## Nature of the operations

The restoration of mudflats carried out as part of the LIFE Baie de l'Aiguillon project consisted of the following:

### 1. Regulatory instruction:

A number of regulatory steps had to be taken prior to the removal of the shellfish structures:

* regulatory review (water law and Natura 2000 impact studies carried out by CREOCEAN) by the Charente-Maritime DDTM on behalf of the two DDTMs (Charente-Maritime and Vendée) (six months);

* an additional study to assess the presence of pollutants in resuspended sediments was carried out by Qualyse (2018). Result: abnormal presence of dibenzo-anthacene, which does not interfere with shellfish development.

* prefectural decree authorising the work (one month);

* termination of the last shellfish concessions in operation;

* application for an AOT for the installation of temporary deadweight moorings, and for relocation on the maritime domain.

### 2. carrying out of an initial survey:

Inventory of benthic species in 2017 and 2021 (before/after work), carried out by LIENSs; mapping of oyster beds using remote sensing; and two LIDAR topographic survey campaigns (2016 and 2021, before/after work, Opsia).

### 3. Removal of oyster deposits:

This took place in three phases between 1 September and

15 February (at the request of shellfish farmers): 2019/2021, 2020/2021 and winter 2021 using two machines. The first was a hydraulic excavator mounted on two floats and equipped with auger screws for propulsion. The old structures and oyster shells were collected with a grapple bucket, then the oysters were deposited in the crusher. The second was a floating barge equipped with auger screws and a front-end shredder.

### 4. Recycling:

30 m³ of oyster shells were tested for co-composting with green waste and for use as fill material. 34 tonnes of scrap metal were brought ashore for recycling.

### 5. Impact assessment and monitoring:

Since the work was completed, monitoring has been carried out to assess its relevance, including the annual monitoring of oyster regrowth in restored areas using transects, and drone photography to track changes in the surface area of the oyster beds. A second inventory of benthic species (LIENSs) and a second LIDAR topographic survey (Opsia) were also carried out in 2021.

<figure><img src="image_89.png" /><figcaption>Mud and oyster sampling as part of the benthic macrofauna inventory
© LIFE Baie de l'Aiguillon</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_90.png" /><figcaption>Heaps of Japanese oysters on old oyster tables
© LIFE Baie de l'Aiguillon</figcaption></figure>
Removal of oyster shell deposits

© LIFE Baie de l'Aiguillon

<figure><img src="image_91.png" /></figure>

## Report by the project leader

The main pressures exerted by these oyster shell removal operations were physical damage through the risk of abrasion of soft substrate biocenoses in the mediolittoral zone, and the overturning of sedimentary elements. These operations were also likely to result in the physical loss of habitat through smothering. They could interact with the natural sedimentary processes in the Baie de l'Aiguillon, generating deposits that risk smothering the biocenoses of the soft mediolittoral substrates.

The goal of restoring 100 hectares of mudflat was achieved by the end of the second phase of work. Additional funding from the Recovery Plan and the Agence de l'Eau Loire Bretagne enabled 118 hectares of mudflats to be restored after a third phase of work in early winter 2021.

One of the keys to this project's success was the involvement of the companies selected for the work, in particular SAS CTAT, which designed and developed the two machines specifically for the site (patent pending).

The floating barge (machine 2) was an improvement on the first machine, featuring a front-end crusher powered by a 500 hp motor that can be moved over oyster beds and crush them directly. In addition, the floating barge, which crushes as it moves forward, causes less disturbance to the topography of the mudflat, as the oysters are not recovered by digging with a bucket. This allows the environment to return to its initial state more quickly.

The recycling test showed the potential for product recovery. However, the cost of on-site extraction, transport, cleaning (sediments) and treatment seems too high to envisage the development of an industry.

Monitoring since 2021 has revealed a low and stable percentage of shell recovery between years in the Aiguillon sector. In the Charron sector, more quadrats containing fewer shells were found over time, which is an encouraging result. Over time and with the tides, due to heavy sedimentation in the Baie de l'Aiguillon, the land has become smoother (pers. comm.), and some of the oyster shells left on the mudflat after the machine's passage are covered by silt.

Oyster spat and larvae have settled on some of the oysters/ oyster shells remaining after the work. A few fragments of deposits remain in restored areas. These are either leader lines close to the bed of the Sèvre Niortaise, where the water level at the time of the work made it impossible to remove them, or small isolated deposits which would have required a lot of time to move. Often, when oyster larvae have been detected, they have been observed on oysters (sometimes live) from these isolated beds.

The results are encouraging and deserve to be confirmed by further monitoring in the years to come.

