MS/Art8/2018/D2/France/NE Atlantic: Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast

Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D2 / France / NE Atlantic: Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast

Report type	Member State report to Commission
MSFD Article	Art. 8 Initial assessment (and Art. 17 updates)
Report due	2018-10-15
GES Descriptor	D2 Non-indigenous species
Member State	France
Region/subregion	NE Atlantic: Bay of Biscay & Iberian Coast
Reported by	Ministère de la transition Ecologique et Solidaire
Report date	2020-02-19
Report access	ART8_GES_FR_2020-02-17.xml

UMR GdG Nord (ABI-FR-MS-GDG-NORD)

Simplified table

GES component	D2	D2	D2	D2	D2	D2	D2
Feature	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
Element	Asterocarpa humilis	Chaetozone corona	Ciona robusta	Eurytemora pacifica	Gracilariopsis chorda	Grandidierella japonica	Polysiphonia morrowii
Element code	250047	332670	252565	232028	494956	238740	232563
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/
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	National	National	National	National	National	National	National
Criterion	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1
Parameter	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence
Parameter other
Threshold value upper
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet
Threshold value source
Threshold value source other
Value achieved upper	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0
Value achieved lower
Value unit	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species
Value unit other
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Parameter achieved	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Description parameter	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this is the first signalling of this species at the scale of all the French coasts (all MRSs taken together). (Bibliographic reference: Bishop, J.D.D., Roby, C., Yunnie, A.L.E., Wood, C.A., Levêque, L., Turon, X., Viard, F., 2013. The Southern hemisphere ascidian Asterocarpa humilis is unrecognised but widely established in NW France and Great Britain. Biol. Invasions. 15: 253-260. DOI 10.1007/s10530-012-0286-x)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2013 Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2011 No threshold is currently available to assess whether the parameter has been reached.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this is the first signalling of this species at the scale of all the French coasts (all marine subregions taken together). (Bibliographical reference: Le Garrec, V., Grall, V., Chevalier, C., Guyonnet, B., Jourde, J., Lavesque, N., Bonifácio, P., Blake, J.A., 2016. Chaetozone corona (Polychaeta, Cirratulidae) in the Bay of Biscay: a new alien species for the North-est Atlantic waters? J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 1-3. doi:10.1017/S0025315416000540)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2016.Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 1996.No threshold is currently available to assess whether the parameter has been reached.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this species is newly reported in the MRU North Bay of Biscay, but had previously been reported in the marine subregion Celtic Seas (Bibliographic reference: Nydam, M., Yanckello, L.M., Bialik, S.B., Giesbrrecht, K.B., Nation, G.K., Peak, J.L., 2017. Introgression in two species of broadcast spawning marine invertebrate. Biol. J. Linn.Soc.)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2017 Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2013 No threshold is currently available to assess whether or not the parameter has been reached.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration.Thus, this species is newly reported in the MRU Bay of Biscay North, but had previously been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (Bibliographic reference: Brylinski, J.M., Courcot, L., David, V., Sautour, B., 2016. Expansion of the North Pacific copepod Eurytemora pacifica Sato, 1913 (Copepoda: Calanoida: Temoridae) along the Atlantic coast of France. BioInvasions Records. 5(4): 245-250. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/bir.2016.5.4.09)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2016 Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2014 No threshold is currently available to assess whether or not the parameter has been reached.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration.Thus, this is the first signalling of this species at the scale of all French coasts (all marine sub-regions combined). (Bibliographic reference: Mineur, F., Le Roux, A., Stegenga, H., Verlaque, M., Maggs, C.A., 2012. Four new exotic red seaweeds on European shores. Biol. Invasions. 14 (8): 1635-1641. DOI 10.1007/s10530-012-0186-0)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2012 Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2010 No threshold is currently available to assess whether or not the parameter is being met.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration.Thus, this species is newly reported in the MRU Bay of Biscay North, but had previously been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (Bibliographic reference: Droual, G., Le Garrec, V., Cabelguen, J., Gélinaud, G., Grall, J., 2017. The spread goes on: the non-indigenous species Grandidierella japonica Stephensen, 1938 (Amphipoda: Aoridae) has reached Brittany (Gulf of Morbihan). An aod - the naturalist notebooks of the Marine Observatory)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2017.date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2015.no threshold is currently available to assess whether or not the parameter has been reached.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration.Thus, this species is newly reported in the MRU Bay of Biscay North, but had previously been reported in the marine sub-region Western Mediterranean (Bibliographic reference: Geoffroy, A., Le Gall, L., Destombe, C., 2012. Cryptic introduction of the red algae Polysiphonia morrowii Harvey (Rhodomelaceae, Rhodophyta) in the North Atlantic Ocean highlighted by a DNA barcoding approach. Aquatic Botany. 100: 67-71. doi:10.1016/d.aquabot.2012.03.002)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2012.date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): Unknown.no threshold is currently available to assess whether the parameter is being met.
Related indicator	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes
Criteria status	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Description criteria	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.
Element status	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Description element	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.
Integration rule type parameter	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant
Integration rule description parameter
Integration rule type criteria	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant
Integration rule description criteria	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.
GES extent threshold
GES extent achieved	7.00	7.00	7.00	7.00	7.00	7.00	7.00
GES extent unit	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species
GES achieved	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Description overall status	Since 2012, a total of 7 new non-native species have been reported in the northern part of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of introduction of non-native species compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the UMR Golfe de Gascogne Nord. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 7 new non-native species have been reported in the northern part of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of introduction of non-native species compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the UMR Golfe de Gascogne Nord. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 7 new non-native species have been reported in the northern part of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of introduction of non-native species compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the UMR Golfe de Gascogne Nord. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 7 new non-native species have been reported in the northern part of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of introduction of non-native species compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the UMR Golfe de Gascogne Nord. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 7 new non-native species have been reported in the northern part of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of introduction of non-native species compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the UMR Golfe de Gascogne Nord. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 7 new non-native species have been reported in the northern part of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of introduction of non-native species compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the UMR Golfe de Gascogne Nord. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 7 new non-native species have been reported in the northern part of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of introduction of non-native species compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the UMR Golfe de Gascogne Nord. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.
Assessments period	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017
Related pressures
Related targets

