Member State report / Art8 / 2018 / D2 / 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 | D2 Non-indigenous species |
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)
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 |
Aoroides longimerus |
Asterocarpa humilis |
Botrylloides diegensis |
Chaetozone corona |
Haminoea japonica |
Polysiphonia morrowii |
Tritia corniculum |
Element code |
488687 |
250047 |
252278 |
332670 |
238369 |
232563 |
876831 |
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 French coasts (all marine sub-regions combined). (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): 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: 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): 2005 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). (Bibliographic reference: Bishop, J., Wood, C.A., Levêque, L., Yunnie, A.L.E., Viard, F., 2015. Repeated rapid assessment surveys reveal contrasting trends in occupancy of marinas by non-indigenous species on opposite sides of the Western English Channel. Mar. Poll. Bull. 95: 699-706)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2015 Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): 2004 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 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 Celtic Sea marine sub-region, but there is no information on a possible previous record from the French coast. (Bibliographic reference: Hanson, D., Hirano, Y., Valdés, A., 2013a. Population genetics of Haminoea (Haloa) japonica Pilsbry, 1895, a widespread non-indigenous sea slug (Mollusca: Opisthobranchia) in North America and Europe. Biol. Invasions. 15: 395-406. DOI 10.1007/s10530-012-0294-x)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2013 Date of first corresponding observation (date of sampling of each new NIS in the field): <2003 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 Celtic Sea marine sub-region, but had previously been reported in the Western Mediterranean marine subregion (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 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 Celtic Sea marine sub-region, but had previously been reported in the Bay of Biscay marine sub-region (Bibliographic reference: Gully, F., Cochu, M., Delemarre, J.L., 2013. First observation of the gastropod Nassarius corniculum (Olivi, 1792) in Brittany. An aod - the naturalist notebooks of the Marine Observatory. 2: 26-33)Date of first reporting (corresponding scientific publication): 2013 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.
|
Related indicator |
|||||||
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 Celtic Seas Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess GES achievement under D2C1 for the Celtic Seas 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 7 new non-native species have been reported in the Celtic Seas Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess GES achievement under D2C1 for the Celtic Seas 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 7 new non-native species have been reported in the Celtic Seas Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess GES achievement under D2C1 for the Celtic Seas 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 7 new non-native species have been reported in the Celtic Seas Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess GES achievement under D2C1 for the Celtic Seas 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 7 new non-native species have been reported in the Celtic Seas Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess GES achievement under D2C1 for the Celtic Seas 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 7 new non-native species have been reported in the Celtic Seas Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess GES achievement under D2C1 for the Celtic Seas 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 7 new non-native species have been reported in the Celtic Seas Marine Sub-Region. As no threshold defining the "maximum level" of non-native species introduction compatible with GES is currently defined, it is not possible to assess GES achievement under D2C1 for the Celtic Seas 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 |
Related pressures |
|||||||
Related targets |