A new restoration project is scheduled to start in winter 2025 to complete the restoration of the 300 hectares of mudflats still colonised by Japanese oysters in the Bay of Aiguillon.
Critical analysis

Definition of ecological restoration

<table><thead><tr><td>Criteria</td><td>Assessment</td><td>Comments</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Degraded ecosystem</td><td></td><td>The degradation of mudflats following the abandonment of shellfish farming concessions: loss of natural habitat, sediment traps, changes in current patterns and competition for food resources.</td></tr><tr><td>All the targeted ecosystem components</td><td></td><td>This comprehensive project aims to recover the main components of the ecosystem.</td></tr><tr><td>Recovery objective</td><td></td><td>Objective of recovering the natural mudflat habitat.</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term integrity</td><td></td><td>Only long-term monitoring will reveal whether this experimental project is helping to preserve the ecosystem's integrity over the long term.</td></tr><tr><td>Initial state</td><td></td><td>Several studies were carried out prior to the works to characterise the initial state of the intervention zones: mapping of oyster beds using remote sensing, species inventory of the benthic macrofauna of oyster reefs and adjacent soft sediments, sediment granulometric and quality analyses, organic matter measurements, LIDAR topographic survey.</td></tr><tr><td>Reference state</td><td></td><td>The reference state was targeted and modelling was used during a sediment study (using a digital terrain model). The study revealed that La Baie de l'Aiguillon is an area with a high sedimentation rate, with 1.4 cm/year from 2000 to 2016. Furthermore, the vegetation line advanced significantly (6.3 m/year) between 1972 and 2016.</td></tr><tr><td>Identified pressures</td><td></td><td>One of the main pressures leading to the loss of the natural mudflat habitat was the exploitation and subsequent abandonment of shellfish farming concessions, resulting in the formation of farmed species shell deposits. These structures act as sediment traps, modifying the habitat and its hydromorphological conditions.</td></tr><tr><td>Intentional process</td><td></td><td>Experimenting with the removal of wild oyster beds, with the aim of restoring the "mudflat" habitat, was included as an action in the 2013-2022 management plan for the Réserve Naturelle Nationale de la Baie de l'Aiguillon. The LIFE Baie de l'Aiguillon project was submitted by the PNR du Marais Poitevin, with LPO and FBA as associated partners, to meet this objective.</td></tr><tr><td>Choice of intervention strategy</td><td></td><td>The strategy was drawn up in consultation with the different players involved in the coastal environment (NRP, LPO, FBA, shellfish farming professionals, government departments and the contractor selected for the work).</td></tr><tr><td>Pressure reduction/elimination</td><td></td><td>The main pressure on these ecosystems in the Baie de l'Aiguillon was the exploitation and subsequent abandonment of shellfish farming concessions, leading to changes in the ecological communities, functionalities and hydromorphological conditions of the mudflats. Its reduction and control were the very essence of the project.</td></tr><tr><td>Monitoring</td><td></td><td>Monitoring has been taking place since 2021. After the work, the benthic macrofauna and granulometry were monitored, and a new LIDAR pass was made to monitor the influence of the restoration work on sedimentation. Oyster recolonisation monitoring and drone photography have been carried out annually since 2021.</td></tr></tbody></table>

This project contributes to a strategy of natural restoration of the mudflats in the Baie de l'Aiguillon. Long-term monitoring should demonstrate the success of the project on all ecosystem components.
<figure><img src="image_92.png" /></figure>

## PROJECT IDENTITY

### TARGET GHT

Soft sediments
(above 1,000 m)

### ECOLOGICAL ISSUE IDENTIFIED

Return of marine biodiversity

### TYPE OF RESTORATION

Does not contribute to any of the ecological restoration strategies considered in this note, but straddles the line between rehabilitation (functional) and reallocation (ecosystem transformation).

### COSTS

The REXCOR project budget was close to **1 million euros**. It was part of a more global operation, the Contrait de Baie de la Métropole Aix-Marseille Provence, worth around 265 million euros.

### CONTACT

Parc national des Calanques
04 20 10 50 00

SEABOOST
/Martin Perrot
martin.perrot@seaboost.fr

/Julien Dalle
julien.dalle@seaboost.fr

/Matthieu Lapinski
matthieu.lapinski@seaboost.fr

### LOCATION

Within the ZSC FR9301602 "Calanques et îles marseillaises - Cap Canaille et massif du Grand Caunet", in the Bouches du Rhône

<figure><img src="image_93.png" /></figure>

## Background and context of the approach

The city of Marseille has been discharging its wastewater into the Calanque de Cortiou, to the east of the city since 1896. In 1987, an underground wastewater treatment plant was built to reduce wastewater pollution. Through partnership measure n°10, the Parc National des Calanques (PNC) undertook to implement measures to rehabilitate this degraded area. As part of its charter, the Parc national des Calanques (the operation's pilot) launched a call for ideas in 2013, in partnership with the Agence de l'Eau Rhône Méditerranée Corse and the Pôle Mer Méditerranée. At the end of this process, the institutional partners selected the project submitted by a consortium of three companies: CDC Biodiversité, Egis and Architeuthis.

**This experimental pilot project, dubbed REXCOR for 'Restauration EXpérimentale de la Calanque de CORtiou', aimed to evaluate, in the form of a three-year scientific research programme, the potential of artificial reefs to recover some of the ecological functions of the shallow coastal waters of the Cortiou Basin.**

The REXCOR project was selected as one of the actions of the Marseille metropolitan area's bay contract, and validated by the Agence de l'Eau Rhône Méditerranée Corse's basin authorities in June 2015. If this experimental pilot proved successful, the aim was to move on to larger-scale action.

To implement this project, the consortium used the definition of general ecological restoration used by the Agence de l'Eau Rhône Méditerranée Corse (2014): "an action on the marine habitat, fauna or flora making it possible to improve ecological functioning, in a coastal area where water quality is good and the pressures causing the degradation have disappeared or are under control".

## Nature of the operations

The nature of the biocenoses and the initial state of the communities were defined following a study of the literature made available by the Parc National des Calanques, as well as past reconnaissance dives (including ROV) and geotechnical studies. All the sites featured a soft to coarse loose substrate associated with the presence of shell debris. A silty plug was observed at the discharge.