UMR GdG Sud (ABI-FR-MS-GDG-SUD)

Simplified table

GES component	D2	D2	D2	D2	D2	D2	D2	D2	D2	D2	D2	D2	D2	D2	D2
Feature	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species	Newly-introduced non-indigenous species
Element	Ampithoe valida	Aoroides curvipes	Aoroides longimerus	Aoroides semicurvatus	Celleporaria brunnea	Dyspanopeus sayi	Grandidierella japonica	Ianiropsis serricaudis	Incisocalliope aestuarius	Maeotias marginata	Melita nitida	Mnemiopsis leidyi	Monocorophium uenoi	Paranthura japonica	Pseudodiaptomus marinus
Element code	102005	488682	488687	488695	394868	107412	238740	255999	148579	234026	146922	106401	431365	255592	360352
Element code source	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/	Species (D1) http://www.marinespecies.org/
Element 2
Element 2 code
Element 2 code source
Element source	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National	National
Criterion	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1	D2C1
Parameter	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence	Presence
Parameter other
Threshold value upper
Threshold value lower
Threshold qualitative	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet	Not available yet
Threshold value source
Threshold value source other
Value achieved upper	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0
Value achieved lower
Value unit	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species	(number of) species
Value unit other
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Parameter achieved	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Description parameter	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this species is newly reported in the UMR Bay of Biscay South, but had previously been reported in the SRM Western Mediterranean (Bibliographic reference: Gouillieux, B., 2017. New records of benthic amphipods, Jassa slatteryi Conlan, 1990 and Amphitoe valida Smith, 1873 (Crustacea: Peracarida: Amphipoda) for the Bay of Biscay, France, with morphological notes. Cah. Biol. Mar. 58: 279-289.)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2017 Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2014 No threshold is currently available to assess whether the parameter has been reached or not.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this is the first signalling of this species at the scale of all the French coasts (all MRSs taken together). (Bibliographic reference: Gouillieux, B., Lavesque, N., Leclerc, J.C., Le Garrec, V., Viard, F., Bachelet, G., 2015. Three non-indigenous species of Aoroides (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Aoroidae) from the French Atlantic coast. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K 96(8) 1651-1659. doi:10.1017/S0025315415002027)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2015.date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2009.no threshold is currently available to assess whether or not the parameter has been reached.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this is the first signalling of this species at the scale of all the French coasts (all MRSs taken together). (Bibliographic reference: Gouillieux, B., Lavesque, N., Leclerc, J.C., Le Garrec, V., Viard, F., Bachelet, G., 2015. Three non-indigenous species of Aoroides (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Aoroidae) from the French Atlantic coast. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K 96(8) 1651-1659. doi:10.1017/S0025315415002027)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2015.date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2013.no threshold is currently available to assess whether or not the parameter has been reached.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this is the first signalling of this species at the scale of all the French coasts (all MRSs taken together). (Bibliographic reference: Gouillieux, B., Lavesque, N., Leclerc, J.C., Le Garrec, V., Viard, F., Bachelet, G., 2015. Three non-indigenous species of Aoroides (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Aoroidae) from the French Atlantic coast. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K 96(8) 1651-1659. doi:10.1017/S0025315415002027)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2015.date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2009.no threshold is currently available to assess whether or not the parameter has been reached.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this is the first signalling of this species at the scale of all French coasts (all marine sub-regions combined). (Bibliographic reference: André, F., Corolla, J.P., Lanza, B., Rochefort, G., 2014. Bryozoans of Europe - The diver's log - 140 species, 600 pictures, 250 p. Editions Neptune Plongée.)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2014 Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2007 No threshold is currently available to assess whether or not the parameter has been reached.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this is the first signalling of this species at the scale of all French coasts (all marine sub-regions combined). (Bibliographic reference: Aubert, F., Sauriau, P.G., 2015. First record of Say's mud crab Dyspanopeus sayi (Smith, 1869) from the Seudre estuary (Marennes-Oléron, French Atlantic coast). An aod - the naturalist notebooks of the Marine Observatory. 