	137195	137189	137189	137189	137189	137189	137138	137138	137138	137138	137138	137142	137142	137142	137142	137142	137146	137146	137146	137146	137146	137203	137203	137203	137203	137203	137156	137156	137156	137156	137156	137157	137157	137157	137157	137157	137160	137160	137160	137160	137160	137162	137162	137162	137162	137162	137166	137166	137166	137166	137166
Element code source	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National
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	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	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5
Parameter		Other					Other					Other	Fecundity rate				Other	Fecundity rate				Other					Other					Other	Fecundity rate				Other	Fecundity rate				Other	Fecundity rate				Other					Other	Fecundity rate				Other					Other					Other	Fecundity rate				Other	Fecundity rate				Other	Fecundity rate				Other	Fecundity rate
Parameter other		Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)
Threshold value upper													3.0					3.0															3.0					3.0					3.0										3.0															3.0					3.0					3.0					3.0
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative		The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.					The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.					The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.	The annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure shall not exceed 5% of the colonies monitored, or the average percentage of colonies in failure during the previous 15 years, whichever is higher, during 3 years of the cycle evaluated.				The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.	The annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure shall not exceed 5% of the colonies monitored, or the average percentage of colonies in failure during the previous 15 years, whichever is higher, during 3 years of the cycle evaluated.				The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.					The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.					The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.	The annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure shall not exceed 5% of the colonies monitored, or the average percentage of colonies in failure during the previous 15 years, whichever is higher, during 3 years of the cycle evaluated.				The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.	The annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure shall not exceed 5% of the colonies monitored, or the average percentage of colonies in failure during the previous 15 years, whichever is higher, during 3 years of the cycle evaluated.				The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.	The annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure shall not exceed 5% of the colonies monitored, or the average percentage of colonies in failure during the previous 15 years, whichever is higher, during 3 years of the cycle evaluated.				The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.					The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.	The annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure shall not exceed 5% of the colonies monitored, or the average percentage of colonies in failure during the previous 15 years, whichever is higher, during 3 years of the cycle evaluated.				The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.					The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.					The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.	The annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure shall not exceed 5% of the colonies monitored, or the average percentage of colonies in failure during the previous 15 years, whichever is higher, during 3 years of the cycle evaluated.				The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.	The annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure shall not exceed 5% of the colonies monitored, or the average percentage of colonies in failure during the previous 15 years, whichever is higher, during 3 years of the cycle evaluated.				The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.	The annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure shall not exceed 5% of the colonies monitored, or the average percentage of colonies in failure during the previous 15 years, whichever is higher, during 3 years of the cycle evaluated.				The parameter is considered to have been reached when the rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the species is stable or increasing ( > 0 %). In addition, an expert opinion was considered for all species.	The annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure shall not exceed 5% of the colonies monitored, or the average percentage of colonies in failure during the previous 15 years, whichever is higher, during 3 years of the cycle evaluated.
Threshold value source		OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention				OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention				OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention				OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention				OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention				OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention				OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention				OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention				OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention				OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention
Threshold value source other
Value achieved upper		112.5					-47.0					210.0					69.0	1.0				93.0					6.0					97.0	1.0				383.0					-61.0					-52.0					50.0	1.0				195.0					-43.0					90.0	5.0				-95.0	3.0				-50.5	6.0				-98.0	4.0
Value achieved lower
Value unit		percentage					percentage					percentage	Other				percentage	Other				percentage					percentage					percentage	Other				percentage	Other				percentage	Other				percentage					percentage	Other				percentage					percentage					percentage	Other				percentage	Other				percentage	Other				percentage	Other
Value unit other													Years					Years															Years					Years					Years										Years															Years					Years					Years					Years
Proportion threshold value		100.0					100.0					100.0	100.0				100.0	100.0				100.0					100.0					100.0	100.0				100.0	100.0				100.0	100.0				100.0					100.0	100.0				100.0					100.0					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					% 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	% 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	% 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	Unknown				Unknown					Unknown					Unknown	Unknown				Unknown	Unknown				Unknown	Unknown				Unknown	Unknown
Parameter achieved		No					No					Yes	Yes				Yes	Yes				Yes					No					Yes	Yes				Yes	Yes				No	Yes				No					Yes	Yes				Yes					No					Yes	No				No	No				No	No				No	No
Description parameter		The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in abundance of breeding pairs of the razorbills is positive between 1988 and 2016 (the numbers in 2016 are greater than in 1988). However, it is important to point out that a decline in torda penguin populations was recorded in the 1960s and 1980s, particularly following the oil spills in the Channel, and that the comparison between recent numbers and those of the late 1980s masks this earlier evolution. Consequently, the "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" parameter is not reached for this species, although its evolution rate between 1988 and 2016 is positive.					The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in abundance of breeding pairs of Atlantic puffin is negative between 1988 and 2016 (the numbers in 2016 are smaller than in 1988). The parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore not reached for this species.					The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in abundance of breeding pairs of Northern Gannets is positive between 1988 and 2016 (numbers in 2016 are higher than in 1988). The parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reached for this species.	