The immersion of artificial habitats in the Calanque de Cortiou along a pressure gradient (from 700 m upstream to the Calanque de Podestat, 1,500 m downstream) aimed to assess the capacity of these tools to diversify and enrich species communities in this sector and reduce the barriers to resilience: abiotic (water quality, substrate supply), biotic (development of native communities), and dispersal (proximity of habitats enabling connectivity).
Three types of reef were selected to meet these objectives:

* Fractal® reef: fixed fauna/flora target: support and connectivity functions,

* Seagrass® reef: rest, shelter, feeding, reproduction and connectivity,

* Connectivity® reef: nursery function.

36 artificial reefs, representing 200 m2, were submerged at four sites A, B, C and D in winter 2017/2018.

Four villages were set up between 06/12/2017 and 16/02/18 along a gradient of distance from the current discharge up to 1.5 km (Sites A, B, C and D). Each village (A1, B1, C1, D1) was made up of three Seagrass® and three Fractal® reefs set less than 2 m apart. Two corridors (A2 A3, B2, B3) perpendicular to the coast, consisting of three Connectivity® reefs arranged side by side, were recreated in two of the four villages. In parallel with the immersions, a 3D-printed concrete complexity-enhancing reef was added to the upper slab of one of the three seagrass reefs at site C (C1R3).

This experiment was the subject of summarised monitoring as follows:

* **Mobile macrofauna monitoring (fish, crustaceans and cephalopods)**

Year 1 and 2: four diving campaigns on each site (summer-autumn 2018, summer-autumn 2019)

* **Nocturnal acoustic biophony monitoring (fish, benthic invertebrates)**

Year 1 and 2: ten acoustic campaigns (spring, summer, winter 2018, 2019 and 2020 for A1, B1, C1 and D1)

* **Fixed fauna/flora monitoring (living cover, sedimentation, mortality, Corallinacea, comparison of orientation and materials)**

Year 1 and 2: four diving campaigns (summer-autumn 2018, summer-autumn 2019, A1 and C1)

* **Acceptance of structures and integrity monitoring (visual inspection and photogrammetry)**

Year 1 and 2: five diving campaigns on all sites (summer-autumn-winter 2018, summer-autumn 2019)

<figure><img src="image_94.png" /><figcaption>Seagrass Reef
© Egis</figcaption></figure>

## Report by the project leader

Several observations could be made after three years of experimentation:

1. The site was not dead. If "healthy" supports were installed, under current conditions, life would return. A total of 62 species of mobile macrofauna were counted, including some of heritage interest (brown grouper, grey grouper, octopus, lobster, spiny lobster, etc.).

2. Even at the point of discharge, water quality was not a limiting factor for the return of life. It was a constrained life, with slower return kinetics, but 31 fish species were observed after 18 months (46 observed on the PRADO reefs after 27 months for comparison).

3. 60% of species with high sedentary were observed, representing all the trophic levels characteristic of the Mediterranean, from fixed fauna (bryozoans, gorgonians, etc.) to top predators (brown grouper, grey grouper), planktivores, detritus feeders and intermediate predators;

4. All life stages were observed at the sites, including gestation, egg-laying, post-larvae, juveniles and adults, for several species of fish, crustaceans and molluscs;

5. The existence of a pressure gradient from the outfall was observed, reflected in the kinetics of recolonisation: the closer to the discharge site, the slower and more constrained the return of life, and the greater the sedimentation rates (which compete with the fixed fauna). Also observed was the existence of species that are more tolerant of rejection, mainly vagile, but without the dominance of species considered to be pollutant-tolerant or indicative of major imbalances;

6. The structure of animal and plant communities became more complex over time on all the developed sites (abundance, diversity, soundscape) according to a restoration trajectory that:

* varied from site to site,

* was still evolving and whose asymptote remains unknown,

* was encouraging in comparison with other local artificial habitat projects (REMORA, PRADO) during these first years of experimentation,

* was associated with the stability of populations, highlighting the absence of significant disturbances leading to a return to past trajectories (decreases in observed values);

7. The orientation and nature of the material play a major role in restoring the ecological functions of hard substrates for fixed species, particularly bioconstructors (Corallinacea). The recruitment of yellow gorgonians (Eunicella cavolinii) was also observed at the site furthest from the discharge.
## Critical analysis

