MS/Art8/2018/D1-M/France/NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea — Marine Information System for Europe

Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D1-M / France / NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea

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

Manche mer du Nord (ANS-FR-MS-MMN)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M	D1-M
Feature	Baleen whales	Baleen whales	Baleen whales	Baleen whales	Baleen whales	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Small toothed cetaceans	Seals	Seals	Seals	Seals	Seals	Seals	Seals	Seals	Seals	Seals	Seals	Seals
Element	Balaenoptera acurostrata	Balaenoptera acurostrata	Balaenoptera acurostrata	Balaenoptera acurostrata	Balaenoptera acurostrata	Lagerorhynchus albirostris	Lagerorhynchus albirostris	Lagerorhynchus albirostris	Lagerorhynchus albirostris	Lagerorhynchus albirostris	Phocoena phocoena	Phocoena phocoena	Phocoena phocoena	Phocoena phocoena	Phocoena phocoena	Tursiops truncatus	Tursiops truncatus	Tursiops truncatus	Tursiops truncatus	Tursiops truncatus	Halichoerus grypus	Halichoerus grypus	Halichoerus grypus	Halichoerus grypus	Halichoerus grypus	Halichoerus grypus	Phoca vitulina	Phoca vitulina	Phoca vitulina	Phoca vitulina	Phoca vitulina	Phoca vitulina
Element code	137087	137087	137087	137087	137087	137101	137101	137101	137101	137101	137117	137117	137117	137117	137117	137111	137111	137111	137111	137111	137080	137080	137080	137080	137080	137080	137084	137084	137084	137084	137084	137084
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/
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
Criterion	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5	D1C1	D1C2	D1C2	D1C3	D1C4	D1C5
Parameter		Other					Other				Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)	Other	Other				Other		Distribution (spatial)			Other	Other		Distribution (spatial)			Other	Other		Distribution (spatial)
Parameter other		Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)	Number of extreme strandings				Relative abundance within community (long term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)	Relative abundance within community (short term)					Relative abundance within community (long term)	Relative abundance within community (short term)
Threshold value upper		-5.0					-5.0				1.7	-5.0					-5.0					-25.0	-6.0					-25.0	-6.0
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative											The parameter is reached if the bycatch mortality rate is <1.7% of abundance with a probability >80% and the 80% confidence interval of the mean rate, over the generation time of the species (10 years), is less than 1.7%.		The number of strandings actually observed over 3 days does not exceed, over more than one month for two years of the current cycle, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the monthly threshold (predicted from the previous cycle).						No change in species distribution						No change in species distribution						No change in species distribution
Threshold value source		OSPAR Convention					OSPAR Convention				Other (specify)	OSPAR Convention	Other (specify)				OSPAR Convention		OSPAR Convention			OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention		OSPAR Convention			OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention		OSPAR Convention
Threshold value source other											National		National
Value achieved upper											7.9												28.0						12.0
Value achieved lower											2.8
Value unit		percentage					percentage				percentage	percentage					percentage		Other			percentage	percentage					percentage	percentage
Value unit other																			no unit
Proportion threshold value		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
Trend		Unknown					Unknown				Unknown	Unknown	Unknown				Unknown		Unknown			Unknown	Unknown		Unknown			Unknown	Unknown		Unknown
Parameter achieved		Yes					Yes				No	Yes	Yes				Yes		Yes			Yes	Yes		Yes			Yes	Yes		Yes
Description parameter		The assessment of criterion D1C2 for minke whales is based on the assessment made in the framework of OSPAR IA 2017, with the calculation of the M4b_OSPAR indicator. The metric for this indicator is a percentage difference between the abundance of the reference year and the most recent year (long-term calculation). The results of the M4b_OSPAR indicator from OSPAR AI 2017 show no change in abundance between 2005/2007 and 2016 for minke whales in the North Sea. The parameter "relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore considered to have been reached for minke whales in this MRU.					The assessment of criterion D1C2 for the white-beaked lagoon is based on the OSPAR IA 2017 assessment with the calculation of the M4b_OSPAR indicator. The metric for this indicator is a percentage difference between the abundance in the base year and the most recent year (long-term calculation). The results of the M4b_OSPAR indicator from OSPAR AI 2017 show no change in abundance between 2005/2007 and 2016 for the North Sea white-beaked lagoon. The parameter 'relative abundance (long-term calculation)' is therefore considered to have been achieved for the white-beaked lagoon in this MRU.				