Based on the counting data of the breeding pairs, the parameter "Breeding success" is calculated over the period 2011-2016. The metric for this parameter corresponds to a number of years in which the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5 % of the colonies monitored (OSPAR method B3: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/biodiversity-status/marine-birds/marine-bird-breeding-success-failure/). For Northern Gannets, the results show that the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure does not exceed 5% in any year for the period 2011-2016. The parameter "reproductive success" is therefore achieved for this species.				The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the crested cormorant is positive between 1988 and 2016 (the numbers in 2016 are greater than in 1988). The parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reached for this species.	Based on the counting data of the breeding pairs, the parameter "Breeding success" is calculated over the period 2011-2016. The metric for this parameter corresponds to a number of years for which the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5 % of the colonies monitored (OSPAR method B3: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/biodiversity-status/marine-birds/marine-bird-breeding-success-failure/). For the crested cormorant, the results show that the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5% in only one year for the period 2011-2016. The parameter "Reproductive success" is therefore achieved for this species.				The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in abundance of breeding pairs of the Great Cormorant is positive between 1988 and 2016 (the numbers in 2016 are greater than in 1988). The parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reached for this species.					The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of common guillemot is positive between 1988 and 2016 (the numbers in 2016 are greater than in 1988). However, it is important to point out that a decline in Troil's guillemot populations was recorded in the 1960s and 1980s, particularly following the oil spills in the Channel, and that the comparison between recent numbers and those of the late 1980s masks this earlier trend. Consequently, the "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" parameter is not reached for this species, although its evolution rate between 1988 and 2016 is positive.					The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in abundance of breeding pairs of northern fulmar is positive between 1988 and 2010 (the numbers in 2010 are greater than in 1988). The parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reached for this species.	Based on the counting data of the breeding pairs, the parameter "Breeding success" is calculated over the period 2011-2016. The metric for this parameter corresponds to a number of years for which the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5 % of the colonies monitored (OSPAR method B3: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/biodiversity-status/marine-birds/marine-bird-breeding-success-failure/). For northern fulmar, the results show that the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5% in only one year for the period 2011-2016. The parameter "reproductive success" is therefore achieved for this species.				The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in abundance of storm petrel breeding pairs is positive between 1988 and 2016 (the numbers in 2016 are greater than in 1988). The parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reached for this species.	Based on the counting data of the breeding pairs, the parameter "Breeding success" is calculated over the period 2011-2016. The metric for this parameter corresponds to a number of years for which the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5 % of the colonies monitored (OSPAR method B3: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/biodiversity-status/marine-birds/marine-bird-breeding-success-failure/). For storm petrel, the results show that the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure does not exceed 5 % in any year for the period 2011-2016. The parameter "Reproductive success" is therefore achieved for this species.				The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in abundance of breeding pairs of Herring Gulls is negative between 1988 and 2010 (numbers in 2010 are smaller than in 1988). The parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore not reached for this species.	Based on the counting data of the breeding pairs, the parameter "Breeding success" is calculated over the period 2011-2016. The metric for this parameter corresponds to a number of years for which the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5 % of the colonies monitored (OSPAR method B3: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/biodiversity-status/marine-birds/marine-bird-breeding-success-failure/). For Herring Gulls, the results show that the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure does not exceed 5 % in any year for the period 2011-2016. The parameter "reproductive success" is therefore achieved for this species.				The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of Brown Gulls is negative between 1988 and 2010 (numbers in 2010 are smaller than in 1988). The parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore not reached for this species.					The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in abundance of breeding pairs of Great Black-backed Gulls is positive between 1988 and 2010 (the numbers in 2010 are greater than in 1988). The parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reached for this species.	Based on the counting data of the breeding pairs, the parameter "Breeding success" is calculated over the period 2011-2016. The metric for this parameter corresponds to a number of years for which the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5 % of the colonies monitored (OSPAR method B3: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/biodiversity-status/marine-birds/marine-bird-breeding-success-failure/). For the Great Black-backed Gull, the results show that the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeded 5% in only one year for the period 2011-2016. The "reproductive success" parameter is therefore reached for this species.				The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in abundance of breeding pairs of English Shearwater is positive between 1988 and 2016 (the numbers in 2016 are greater than in 1988). The parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reached for this species.					The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in abundance of breeding pairs of black-legged kittiwake is negative between 1988 and 2010 (the numbers in 2010 are smaller than in 1988). The parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore not reached for this species.					The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in abundance of dwarf tern breeding pairs is positive between 1988 and 2016 (numbers in 2016 are higher than in 1988). The parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reached for this species.	Based on the counting data of the breeding pairs, the parameter "Breeding success" is calculated over the period 2011-2016. The metric for this parameter corresponds to a number of years for which the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5 % of the colonies monitored (OSPAR method B3: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/biodiversity-status/marine-birds/marine-bird-breeding-success-failure/). For the Lesser Tern, the results show that the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5 % over five years for the period 2011-2016. The parameter "reproductive success" is therefore not reached for this species.				The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in abundance of Roseate Tern breeding pairs is negative between 1988 and 2016 (the numbers in 2016 are smaller than in 1988). The parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore not reached for this species.	