### Definition of ecological restoration

<table><thead><tr><th>Criteria</th><th>Assessment</th><th>Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Degraded ecosystem</td><td></td><td>Degradation of marine habitats (regression of the Posidonia meadow, silting up of hard substrate biocenoses, loss of associated ecological functions, etc.) by Marseille's wastewater discharges into the Calanque de Cortiou.</td></tr><tr><td>All the targeted ecosystem components</td><td></td><td>The reefs were designed to provide functions (shelter, feeding, resting, support) useful to a range of local species, but did not take into account all ecosystem components.</td></tr><tr><td>Recovery objective</td><td></td><td>The aim of immersing artificial modules in the Calanque de Cortiou was to assess the capacity of artificial reefs to diversify and enrich species communities in this area, and to restore certain functionalities.</td></tr><tr><td>Long-term integrity</td><td></td><td>As the project has only recently come to an end, it is difficult to demonstrate the long-term effectiveness of these structures. Furthermore, this experimental operation did not aim to re-establish the reference ecosystem.</td></tr><tr><td>Initial state</td><td></td><td>The nature of the biocenoses and the initial state of the communities were defined following a study of the bibliography made available by the Parc National des Calanques, as well as reconnaissance dives and geotechnical studies. All the sites featured a soft to coarse loose substrate associated with the presence of shell debris. The literature suggests that the substrate in the vicinity of the discharge is modified by the addition of organic matter and the deposition of macro-waste. Nevertheless, it would have been desirable to qualify the physical and chemical state of the water, identified as the main pressure responsible for the degradation of this ecosystem.</td></tr><tr><td>Reference state</td><td></td><td>The aim of the project was not to achieve a reference state but to study the feasibility of enriching and diversifying species communities, as well as re-establishing functionalities ultimately lost in such a pressure zone.</td></tr><tr><td>Identified pressures</td><td></td><td>The main pressure identified was the presence of wastewater discharge in the Calanque, but this was not sufficiently qualified (over-sedimentation, eutrophication, etc.).</td></tr><tr><td>Intentional process</td><td></td><td>This project was initiated in response to a call for ideas launched by the Parc National des Calanques in 2013. It was an integral part of the Aix-Marseille Metropolis Bay contract.</td></tr><tr><td>Choice of intervention strategy</td><td></td><td>The strategy was developed in consultation with various stakeholders: Parc National des Calanques, Region, Agence de l'Eau Rhône Méditerranée Corse, DIRM, Préfecture Maritime, consulting firms. However, the scientific assessments of the CSRPN and the CS of the Parc National are missing.</td></tr><tr><td>Pressure reduction/elimination</td><td></td><td>Despite a clear overall improvement in water quality over the last 30 years, the impact on the shallow coastal waters close to the discharge remains, and the proper dynamics of the ecosystems have not been restored. The site's natural remediation processes are very slow and constrained by the quality of the substrate, both structural (muddy sand), and physical and chemical (presence of contaminants). Added to this is the additional pressure on sedimentary habitats from the immersion of artificial structures.</td></tr><tr><td>Monitoring</td><td></td><td>Between 2018 and 2020, four diving campaigns were carried out to monitor the evolution of ecological functions, as well as a fauna and flora inventory of the reef village. Ten acoustic monitoring campaigns made it possible to track changes in species diversity and abundance. Abiotic components were not monitored in this project. In addition, the sedimentary habitats on which the reefs were immersed were not monitored.</td></tr></tbody></table>

This experimental project does not meet the definition of ecological restoration used in this note. It straddles the line between rehabilitation<fnref n="1" /> and reallocation<fnref n="2" />. Based on the assumption of controlled discharge pressure and improved water quality, the latter persists on the site. Despite a lack of knowledge of the reference state of this ecosystem (prior to 1896, when Marseille's wastewater discharges were installed), the studies defining the initial state made it possible to characterise all the sites by a soft to coarse loose substrate associated with the presence of shell debris. A choice was made to aim for an increase in biological diversity and a renewal of ecological functions to the detriment of the current sandy habitat. This experimental project was a partial response to the degradation of habitats in the area: (regression of the Posidonia meadow, silting up of hard substrate biocenoses, loss of associated ecological functions, etc. Questions arose regarding sedimentary habitats, which were already degraded and under pressure from artificial reefs, and regarding the priority of the habitats to be restored (sedimentary, hard substrates).

<footnote n="1">¹ Rehabilitation is a process aimed at restoring specific functions of a degraded ecosystem (Le Floc'h & Aronson, 1995; Gann et al. 2019), restoring certain processes, productivity and certain ecosystem services (SER 2004). The objective of rehabilitation is therefore purely functional: the environment must be "fit" for something that it is no longer able to do.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Reallocation involves intervening in an ecosystem to transform it for a new use. The transformed environment may be completely different from the pre-existing ecosystem in terms of structure or functions (LeFloc'h & Aronson, 1995). Unlike restoration, or even rehabilitation, reallocation does not aim to recover the degraded or lost ecosystem or its functions, but to establish a new ecosystem chosen to meet anthropocentric interests. This type of action can be carried out when the ecosystem is deemed too degraded to consider its recovery, even functional recovery (Aronson et al. 1995; Lenfant et al. 2015) but can also describe as the voluntary transformation of a non-degraded ecosystem (e.g. cultivation of an area) (Le Floc'h & Aronson 1995).</footnote>
# Analysis of collected projects

Although all of the feedback processed pointed to the degradation of an ecosystem, several of the necessary criteria set out in this note were only partially fulfilled:

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Object</th><th colspan="2">Recovery objective</th><th colspan="7">Method</th><th rowspan="2">Progress towards the goal</th></tr><tr><th>Degraded ecosystem</th><th>All the targeted ecosystem components</th><th>Recovery objective</th><th>Long-term integrity</th><th>Initial state</th><th>Reference state</th><th>Identified pressures</th><th>Intentional process</th><th>Choice of intervention strategy</th><th>Pressure reduction/ elimination</th><th>Monitoring</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
After analysis, 27% of the projects studied did not target any reference state, and 46% only partially justified the desired reference. This was mainly due to a lack of historical information. Of the 15 projects analysed, only 27% had a clearly defined reference state. However, to demonstrate the success of a restoration operation or a set of restoration actions, it was necessary to use a model of an integrated, functional ecosystem, from which deviations occurred due to degradation.