This parameter, relating to criterion D1C1, makes it possible to estimate an annual incidental catch rate for the period 2012-2015 (ratio of the number of individuals killed by accidental capture to the total abundance of the species), as well as an 80% confidence interval of the average incidental catch rate calculated over the entire generation time of the species (10 years for the harbour porpoise). The evaluation of this parameter shows that the incidental catch mortality rate of harbour porpoises is strictly above the threshold of 1.7% of the total abundance of this species, whatever the estimate considered (SCANS III or SAMM campaign). Moreover, on the harbour porpoise generation time scale (i.e. from 2005 to 2015), the 80% confidence intervals systematically frame the 1.7% threshold. The conditions required to achieve the parameter are not met for harbour porpoise. The assessment of the MM_Capt indicator leads to the non-achievement of the parameter in the Channel North Sea sub-region for harbour porpoises.	The assessment of criterion D1C2 for the harbour porpoise is based on the assessment carried out under OSPAR IA 2017, with the calculation of the M4b_OSPAR indicator. The metric for this indicator is a percentage difference between the abundance in the reference year (oldest monitoring year) and the abundance in the most recent year (long-term calculation). The results of the M4b_OSPAR indicator from OSPAR AI 2017 show no change in abundance between 2005/2007 and 2016 for harbour porpoise in the North Sea. The parameter "relative abundance (long-term calculation)" is therefore considered to have been achieved for harbour porpoise in this MRU.	This parameter, relative to criterion D1C3, allows changes in the occurrence of extreme mortality events to be detected. The results of this parameter show a single exceedance of the monthly threshold (May 2013) over the period 2011-2016 for harbour porpoises. In the North Sea, Channel sub-region, the assessment of the MM_EME indicator shows that the conditions for reaching the parameter are met with regard to extreme mortality events of harbour porpoises (D1C3).				The existing data for the coastal populations of bottlenose dolphins of Ile de Sein, Molène Archipelago and Normandy Gulf-Breton do not allow to have 4 different abundance assessments over the last 10 years for each of these populations. Nevertheless, in view of the available data, these have been estimated as stable or increasing during OSPAR IA 2017. The parameter relating to abundance is therefore considered to have been reached for coastal bottlenose dolphins in this MRU.		No change in the distribution of coastal bottlenose dolphin populations was detected. OSPAR AI 2017 concludes that the distribution of coastal bottlenose dolphins in France is stable, even increasing. The distribution parameter is thus considered as reached for coastal bottlenose dolphins in this MRU.			The assessment of the D1C2 criterion for seals is based on the assessment carried out under OSPAR IA 2017, with the calculation of the M3_OSPAR indicator. The metric for this indicator is a percentage difference between the abundance of a base year and the most recent year, which is to be assessed in the short term and in the long term. For the long-term assessment, the threshold used is a decline in abundance of less than 25% since the 1992 baseline. The Relative Abundance (Long-term) parameter showed a long-term increase in abundance (>100%) for grey seals. This parameter has therefore been achieved for this species.	The assessment of the D1C2 criterion for seals is based on the assessment carried out under OSPAR IA 2017, with the calculation of the M3_OSPAR indicator. The metric for this indicator is a percentage difference between the abundance of a base year and the most recent year, which is to be assessed in the short term and in the long term. For the short-term assessment, the threshold used is a decline in abundance of less than 6% in the 6 years preceding the assessment. The Relative Abundance (Short-term) parameter showed a short-term increase in abundance (+28%) for grey seals. This parameter has therefore been achieved for this species.		The assessment of the D1C4 criterion for seals is based on the assessment carried out under OSPAR IA 2017, with the calculation of the M3_OSPAR indicator. The parameter for the distribution of grey seals shows that the distribution is stable for the period 2009-2014. This parameter is therefore achieved for this species.			The assessment of the D1C2 criterion for seals is based on the assessment carried out under OSPAR IA 2017, with the calculation of the M3_OSPAR indicator. The metric for this indicator is a percentage difference between the abundance of a base year and the most recent year, which is to be assessed in the short term and in the long term. For the long-term assessment, the threshold used is a decline in abundance of less than 25% since the 1992 baseline. The Relative Abundance (Long-term) parameter showed a long-term increase in abundance (>100%) for calf seals. This parameter has therefore been achieved for this species.	The assessment of the D1C2 criterion for seals is based on the assessment carried out under OSPAR IA 2017, with the calculation of the M3_OSPAR indicator. The metric for this indicator is a percentage difference between the abundance of a base year and the most recent year, which is to be assessed in the short term and in the long term. For the short-term assessment, the threshold used is a decline in abundance of less than 6% in the 6 years preceding the assessment. The Relative Abundance (Short-term) parameter showed a short-term increase in abundance (+12%) for seal calves. This parameter has therefore been achieved for this species.		The assessment of the D1C4 criterion for seals is based on the assessment carried out under OSPAR IA 2017, with the calculation of the M3_OSPAR indicator. The parameter for the distribution of seal calves shows that the distribution is stable for the period 2009-2014. This parameter has therefore been achieved for this species.