Based on the counting data of the breeding pairs, the parameter "Breeding success" is calculated over the period 2011-2016. The metric for this parameter corresponds to a number of years for which the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5 % of the colonies monitored (OSPAR method B3: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/biodiversity-status/marine-birds/marine-bird-breeding-success-failure/). For Roseate Terns, the results show that the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5 % over three years for the period 2011-2016. The parameter "reproductive success" is therefore not reached for this species.				The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in abundance of breeding pairs of common terns is negative between 1988 and 2016 (the numbers in 2016 are smaller than in 1988). The parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore not reached for this species.	Based on the counting data of the breeding pairs, the parameter "Breeding success" is calculated over the period 2011-2016. The metric for this parameter corresponds to a number of years for which the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5 % of the colonies monitored (OSPAR method B3: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/biodiversity-status/marine-birds/marine-bird-breeding-success-failure/). For the common tern, the results show that the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5 % over six years for the period 2011-2016. The parameter "reproductive success" is therefore not reached for this species.				The metric for this parameter is a rate of change in abundance between the reference period (calculated from the 1987-1989 censuses) and the most recent period (2010 or 2016 depending on the species). The rate of change in the abundance of breeding pairs of the caudal tern is negative between 1988 and 2016 (the numbers in 2016 are smaller than in 1988). The parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore not reached for this species.	Based on the counting data of the breeding pairs, the parameter "Breeding success" is calculated over the period 2011-2016. The metric for this parameter corresponds to a number of years for which the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5 % of the colonies monitored (OSPAR method B3: https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/biodiversity-status/marine-birds/marine-bird-breeding-success-failure/). For the Caudal Tern, the results show that the annual percentage of colonies in massive reproductive failure exceeds 5 % over four years for the period 2011-2016. The parameter "reproductive success" is therefore not reached for this species.
Related indicator		Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs					Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs					Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs	Succès reproducteur des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs				Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs	Succès reproducteur des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs				Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs					Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs					Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs	Succès reproducteur des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs				Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs	Succès reproducteur des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs				Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs	Succès reproducteur des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs				Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs					Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs	Succès reproducteur des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs				Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs					Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs					Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs	Succès reproducteur des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs				Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs	Succès reproducteur des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs				Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs	Succès reproducteur des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs				Abondance des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs	Succès reproducteur des couples d'oiseaux nicheurs
Criteria status	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Unknown	Unknown	Not assessed	Not assessed
Description criteria		For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.					For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.					For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.	For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C3 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, at present for criterion D1C3, only the achievement of the parameter "Reproductive success" is reported for this species.				For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.	For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C3 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, at present for criterion D1C3, only the achievement of the parameter "Reproductive success" is reported for this species.				For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.					For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.					For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.	For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C3 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, at present for criterion D1C3, only the achievement of the parameter "Reproductive success" is reported for this species.				For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.	For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C3 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, at present for criterion D1C3, only the achievement of the parameter "Reproductive success" is reported for this species.				For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.	For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C3 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, at present for criterion D1C3, only the achievement of the parameter "Reproductive success" is reported for this species.				For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.					For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.	For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C3 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, at present for criterion D1C3, only the achievement of the parameter "Reproductive success" is reported for this species.				For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.					For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.					For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.	For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C3 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, at present for criterion D1C3, only the achievement of the parameter "Reproductive success" is reported for this species.				For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.	For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C3 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, at present for criterion D1C3, only the achievement of the parameter "Reproductive success" is reported for this species.				For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.	For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C3 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, at present for criterion D1C3, only the achievement of the parameter "Reproductive success" is reported for this species.				For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C2 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. At present for criterion D1C2, only the achievement of the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore reported for this species.	For this assessment, the status of criterion D1C3 is considered 'unknown' as methodological developments (protocols, thresholds or indicators) and the acquisition of additional data are necessary to be able to conclude on the status of this criterion. Therefore, at present for criterion D1C3, only the achievement of the parameter "Reproductive success" is reported for this species.