Similarly, only 33% of the projects received aimed to recover all the components of the ecosystem. Most were interested in just one or two compartments.

Most marine ecosystems were resilient once the pressures were brought under control. It is therefore essential to let ecosystems regenerate spontaneously. Unfortunately, the pressures on degraded habitats were not systematically lifted or sufficiently controlled for 73% of the actions analysed. This made the restoration operation inefficient and costly.

Ideally, before any intervention, all ecosystem components should be subjected to an **initial assessment**. This provides food for thought on the restoration strategy to be adopted. In practice, however, as illustrated by the feedback, **67% of the projects analysed only partially carried out this work.** As knowledge of all this information is rare and complex, it requires a financial and organisational effort directly constrained by a lack of human and financial resources allocated to projects. Nevertheless, without being exhaustive, it is recom-

mended that there be at least a basic understanding of the most representative components of the targeted ecosystem.

Only 20% of the feedback provided a complete follow-up of the actions taken. The question of monitoring the effectiveness of the operations was also constrained by the lack of financial resources and the limited timeframe of projects, which were all too often restricted to short-term research studies (less than three years). However, restoration actions must be monitored over long periods of time. A case in point was the project carried out by the Agence de l'eau on the Hem river (Agence de l'eau Artois Picardie, 2021), which aimed to dismantle an old mill and restore the hydromorphological characteristics of this river. Although positive effects were quickly visible (increase in the number of spawning grounds, return of species of interest, overall improvement in river morphology), the teams in charge of monitoring showed that the restored site was still evolving and unstabilised seven years after the launch of the operations.

No feedback was received to show that the actions taken guarantee the long-term integrity of the ecosystem. There are several reasons for this. First of all, most of the projects listed in this note are recent or still being carried out. Similarly, when actions are not followed up, it is difficult to demonstrate the effectiveness of the work carried out.

<figure><img src="image_95.png" /><figcaption>Macro-waste in a Posidonia (Posidonia oceanica)
meadow© Antonin Guilbert/French Biodiversity Agency</figcaption></figure>
There are a number of guides to support the implementation of restoration projects, and tools for finding out about projects that required restoration action, making it possible to benefit from feedback.

### LittoREX platform

This collaborative feedback platform launched by the FBA and BRGM is available at the following link: https://littorex.brgm.fr/

Its purpose is to:

* trace the history of the actions taken to restore coastal and marine habitats,

* share the same methodological framework,

* map the players involved under the different directives,

* help choose the strategies to be implemented (prioritise issues, target funding, etc.),

* share feedback.

**Contacts:**

Isabelle Gailhard-Rocher - FBA

isabelle.gailhard-rocher@afb.gouv.fr

Cécile Capderrey - BRGM:

c.capderrey@brgm.fr

### Natura 2000 resource centre

Actions contributing to restoration strategies were consolidated by the Natura 2000 Resource Centre.

* Those concerning actions carried out in the Mediterranean can be consulted at the following link: http://www.natura2000.fr/documentation/references-bibliographiques/capitalisation-sur-mesures-gestion-au-sein-aires-marines

* Those concerning actions carried out in the Atlantic can be consulted at the following link: http://www.natura2000.fr/documentation/references-bibliographiques/fiches-capitalisation-sur-mesures-gestion-suivi-dans-amp

### Guide to controlling invasive cordgrass *Sporobolus alterniflorus*

Developed by the Parc Naturel Régional d'Armorique as part of the LIFE IP MarHa project, this guide is primarily intended for managers of natural areas dealing with non-native spartina on their sites. Although it mainly concerns Smooth cordgrass, it can also be applied to other non-native cordgrasses insofar as they develop according to the same process and in the same types of environment.

It is available from the following link: https://www.calameo.com/ofbiodiversite/books/00350294843a08ab9cda6

### Guides to setting up Mooring and Light Equipment Zones (ZMEL) and ecological mooring

As part of the Life MarHa programme, the French Biodiversity Agency and the French government have published the first edition of practical information sheets for the implementation of ZMELs and ecological anchorages in the Atlantic, Channel and North Sea:

https://www.amp.milieumarinfrance.fr/upload/iedit/10/pj/4580_13662_Fiches_ZMEL_mouillages_ecologiques_2023.pdf

The fact sheets detail how the environment should be taken into account in the design of a ZMEL project, what innovative mooring systems exist, how to monitor the effectiveness of developments to reduce the impact on the seabed, the associated costs and sources of funding, and how to communicate about the project to encourage local support.

These sheets complement the national guide "Créer, gérer et organiser les ZMEL": https://mer.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2020-12/Guide_zone_mouillage_equipements_legers_0.pdf
## International principles and standards to guide ecological restoration practices

As part of the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, the FAO, members of the Society for Ecology Restoration (SER) and IUCN joined forces in 2021. In collaboration with the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF), the Ecohealth Network, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), they have collectively drafted ten guiding principles to underpin all ecosystem restoration activities. Following the publication of the principles in September 2021, and using the same collaborative approach, all the partners continued to coordinate the development of international principles and standards to guide ecological restoration practices to provide guidance on applying the ten principles to all components of ecosystem restoration. This guide, updated in 2024, is available online at https://www.ser.org/resource/resmgr/docs/Standards_of_practice_to_gui.pdf

A French version is planned for 2025.