Related indicator		Abondance et Distribution des cétacés					Abondance et Distribution des cétacés				Taux de mortalité par captures accidentelles des petits cétacés	Abondance et Distribution des cétacés	Evènements de mortalité extrêmes des cétacés				Abondance et Distribution des groupes résidents de grands dauphins		Abondance et Distribution des groupes résidents de grands dauphins			Abondance et Distribution des phoques	Abondance et Distribution des phoques		Abondance et Distribution des phoques			Abondance et Distribution des phoques	Abondance et Distribution des phoques		Abondance et Distribution des phoques
Criteria status	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Good	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Good	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Good	Good	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed
Description criteria		Criterion D1C2 is in good condition with respect to minke whales in this MRU.	No indicators are currently available for the assessment of criterion D1C3 for this species. The methodological standards for criterion D1C3 for marine mammals will be further developed following additional studies, as provided for in the Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.				Criterion D1C2 is in good condition with respect to the white-beaked lagoon in this MRU.	No indicators are currently available for the assessment of criterion D1C3 for this species. The methodological standards for criterion D1C3 for marine mammals will be further developed following additional studies, as provided for in the Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.			Criterion D1C1 is not in good condition with respect to harbour porpoise in this MRU.	Criterion D1C2 is in good condition with respect to harbour porpoise in this MRU.	Criterion D1C3 is in good condition with respect to harbour porpoise in this MRU.				Criterion D1C2 is in good condition with respect to the coastal bottlenose dolphin in this MRU.	No indicators are currently available for the assessment of criterion D1C3 for this species. The methodological standards for criterion D1C3 for marine mammals will be further developed following additional studies, as provided for in the Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.	Criterion D1C4 is in good condition with respect to the coastal bottlenose dolphin in this MRU.			Criterion D1C2 is in good condition with respect to grey seals in this MRU.	Criterion D1C2 is in good condition with respect to grey seals in this MRU.	No indicators are currently available for the assessment of D1C3 for seals. The methodological standards for marine mammal criterion D1C3 will be further developed following further studies, as provided for in the Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.	Criterion D1C4 is in good condition with respect to grey seals in this MRU.			Criterion D1C2 is in good condition with respect to seal calves in this MRU.	Criterion D1C2 is in good condition with respect to seal calves in this MRU.	No indicators are currently available for the assessment of D1C3 for seals. The methodological standards for marine mammal criterion D1C3 will be further developed following further studies, as provided for in the Ministerial Order 2019 on the definition of good environmental status of marine waters.	Criterion D1C4 is in good condition with respect to seal calves in this MRU.