4(1): 9-27)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2015 Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2007 No threshold is currently available to assess whether or not the parameter has been reached.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this is the first signalling of this species at the scale of all French coasts (all marine sub-regions combined). (Bibliographical reference: Jourde, J., Sauriau, P.G., Guenneteau, S., Caillot, E., 2013. First record of Grandidierella japonica Stephensen, 1938 (Amphipoda: Aoridae) from mainland Europe. BioInvasions Records. 2(1): 51-55. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/bir.2013.2.1.09)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2013.date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2010.no threshold is currently available to assess whether or not the parameter has been reached.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this species is newly reported in the MRU Bay of Biscay South, but had previously been reported in the Western Mediterranean marine sub-region (Bibliographic reference: Gouillieux, B., 2018. First record of the invasive species Ianiropsis serricaudis Gurjanova, 1936 (Crustacea: Isopoda) in Arcachon Bay, Bay of Biscay (NE Atlantic). BioInvasions Records, in press.)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2017 Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2013 No threshold is currently available to assess whether the parameter has been reached or not.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this is the first signalling of this species at the scale of all French coasts (all marine sub-regions combined). (Bibliographic reference: Gouillieux et al., in progress)Date of first sighting (corresponding scientific publication): 2017.Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 1975-1976.No threshold is currently available to assess whether the parameter has been reached or not.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this species is newly reported in the South Bay of Biscay MRU, but had previously been reported in the northern part of the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (Bibliographic reference: Nowaczyk, A., David, V., Lepage, M., Goarant, A., De Oliveira, E., Sautour, B., 2016. Spatial and temporal patterns of occurrence of three alien hydromedusae, Blackfordia virginica (Mayer, 1910), Nemopsis bachei (Agassiz, 1849) and Maeotias marginata (Modeer, 1791), in the Gironde Estuary (France). Aquatic Invasions. 11(4): 397-409. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/ai.2016.11.4.05)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2016 Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2013 No threshold is currently available to assess whether the parameter has been reached.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this is the first signalling of this species at the scale of all French coasts (all marine sub-regions combined). (Bibliographical reference: Gouillieux, B., Lavesque, N., Blanchet, H., Bachelet, G., 2016. First record of the non-indigenous Melita nitida Smith, 1873 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Melitidae) in the Bay of Biscay (NE Atlantic). BioInvasions Records. 5(2): 85-92. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/bir.2016.5.2.05)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2016 Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2013 No threshold is currently available to assess whether the parameter has been reached.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this species is newly reported in the Bay of Biscay South MRU, but had previously been reported in the Western Mediterranean and Channel-North Sea marine sub-regions (Bibliographic reference: Nowaczyk et al., in progress)Date of first record (corresponding scientific publication): 2017.Date of first corresponding observation (sampling date of each new NIS in the field): Unknown.no threshold is currently available to assess whether or not the parameter has been reached.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this is the first signalling of this species at the scale of all French coasts (all marine sub-regions combined). (Bibliographic reference: Gouilleux & Massé, in progress)Date of first sighting (corresponding scientific publication): 2017.Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2007.No threshold is currently available to assess whether or not the parameter has been reached.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this is the first signalling of this species at the scale of all French coasts (all marine sub-regions combined). (Bibliographic reference: Lavesque, N., Sorbe, J.C., Bachelet, G., Gouillieux, B., de Montaudouin, X., Bonifacio, P., Blanchet, H., Dubois, S., 2013. Recent discovery of Paranthura japonica Richardson, 1909 (Crustacea: Isopoda: Paranthuridae) in European marine waters (Arcachon Bay, Bay of Biscay). BioInvasions Records. 2(3): 215-219. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3391/bir.2013.2.3.07)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2013.date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2007.no threshold is currently available to assess whether the parameter is being met.	This parameter consists of a census of new sightings/observations of non-native species over the 6-year period under consideration. Thus, this is the first signalling of this species at the scale of all French coasts (all marine sub-regions combined). (Bibliographic reference: Brylinski, J.M., Antajan, E., Raud, T., Vincent, D., 2012. First record of the Asian copepod Pseudodiaptomus marinus Sato, 1913 (Copepoda: Calanoida: Pseudodiaptomidae) in the southern bight of the North Sea along the coast of France. Aquatic Invasions. 7(4): 577-584)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2012 Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2011 No threshold is currently available to assess whether or not the parameter is being met.