## GeoMCE tool

Article 69 of the Law for the Restoration of Biodiversity, Nature and the Countryside of 8 August 2016 specifies that "measures to offset damage to biodiversity defined in I of Article L.163-1 are geolocated and described in a national geographic information system, accessible to the public on Géoportail.

"Project owners provide the relevant government departments with all the information they need to ensure that this tool is properly maintained" (Article L.163-5 of the French Environment Code).

As a result, when a project includes measures designed to offset damage to biodiversity, the project developers are obliged to provide the government's instructive services with a compressed file in ".zip" format (including descriptive and cartographic data). This file is obtained from a QGIS template and is used to import data into GéoMCE, the national geolocation tool for environmental compensatory measures.

Unfortunately, this tool is currently unable to fulfil its role of sharing feedback and assisting decision-making. Although mandatory, the reporting of information is

largely incomplete and does not give an exhaustive overview of all the compensatory measures implemented in France, making this tool unusable.

## Recovery Wheel

SER has developed a tool for monitoring the effectiveness of restoration operations: the Recovery Wheel.

This tool tracks the evolution of ecosystem attributes in relation to those of a reference model. It is available and can be customised for each project via the following link: https://www.ser.org/page/Standards-Tools
EXEMPLE - ETAT INITIAL

<figure><img src="image_96.png" /></figure>

EXEMPLE - 10 ANS PLUS TARD

<figure><img src="image_97.png" /></figure>

Example of monitoring the effectiveness of an ecological restoration project using the Recovery Wheel

Specific tools per type of habitat

The restoration theme may be more or less well structured, depending on the type of habitat targeted. The non-exhaustive table below gives a few examples of tools used to restore specific habitats.

<table><thead><tr><td>GHT</td><td>Tool</td><td>Description</td><td>Link</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Seagrass beds</td><td>Guidelines for the active restoration of Posidonia meadows</td><td>These guidelines have been produced within the framework of the Mediterranean Posidonia Network, with financial support from the FBA, and the involvement of all participants in the Posidonia Restoration working group.</td><td>https://medposidonianetwork.com/the-mediterranean-posidonia-network-at-the-cop23-med-barcelona-convention-copy-copy/</td></tr><tr><td>2. Macroalgal forests</td><td>Kelp Forest Alliance</td><td>The Kelp Forest Alliance brings together individuals and international organisations working on macroalgal forests and aims to improve the protection and restoration of these ecosystems.</td><td>https://kelpforestalliance.com/</td></tr><tr><td>3. Shellfish beds</td><td>Native Oyster Restoration Alliance (NORA)</td><td>The restoration of this ecosystem is called shellfish restoration. It benefits from extensive feedback from around the world. There are international symposia focusing on this restoration (ICSR). And in Europe, the restoration of flat oysters is the subject of an Alliance: the Native Oyster Restoration Alliance (NORA). It shares feedback, a list of experts and various manuals across Europe, all on a dedicated platform.</td><td>https://nora europe.eu</td></tr></tbody></table>
Monitoring methods per type of habitat type

Long-term monitoring is essential to demonstrate the effectiveness of a restoration project. The table below gives examples of monitoring protocols that can be implemented.

<table><thead><tr><th>GHT</th><th>Description</th><th>Link</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">1.<br>Seagrass<br>beds</td><td><strong>Common to both coastlines</strong><br><ul><li>Protocols for station monitoring of eelgrass beds for the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Zostera marina - Zostera noltei</li><li>OPHZ protocol (Participatory monitoring of eelgrass and syngnathid meadows)</li></ul></td><td>https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00471/58250/<br>https://www.life-marha.fr/node/281</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Mediterranean coastline</strong><br><ul><li>EBQI-Posidonia Protocol</li></ul></td><td>https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0098994</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">2.<br>Macroalgal<br>forests</td><td><strong>Atlantic coastline</strong><br><ul><li>Intertidal: In situ observation protocol and proposal for calculating a quality index for monitoring macroalgae on rocky intertidal foreshores within the WFD framework.</li><li>Subtidal: WFD monitoring protocol for the "Subtidal Macroalgae" quality element - Second monitoring cycle (WFD-2) 2014 version</li></ul></td><td>https://atlas-dce.ifremer.fr/upload/doc/DCE_macroalgues_protocoles_et_indicateurs.pdf<br>https://www.stationsmarinedeconcarneau.fr/sites/concarneau/files/atoms/files/1-rapport_protocole_dce-2_subtidal_rocheux_2022-v4_0.pdf</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Mediterranean coastline</strong><br><ul><li>EBQI protocol "Infralittoral rocks with photophilic algae".</li></ul></td><td>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313549414_An_ecosystem-based_aproach_to_assess_the_status_of_Mediterranean_algae-dominated_shallow_rocky_reefs_or<br>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X17300413?via%3Dihub</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">3.<br>Maerl beds</td><td><strong>Atlantic coastline</strong><br><ul><li>Ex-REBENT Bretagne Maerl station protocol</li><li>Protocol for characterising the health of maerl beds by photo-identification</li></ul></td><td>https://rebent.ifremer.fr/content/download/157795/file/FT02-2003-01.pdf<br>https://www.calameo.com/read/007431401f9191aa1dcdd?authid=2wp6oDVmvLoa</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Mediterranean coastline</strong><br><ul><li>Coastal EBQI-detritic protocol (rhodoliths)</li></ul></td><td>https://amu.hal.science/hal-04187007/file/Astruc%20et%20al.2023_CDB_EBQI_final%20HAL.pdf</td></tr><tr><td>4.<br>Sponge, coral<br>and<br>coralligenous<br>beds</td><td><strong>Mediterranean coastline</strong><br><ul><li>EBQI protocol for coralligenous beds</li><li>RECOR, a network for monitoring coralligenous communities at sea</li></ul></td><td>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268520931_AN_ECO SYSTEM-BASED_APROACH_TO_ASSESS_THE_STATUS_OF_THE_MEDITERRANEAN_CORALLIGENOUS_HABITAT<br>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1470160X12000908</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">5.<br>Soft<br>sediments<br>(not deeper<br>than 1000 me<br>tres of depth)</td><td><strong>Common to both coastlines</strong><br><ul><li>Protocol for the station monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates on subtidal and intertidal soft substrates within the framework of the WFD. Channel and Atlantic coastlines</li></ul></td><td>https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00269/38067/</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Atlantic coastline</strong><br><ul><li>Réserves Naturelles de France network protocol (Observatoire du Patrimoine Naturel du Littoral)</li></ul></td><td>Not available online<br>Contact: emmanuel.caillot@rnfrance.org</td></tr></tbody></table>
## Costs and benefits of restoration