Element status	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good
Description element	The minke whale is in good condition in this MRU. However, only one criterion could be provided for this species.	The minke whale is in good condition in this MRU. However, only one criterion could be provided for this species.	The minke whale is in good condition in this MRU. However, only one criterion could be provided for this species.	The minke whale is in good condition in this MRU. However, only one criterion could be provided for this species.	The minke whale is in good condition in this MRU. However, only one criterion could be provided for this species.	The white-sided dolphins are in good condition in this MRU. Their southern limit of distribution is French waters - no change in abundance or distribution has been measured since 1994 in northern Europe for this species.	The white-sided dolphins are in good condition in this MRU. Their southern limit of distribution is French waters - no change in abundance or distribution has been measured since 1994 in northern Europe for this species.	The white-sided dolphins are in good condition in this MRU. Their southern limit of distribution is French waters - no change in abundance or distribution has been measured since 1994 in northern Europe for this species.	The white-sided dolphins are in good condition in this MRU. Their southern limit of distribution is French waters - no change in abundance or distribution has been measured since 1994 in northern Europe for this species.	The white-sided dolphins are in good condition in this MRU. Their southern limit of distribution is French waters - no change in abundance or distribution has been measured since 1994 in northern Europe for this species.	The harbour porpoise is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this MSFD cycle in porpoise is of great concern. Such rates are likely to permanently affect the population dynamics of the species. Reducing this pressure is a major issue for the species.	The harbour porpoise is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this MSFD cycle in porpoise is of great concern. Such rates are likely to permanently affect the population dynamics of the species. Reducing this pressure is a major issue for the species.	The harbour porpoise is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this MSFD cycle in porpoise is of great concern. Such rates are likely to permanently affect the population dynamics of the species. Reducing this pressure is a major issue for the species.	The harbour porpoise is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this MSFD cycle in porpoise is of great concern. Such rates are likely to permanently affect the population dynamics of the species. Reducing this pressure is a major issue for the species.	The harbour porpoise is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this MSFD cycle in porpoise is of great concern. Such rates are likely to permanently affect the population dynamics of the species. Reducing this pressure is a major issue for the species.	Coastal bottlenose dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance appears to be increasing and their distribution is stable. For the offshore population of bottlenose dolphins, no conclusions can be drawn due to lack of statistical power or lack of data.	Coastal bottlenose dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance appears to be increasing and their distribution is stable. For the offshore population of bottlenose dolphins, no conclusions can be drawn due to lack of statistical power or lack of data.	Coastal bottlenose dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance appears to be increasing and their distribution is stable. For the offshore population of bottlenose dolphins, no conclusions can be drawn due to lack of statistical power or lack of data.	Coastal bottlenose dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance appears to be increasing and their distribution is stable. For the offshore population of bottlenose dolphins, no conclusions can be drawn due to lack of statistical power or lack of data.	Coastal bottlenose dolphin populations are in good condition as their abundance appears to be increasing and their distribution is stable. For the offshore population of bottlenose dolphins, no conclusions can be drawn due to lack of statistical power or lack of data.	The grey seal is in good condition in this MRU. Seal populations have shown a steady increase and stable distribution since the start of monitoring in France. The increase in the grey seal population is particularly significant for this marine sub-region and numbers tend to exceed those of calf-marine seals. Competition between the two species could adversely affect the populations of calf seals, particularly in the Baie de Somme. The interactions between the two species and the impact of grey seals on the seal calf will be particularly important to monitor during the next cycle. French populations of these two species represent only a small fraction of European populations. On a European scale, the abundance of grey and harbour seals has increased overall since 1992.	The grey seal is in good condition in this MRU. Seal populations have shown a steady increase and stable distribution since the start of monitoring in France. The increase in the grey seal population is particularly significant for this marine sub-region and numbers tend to exceed those of calf-marine seals. Competition between the two species could adversely affect the populations of calf seals, particularly in the Baie de Somme. The interactions between the two species and the impact of grey seals on the seal calf will be particularly important to monitor during the next cycle. French populations of these two species represent only a small fraction of European populations. On a European scale, the abundance of grey and harbour seals has increased overall since 1992.	The grey seal is in good condition in this MRU. Seal populations have shown a steady increase and stable distribution since the start of monitoring in France. The increase in the grey seal population is particularly significant for this marine sub-region and numbers tend to exceed those of calf-marine seals. Competition between the two species could adversely affect the populations of calf seals, particularly in the Baie de Somme. The interactions between the two species and the impact of grey seals on the seal calf will be particularly important to monitor during the next cycle. French populations of these two species represent only a small fraction of European populations. On a European scale, the abundance of grey and harbour seals has increased overall since 1992.	