Related indicator	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes	Tendances de nouvelles introductions d’espèces non indigènes
Criteria status	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Description criteria	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.	Due to biases and uncertainties in the available data, it is not currently possible to assess the status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species. However, the fact that several species have been newly and recently introduced shows that measures are needed to limit this risk in the future.
Element status	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Description element	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.	The status of criterion D2C1 with respect to this species directly informs the status of the element. However, the low confidence in the data used and the absence of a threshold do not allow for a conclusion on the status of criterion D2C1 and thus the element.
Integration rule type parameter	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant
Integration rule description parameter
Integration rule type criteria	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant
Integration rule description criteria	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.	No integration rule is necessary, the criterion status directly informs the element status.
GES extent threshold
GES extent achieved	15.00	15.00	15.00	15.00	15.00	15.00	15.00	15.00	15.00	15.00	15.00	15.00	15.00	15.00	15.00
GES extent unit	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species	Number of newly-introduced species
GES achieved	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Description overall status	Since 2012, a total of 15 new non-native species have been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the Bay of Biscay South Marine Sub-Region. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 15 new non-native species have been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the Bay of Biscay South Marine Sub-Region. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 15 new non-native species have been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the Bay of Biscay South Marine Sub-Region. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 15 new non-native species have been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the Bay of Biscay South Marine Sub-Region. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 15 new non-native species have been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the Bay of Biscay South Marine Sub-Region. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 15 new non-native species have been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the Bay of Biscay South Marine Sub-Region. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 15 new non-native species have been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the Bay of Biscay South Marine Sub-Region. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 15 new non-native species have been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the Bay of Biscay South Marine Sub-Region. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 15 new non-native species have been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the Bay of Biscay South Marine Sub-Region. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 15 new non-native species have been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the Bay of Biscay South Marine Sub-Region. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 15 new non-native species have been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the Bay of Biscay South Marine Sub-Region. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 15 new non-native species have been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the Bay of Biscay South Marine Sub-Region. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 15 new non-native species have been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the Bay of Biscay South Marine Sub-Region. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 15 new non-native species have been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the Bay of Biscay South Marine Sub-Region. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.	Since 2012, a total of 15 new non-native species have been reported in the southern part of the Bay of Biscay Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with the GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess the achievement of the GES under D2C1 for the Bay of Biscay South Marine Sub-Region. However, the fact that a number of species have been newly and recently introduced demonstrates that measures need to be taken to limit this risk in the future, and the information on criteria D2C2 and D2C3 identified in the literature is too limited to make a meaningful assessment of these two criteria at the sub-regional level.
Assessments period	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017	2012-2017
Related pressures
Related targets