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

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

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

SRM MC (ACS-FR-MS-MC)

Simplified table

GES component	D1-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	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	Delphinus delphis	Delphinus delphis	Delphinus delphis	Delphinus delphis	Delphinus delphis	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	137094	137094	137094	137094	137094	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/
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
Criterion	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	Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)		Other			Mortality rate / Mortality rate from fishing (F)		Other				Other		Distribution (spatial)			Other	Other		Distribution (spatial)			Other	Other		Distribution (spatial)
Parameter other			Number of extreme strandings					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	1.7					1.7						-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 (15 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).			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	Other (specify)		Other (specify)			Other (specify)		Other (specify)				OSPAR Convention		OSPAR Convention			OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention		OSPAR Convention			OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention		OSPAR Convention
Threshold value source other	National		National			National		National
Value achieved upper	2.7					7.9												28.0						12.0
Value achieved lower	0.6					2.8
Value unit	percentage					percentage						percentage					percentage	percentage					percentage	percentage
Value unit other
Proportion threshold value	100.0					100.0						100.0					100.0	100.0					100.0	100.0
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
Trend	Unknown		Unknown			Unknown		Unknown				Unknown		Unknown			Unknown	Unknown		Unknown			Unknown	Unknown		Unknown
Parameter achieved	No		Yes			No		Yes				Yes		Yes			Yes	Yes		Yes			Yes	Yes		Yes
Description parameter	This parameter, related to criterion D1C1, allows to estimate an annual rate of incidental catches for the period 2012-2015 (ratio of the number of individuals dead by accidental capture on the total abundance of the species), as well as a confidence interval at 80 % of the average rate of incidental catches calculated over the whole generation time of the species (15 years for the common dolphin). The evaluation of this parameter shows that the mortality rate by accidental catches of common dolphins is higher than the threshold of 1.7% of the total abundance of this species, for the year 2013 using the abundance estimate resulting from the SAMM-summer campaigns (Aerial Monitoring of the Marine Megafauna), and for the years 2013 and 2014 using the abundance estimate resulting from SCANS-III. Moreover, at the generation time scale of the common dolphin, the 80% confidence intervals systematically frame the 1.7% threshold. The conditions required to reach the parameter are thus not met for the common dolphin. The evaluation of the indicator MM_Capt leads to the non-achievement of the parameter in the maritime sub-region Celtic Seas for common dolphins.		This parameter, relative to criterion D1C3, allows changes in the occurrence of extreme mortality events to be detected. The results of this parameter do not show any exceedance of the monthly threshold over the period 2011-2016 for common dolphins. In the Celtic Sea sub-region, the evaluation of the indicator MM_EME shows that the conditions of reaching the parameter are respected with regard to the events of extreme mortality of common dolphins (D1C3).			This parameter, relating to criterion D1C1, makes it possible to estimate an annual incidental catch rate for the period 2012-2015 (ratio of the number of individuals killed by accidental capture to the total abundance of the species), as well as an 80% confidence interval of the average incidental catch rate calculated over the entire generation time of the species (10 years for the harbour porpoise). The evaluation of this parameter shows that the incidental catch mortality rate of harbour porpoises is strictly above the threshold of 1.7% of the total abundance of this species, whatever the estimate considered (SCANS III or Aerial Monitoring of the Marine Megafauna campaign). Moreover, on the scale of harbour porpoise generation times (i.e. from 2005 to 2015), the 80% confidence intervals systematically frame the 1.7% threshold. The conditions required to reach the parameter are therefore not met for harbour porpoise. The assessment of the MM_Capt indicator leads to the non-achievement of the parameter in the maritime sub-region Celtic Seas for harbour porpoises.		This parameter, 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 Celtic Seas sub-region, the evaluation 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	Taux de mortalité par captures accidentelles des petits cétacés		Evènements de mortalité extrêmes des cétacés			Taux de mortalité par captures accidentelles des petits 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 good	Not assessed	Good	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not good	Not assessed	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 D1C1 is not in good condition with respect to the common dolphin in this MRU		Criterion D1C3 is in good condition with respect to the common dolphin in this MRU.			Criterion D1C1 is not 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	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good	Good
Description element	The common dolphin is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this cycle of the MSFD in the common dolphin is of concern. Such rates are likely to durably affect the population dynamics of the species. The reduction of this pressure is a major stake for the species.	The common dolphin is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this cycle of the MSFD in the common dolphin is of concern. Such rates are likely to durably affect the population dynamics of the species. The reduction of this pressure is a major stake for the species.	The common dolphin is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this cycle of the MSFD in the common dolphin is of concern. Such rates are likely to durably affect the population dynamics of the species. The reduction of this pressure is a major stake for the species.	The common dolphin is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this cycle of the MSFD in the common dolphin is of concern. Such rates are likely to durably affect the population dynamics of the species. The reduction of this pressure is a major stake for the species.	The common dolphin is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this cycle of the MSFD in the common dolphin is of concern. Such rates are likely to durably affect the population dynamics of the species. The reduction of this pressure is a major stake for the species.	The harbour porpoise is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this MSFD cycle in porpoise is of concern. Such rates are likely to permanently affect the population dynamics of the species. Reducing this pressure is a major issue for the species.	The harbour porpoise is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this MSFD cycle in porpoise is of concern. Such rates are likely to permanently affect the population dynamics of the species. Reducing this pressure is a major issue for the species.	The harbour porpoise is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this MSFD cycle in porpoise is of concern. Such rates are likely to permanently affect the population dynamics of the species. Reducing this pressure is a major issue for the species.	