In its 2022 "Restoring Nature" report, the European Union assessed the cost/benefit for terrestrial ecosystems. It estimated a cost of 154 billion euros and a benefit of 1,860 billion euros, but remained imprecise for the marine environment. Among the costs mentioned were active restoration measures, land purchase and compensation for professional fishermen. Europe will be able to support Member States through the Multi-annual Financial Framework.

In the literature, few scientific articles study the costs associated with restoration actions in the marine environment. Nevertheless, a worldwide Australian study on restoration projects over the last 40 years enabled a systematic review to be conducted in 2016, providing analyses of the costs of marine and coastal restoration. It focused on five ecosystems due to the value of their goods and services and the speed of their decline: mangroves, coral reefs, oyster reefs and seagrass beds. The overall cost of the restoration actions varied considerably between and within ecosystems. As a result, compared with terrestrial ecosystems, marine coastal ecosystems, particularly coral reefs, seagrass beds and oyster reefs, are the most expensive to restore (Bayraktarov et al., 2016; 2019). This difference can be explained by the difficult access to the marine environment, which requires specific and costly human and material resources.

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is an important tool to support decision-making and is a common way of assessing environmental investments in various marine industries such as oil, gas and offshore wind farms. It is also common to perform a social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA) where social requirements are taken into account (Boardman et al., 2018). If the total benefits exceed the total restoration costs, restoration can be considered to have net economic benefits for society (Pendleton et al., 2010). Studies include Stewart-Sinclair et al. (2020). The team conducted a global spatial cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the monetary value of the ecosystem services provided by four marine habitats (coral reefs, mangroves, salt marshes and seagrass beds) exceeded the cost of restoration. They found that the benefits outweighed the restoration costs for all four ecosystems.

In France, the study by Ruitton et al. in 2021 can be cited, which, through the Ghost Med project, looked at the cost-benefit analysis of actions to remove lost nets in the Mediterranean (natural restoration). These actions ranged from a thousand to several thousand euros. They demonstrated that recovering lost fishing gear reduced its impact on the environment (ghost fishing in particular) and thus restored degraded ecosystem services. They concluded that the economic value of an ecosystem or

the services provided by nature far outweighs the costs of these operations. This notion is complex and often subject to debate. To this must be added patrimonial, ethical and emotional considerations whose monetary value is difficult to measure. Any restoration action can be seen as a long-term investment to limit environmental degradation. These restoration actions also have a direct impact on the safety of uses at sea and maritime activities, by eliminating the risks generated by lost fishing gear on nautical and underwater activities, as well as navigation.

Lastly, the return on investment depends on the time scale. The longer the period, the more positive the results.

<figure><img src="image_98.png" /><figcaption>Eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds in the Natura 2000 site "Rade de Brest, Estuaire de l'Aulne"
© Benjamin Guichard/French Biodiversity Agency</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_99.png" /><figcaption>*Saccorbiza polyschidès* in a dense belt
© Emmanuel Donfut/French Biodiversity Agency</figcaption></figure>

## Keys to a successful restoration project

It has been shown that a marine habitat restoration action must meet four criteria to maximise the chances of success (Bayraktarov et al., 2016):

1. Understanding how the ecosystem functions (the physical and biological conditions necessary for its development, as well as the functions provided by the ecosystem);

2. Elimination of anthropogenic pressure factors that hinder natural regeneration (e.g. pollution, eutrophication, altered hydrology, physical damage);

3. Clearly defined objectives to assess the success of restoration measures. Many projects focus on simple objectives such as increasing biomass or cover rates rather than on more complex but more robust criteria such as re-

storing ecological functions or ecosystem services;

4. Long-term monitoring of operations over 15 to 20 years, rather than over periods that are too often less than five years.