The grey seal is in good condition in this MRU. Seal populations have shown a steady increase and stable distribution since the start of monitoring in France. The increase in the grey seal population is particularly significant for this marine sub-region and numbers tend to exceed those of calf-marine seals. Competition between the two species could adversely affect the populations of calf seals, particularly in the Baie de Somme. The interactions between the two species and the impact of grey seals on the seal calf will be particularly important to monitor during the next cycle. French populations of these two species represent only a small fraction of European populations. On a European scale, the abundance of grey and harbour seals has increased overall since 1992.	The grey seal is in good condition in this MRU. Seal populations have shown a steady increase and stable distribution since the start of monitoring in France. The increase in the grey seal population is particularly significant for this marine sub-region and numbers tend to exceed those of calf-marine seals. Competition between the two species could adversely affect the populations of calf seals, particularly in the Baie de Somme. The interactions between the two species and the impact of grey seals on the seal calf will be particularly important to monitor during the next cycle. French populations of these two species represent only a small fraction of European populations. On a European scale, the abundance of grey and harbour seals has increased overall since 1992.	The grey seal is in good condition in this MRU. Seal populations have shown a steady increase and stable distribution since the start of monitoring in France. The increase in the grey seal population is particularly significant for this marine sub-region and numbers tend to exceed those of calf-marine seals. Competition between the two species could adversely affect the populations of calf seals, particularly in the Baie de Somme. The interactions between the two species and the impact of grey seals on the seal calf will be particularly important to monitor during the next cycle. French populations of these two species represent only a small fraction of European populations. On a European scale, the abundance of grey and harbour seals has increased overall since 1992.	The harbour seal is in good condition in this MRU. Seal populations have shown a steady increase and stable distribution since monitoring began in France. It should be noted, however, that grey seal populations are also increasing and are particularly important for this marine sub-region. Numbers tend to exceed those of calf-marine seals. Competition between the two species could harm calf seal populations, particularly in the Bay of the Somme. Interactions between the two species and the impact of grey seals on the seal calf will be particularly important to monitor during the next cycle. French populations of these two species represent only a small fraction of European populations. On a European scale, the abundance of grey and harbour seals has increased overall since 1992, although a decline has been identified in Scotland for the harbour seal calf.	The harbour seal is in good condition in this MRU. Seal populations have shown a steady increase and stable distribution since monitoring began in France. It should be noted, however, that grey seal populations are also increasing and are particularly important for this marine sub-region. Numbers tend to exceed those of calf-marine seals. Competition between the two species could harm calf seal populations, particularly in the Bay of the Somme. Interactions between the two species and the impact of grey seals on the seal calf will be particularly important to monitor during the next cycle. French populations of these two species represent only a small fraction of European populations. On a European scale, the abundance of grey and harbour seals has increased overall since 1992, although a decline has been identified in Scotland for the harbour seal calf.	The harbour seal is in good condition in this MRU. Seal populations have shown a steady increase and stable distribution since monitoring began in France. It should be noted, however, that grey seal populations are also increasing and are particularly important for this marine sub-region. Numbers tend to exceed those of calf-marine seals. Competition between the two species could harm calf seal populations, particularly in the Bay of the Somme. Interactions between the two species and the impact of grey seals on the seal calf will be particularly important to monitor during the next cycle. French populations of these two species represent only a small fraction of European populations. On a European scale, the abundance of grey and harbour seals has increased overall since 1992, although a decline has been identified in Scotland for the harbour seal calf.	The harbour seal is in good condition in this MRU. Seal populations have shown a steady increase and stable distribution since monitoring began in France. It should be noted, however, that grey seal populations are also increasing and are particularly important for this marine sub-region. Numbers tend to exceed those of calf-marine seals. Competition between the two species could harm calf seal populations, particularly in the Bay of the Somme. Interactions between the two species and the impact of grey seals on the seal calf will be particularly important to monitor during the next cycle. French populations of these two species represent only a small fraction of European populations. On a European scale, the abundance of grey and harbour seals has increased overall since 1992, although a decline has been identified in Scotland for the harbour seal calf.	The harbour seal is in good condition in this MRU. Seal populations have shown a steady increase and stable distribution since monitoring began in France. It should be noted, however, that grey seal populations are also increasing and are particularly important for this marine sub-region. Numbers tend to exceed those of calf-marine seals. Competition between the two species could harm calf seal populations, particularly in the Bay of the Somme. Interactions between the two species and the impact of grey seals on the seal calf will be particularly important to monitor during the next cycle. French populations of these two species represent only a small fraction of European populations. On a European scale, the abundance of grey and harbour seals has increased overall since 1992, although a decline has been identified in Scotland for the harbour seal calf.	The harbour seal is in good condition in this MRU. Seal populations have shown a steady increase and stable distribution since monitoring began in France. It should be noted, however, that grey seal populations are also increasing and are particularly important for this marine sub-region. Numbers tend to exceed those of calf-marine seals. Competition between the two species could harm calf seal populations, particularly in the Bay of the Somme. Interactions between the two species and the impact of grey seals on the seal calf will be particularly important to monitor during the next cycle. French populations of these two species represent only a small fraction of European populations. On a European scale, the abundance of grey and harbour seals has increased overall since 1992, although a decline has been identified in Scotland for the harbour seal calf.