The harbour porpoise is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this MSFD cycle in porpoise is of concern. Such rates are likely to permanently affect the population dynamics of the species. Reducing this pressure is a major issue for the species.	The harbour porpoise is not in good condition in this MRU due to the high by-catch rate of this species (D1C1). The evolution of the incidental catch rate observed during this MSFD cycle in porpoise is of concern. Such rates are likely to permanently affect the population dynamics of the species. Reducing this pressure is a major issue for the species.	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. It should be noted that the French numbers of the two seal species under consideration represent only a small fraction of the 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. It should be noted that the French numbers of the two seal species under consideration represent only a small fraction of the 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. It should be noted that the French numbers of the two seal species under consideration represent only a small fraction of the 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. It should be noted that the French numbers of the two seal species under consideration represent only a small fraction of the 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. It should be noted that the French numbers of the two seal species under consideration represent only a small fraction of the 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. It should be noted that the French numbers of the two seal species under consideration represent only a small fraction of the European populations. On a European scale, the abundance of grey and harbour seals has increased overall since 1992.	The seal calf 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 that the French numbers of the two seal species under consideration represent only a small fraction of the European populations. At the European level, 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 seal calf 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 that the French numbers of the two seal species under consideration represent only a small fraction of the European populations. At the European level, 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 seal calf 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 that the French numbers of the two seal species under consideration represent only a small fraction of the European populations. At the European level, 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 seal calf 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 that the French numbers of the two seal species under consideration represent only a small fraction of the European populations. At the European level, 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 seal calf 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 that the French numbers of the two seal species under consideration represent only a small fraction of the European populations. At the European level, 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 seal calf 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 that the French numbers of the two seal species under consideration represent only a small fraction of the European populations. At the European level, 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
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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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. Except for the assessment of the status of seal criterion D1C2: 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
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.
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
GES extent achieved	33.00	33.00	33.00	33.00	33.00	33.00	33.00	33.00	33.00	33.00	33.00	33.00	33.00	33.00	33.00	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
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 small odontocetes species group does not reach the GES because two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the three assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the three assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the three assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the three assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the three assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the three assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the three assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the three assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the three assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the three assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the three assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the three assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the three assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the three assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 two species (harbour porpoise and common dolphin), out of the three assessed, are not in good condition. Thus, after integration (OOAO) of the GES assessments of each species group considered in this assessment, the results show that the GES is not achieved at the scale of the "Marine Mammals" component of descriptor D1 because of the high by-catch rate of harbour porpoises and common dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 the descriptor D1 because of the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises and harbour dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 the descriptor D1 because of the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises and harbour dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 the descriptor D1 because of the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises and harbour dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 the descriptor D1 because of the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises and harbour dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 the descriptor D1 because of the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises and harbour dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 the descriptor D1 because of the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises and harbour dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 the descriptor D1 because of the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises and harbour dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 the descriptor D1 because of the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises and harbour dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 the descriptor D1 because of the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises and harbour dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 the descriptor D1 because of the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises and harbour dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 the descriptor D1 because of the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises and harbour dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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 the descriptor D1 because of the high incidental catch rate of harbour porpoises and harbour dolphins in this MRU. The GES 2018 assessment made it possible to quantitatively assess the status of marine mammal populations in French metropolitan waters for the first time. Quantitative indicators could thus be constructed and calculated for at least one species for all the criteria of descriptor 1, with the exception of D1C5. However, this assessment remains incomplete for the "Marine Mammals" component as a whole. Indeed, 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
Related pressures	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Related targets