Element status	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Description element	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the Razorbill in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the Razorbill in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the Razorbill in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the Razorbill in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the Razorbill in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the Atlantic puffin in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the Atlantic puffin in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the Atlantic puffin in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the Atlantic puffin in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the Atlantic puffin in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for the Northern Gannet in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for the Northern Gannet in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for the Northern Gannet in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for the Northern Gannet in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for the Northern Gannet in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for the crested cormorant in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for the crested cormorant in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for the crested cormorant in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for the crested cormorant in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for the crested cormorant in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is achieved for the Great Cormorant in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is achieved for the Great Cormorant in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is achieved for the Great Cormorant in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is achieved for the Great Cormorant in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is achieved for the Great Cormorant in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the common murre in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the common murre in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the common murre in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the common murre in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the common murre in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for northern fulmar in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for northern fulmar in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for northern fulmar in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for northern fulmar in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for northern fulmar in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for storm petrel in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for storm petrel in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for storm petrel in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for storm petrel in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for storm petrel in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved and that the parameter "Reproductive success" is achieved for the Herring Gull in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved and that the parameter "Reproductive success" is achieved for the Herring Gull in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved and that the parameter "Reproductive success" is achieved for the Herring Gull in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved and that the parameter "Reproductive success" is achieved for the Herring Gull in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved and that the parameter "Reproductive success" is achieved for the Herring Gull in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the Great Black-backed Gull in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the Great Black-backed Gull in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the Great Black-backed Gull in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the Great Black-backed Gull in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is not achieved for the Great Black-backed Gull in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for the Great Black-backed Gull in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for the Great Black-backed Gull in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for the Great Black-backed Gull in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for the Great Black-backed Gull in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are achieved for the Great Black-backed Gull in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is achieved for the Manx Shearwater in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is achieved for the Manx Shearwater in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is achieved for the Manx Shearwater in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is achieved for the Manx Shearwater in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is achieved for the Manx Shearwater in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter 'Relative abundance (long-term calculation)' is not achieved for the black-legged kittiwake in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter 'Relative abundance (long-term calculation)' is not achieved for the black-legged kittiwake in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter 'Relative abundance (long-term calculation)' is not achieved for the black-legged kittiwake in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter 'Relative abundance (long-term calculation)' is not achieved for the black-legged kittiwake in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter 'Relative abundance (long-term calculation)' is not achieved for the black-legged kittiwake in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter 'Relative abundance (long-term calculation)' is achieved and that the parameter 'Reproductive success' is not achieved for the Lesser Tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter 'Relative abundance (long-term calculation)' is achieved and that the parameter 'Reproductive success' is not achieved for the Lesser Tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter 'Relative abundance (long-term calculation)' is achieved and that the parameter 'Reproductive success' is not achieved for the Lesser Tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter 'Relative abundance (long-term calculation)' is achieved and that the parameter 'Reproductive success' is not achieved for the Lesser Tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C3 (demographic characteristics), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too small number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameter 'Relative abundance (long-term calculation)' is achieved and that the parameter 'Reproductive success' is not achieved for the Lesser Tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are not achieved for the Roseate Tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are not achieved for the Roseate Tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are not achieved for the Roseate Tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are not achieved for the Roseate Tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are not achieved for the Roseate Tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are not achieved for the common tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are not achieved for the common tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are not achieved for the common tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are not achieved for the common tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are not achieved for the common tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are not achieved for the common tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are not achieved for the common tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are not achieved for the common tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are not achieved for the common tern in this MRU.	The assessment of this species is very partial in the Celtic Seas marine sub-region due to the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (by-catch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and status of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species level. However, the results of the assessment show that the parameters "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" and "Reproductive success" are not achieved for the common tern in this MRU.
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	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	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant
Integration rule description parameter
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	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	Other	Other	Other	Other	Other
Integration rule description criteria	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.	The integration rule is being developed in the framework of the Joint OSPAR/HELCOM/ICES Working Group on Seabirds.
GES extent threshold
GES extent achieved
GES extent unit
GES achieved	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Description overall status	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).	The 2018 assessment of ecological status for the Seabird component of descriptor 1 was based on a total of 17 species (all species groups combined) at the scale of the Celtic Sea marine sub-region (i.e. 24% of representative species). However, the GES assessment for these species is very partial, given the lack of data to inform criteria D1C1 (bycatch), D1C4 (distribution) and D1C5 (extent and condition of species habitats). The too low number of elements calculated therefore does not allow an assessment of good ecological status at the species, species group and seabird component level. However, the evaluation of OSPAR indicator B1 (abundance of breeding pairs - D1C2) in the Celtic Sea marine sub-region has highlighted a problematic situation, particularly for three of the six species of the pelagic diving bird species group, namely the common guillemot, the razorbill and the Atlantic puffin, which breed only at the scale of this MRU. This is also the case for certain species associated with the group of seabird surface species, both in terms of breeding pair abundance (OSPAR B1) and reproductive success (OSPAR B3).
Assessments period	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016	2010-2016
Related pressures
Related targets