Integration rule type parameter	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 parameter	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.	The assessment obtained by the calculation of the parameter directly informs the corresponding criterion for a given marine mammal species without any integration rule. With the exception of the assessment of the status of the D1C2 criterion for seals: the integration between the two parameters "Relative abundance (short-term calculation)" and "Relative abundance (long-term calculation)" follows the OOAO rule.
Integration rule type criteria	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO
Integration rule description criteria	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.	The integration between the criteria and species (element) levels is carried out on the basis of the "One Out All Out" (OOAO) method. Therefore, if one of the criteria for a given species is not in good status in the marine sub-region, then the species (item) is not in good status.
GES extent threshold	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
GES extent achieved	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	67.00	67.00	67.00	67.00	67.00	67.00	67.00	67.00	67.00	67.00	67.00	67.00	67.00	67.00	67.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00
GES extent unit	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group	Proportion of species in good status within species group
GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES expected to be achieved later than 2020, no Article 14 exception reported	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved	GES achieved
Description overall status	The mysticete species group reaches the GES since the only species assessed (minke whale) reaches it in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES evaluations of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not attained at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The mysticete species group reaches the GES since the only species assessed (minke whale) reaches it in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES evaluations of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not attained at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The mysticete species group reaches the GES since the only species assessed (minke whale) reaches it in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES evaluations of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not attained at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The mysticete species group reaches the GES since the only species assessed (minke whale) reaches it in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES evaluations of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not attained at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The mysticete species group reaches the GES since the only species assessed (minke whale) reaches it in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES evaluations of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not attained at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because one species (harbour porpoise), out of the three assessed, is not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because one species (harbour porpoise), out of the three assessed, is not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because one species (harbour porpoise), out of the three assessed, is not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because one species (harbour porpoise), out of the three assessed, is not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because one species (harbour porpoise), out of the three assessed, is not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because one species (harbour porpoise), out of the three assessed, is not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because one species (harbour porpoise), out of the three assessed, is not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because one species (harbour porpoise), out of the three assessed, is not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because one species (harbour porpoise), out of the three assessed, is not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because one species (harbour porpoise), out of the three assessed, is not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because one species (harbour porpoise), out of the three assessed, is not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because one species (harbour porpoise), out of the three assessed, is not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because one species (harbour porpoise), out of the three assessed, is not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because one species (harbour porpoise), out of the three assessed, is not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because one species (harbour porpoise), out of the three assessed, is not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of the descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The seal species group reaches the GES because both species of seals, out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The seal species group reaches the GES because both species of seals, out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The seal species group reaches the GES because both species of seals, out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The seal species group reaches the GES because both species of seals, out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The seal species group reaches the GES because both species of seals, out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The seal species group reaches the GES because both species of seals, out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The seal species group reaches the GES because both species of seals, out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The seal species group reaches the GES because both species of seals, out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The seal species group reaches the GES because both species of seals, out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The seal species group reaches the GES because both species of seals, out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The seal species group reaches the GES because both species of seals, out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.	The seal species group reaches the GES because both species of seals, out of the two assessed, are in good condition. However, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the Marine Mammal component of descriptor D1 due to the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively evaluate for the first time the status of marine mammal populations in metropolitan French waters. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, while the assessment of certain species such as seals or harbour porpoises appears robust, many cetacean species could not be assessed. For the species evaluated, criterion D1C2, which provides information on the abundance of marine mammals, suggests either the absence of statistically significant variation in the case of cetaceans or an increase in the case of seals. On the other hand, the intensity of pressures on cetaceans does not seem to be compatible with the GES for the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1.
Assessments period	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016	2011-2016
Related pressures						Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Related targets