Furthermore, the most effective restoration actions are projects that involve multiple stakeholders (political players, users and scientists) and share their experience via feedback (Bayraktarov et al., 2016). These criteria are included as key elements of successful restoration projects in the "Restoring Nature" Note (European Commission, 2022).
A flow chart can be sketched out:

<figure><img src="image_100.png" /><figcaption>Synthetic flow chart for the introduction of restoration operations</figcaption></figure>
# Conclusion

This note, written as part of the Life IP MarHa project, aims to **improve the efficiency of the Natura 2000 system and prepare for the implementation of the European Nature Restoration Regulation.** The definition of restoration used in this note is the following: "*an intentional process aimed at enabling the recovery of an ecosystem that has suffered degradation and targeting a reference state.* This reference, which is intended to be restored or reached, is defined by an **appropriate state of all ecosystem components (biotic, abiotic and functional)**, **guaranteeing its long-term integrity**. A continuum of interventions can be carried out depending on the level of degradation and its causes: (i) the pressures that led to the degradation are removed or mitigated to a level that allows the natural recovery of the ecosystem, and (ii) if intervention on the relevant pressures is not sufficient to achieve the restoration objective, interventions on the components of the degraded ecosystem may be planned to assist or even accelerate its recovery".

This definition gives rise to a number of inextricably linked principles and associated criteria that will make it possible to validate the approach to these restoration projects within the framework of the Regulation:

1. Start from a degraded ecosystem;

2. Consider all ecosystem components (abiotic, biotic and functional);

3. Aim for the recovery of the degraded ecosystem to a "known" or "estimated" reference state;

4. Guarantee the long-term integrity of the ecosystem (without maintenance of restoration measure(s));

5. Define an initial state and qualify the "degradation" of the ecosystem;

6. Define the reference state of an ecosystem;

7. Identify the pressure(s) causing the degradation;

8. Start with an intentional approach;

9. Assess the level of intervention required to achieve the objective (choice of intervention strategy);

10. Eliminate or reduce to a sustainable level the pressures causing the degraded state or prove that they no longer exist;

11. Monitor and certify the recovery of all ecosystem components towards the reference state.

The involvement of all stakeholders is essential throughout the process, to guarantee acceptance of the resulting measures.

More work is needed to help project developers and decision-makers to better understand these principles. This is particularly true of the notion of **reference state**, as due to a lack of knowledge and environmental amnesia, the target state is skewed; and all the more so when the ecosystem passes the catastrophic transition threshold. This is also the case for the notion of assessing **all ecosystem components** when developing a restoration strategy. Given the operational purpose of this note, it seems important to continue working on the content of these principles, which may be difficult to implement.

Finally, most of the projects identified and analysed in this report are partial restoration projects (a single ecosystem component targeted and/or a single pressure controlled). However, recent work has focused on the implementation of global ecosystem restoration strategies (multi-component, multi-pressure, multi-functional). These works could not be analysed in this note, but the TerraRade project is one example. Created in 2023, this territorial contract for the Roadstead of Brest and the Aulne and Élorn watersheds is a project co-managed by Brest Métropole, the Syndicat de bassin versant de l'Élorn (SBE), and the Établissement public d'aménagement et de gestion du bassin versant de l'Aulne (EPAGA). Supported by the Agence de l'eau Loire-Bretagne and the Région Bretagne, this action programme aims to preserve the quality of the water in the harbour, its ecosystems and associated uses, thanks to a shared approach between stakeholders in the harbour and its watersheds. The contract is structured around four challenges: 1/ Adapt land-use planning, installations and practices to reduce the transfer of materials affecting ecosystem functioning and uses; 2/ Restore and preserve biodiversity and the marine resources that depend on it; 3/ Implement relevant local governance on the scale of the Roadstead's hydrographic perimeter, strengthening the land-sea community and 4/ Deepen and share knowledge of the functioning of the Roadstead/watershed socio-ecosystem and its evolution. The ecosystem as a whole will thus be the subject of various reflections and projects.
As we have seen, restoration is a response to the deg-
radation of an ecosystem. Although the functioning of
certain marine ecosystems is relatively well understood,
scientific progress is still needed on many of them. In
this sense, ecological restoration involves scientific
challenges that must be met. In the marine environ-
ment, ecological restoration is still in its infancy and
must be based on strengthened scientific approaches
to restoration ecology. Added to this is the relatively
new science of marine restoration ecology. Thus, due

to a lack of scientific knowledge and a failure to act on
the pressures weighing on the marine environment,
certain operations equivalent to assisted or reconstruc-
tive restoration can generate additional pressure on
an already degraded habitat. It is therefore essential
to eliminate or reduce to a sustainable level the pres-
sures weighing on ecosystems prior to any restoration
operation.y

<figure><img src="image_101.png" /><figcaption>Sponges on rocky substrate in the Parc
naturel marin du cap Corse et de l'Agriate
© Daniel Buron/French Biodiversity Agency</figcaption></figure>
Abelson, A., Halpern, B. S., Reed, D. C., Orth, R. J., Kendrick, G. A., Beck, M. W., Belmaker, J., Krause, G., Edgar, G. J., Airoldi, L., Brokovich, E., France, R., Shashar, N., de Blaeij, A., Stambler, N., Salameh, P., Shechter, M., & Nelson, P. A. (2016). Upgrading Marine Ecosystem Restoration Using Ecological-Social Concepts. *Bioscience, 66*(2), 156-163.
https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv171

Agence de l'eau Artois Picardie, L. (2021). Effacement de l'ouvrage du Moulin de la Leuleune et restauration hydromorphologique sur la Hem. 4.
https://professionnels.ofb.fr/sites/default/files/pdf/cdr-ce/REX2021_Moulin%20Leulenne%20sur%20la%20Hem_Fiche%204%20pages_V5%20OK.pdf

Alleway, H. K., & Connell, S. D. (2015). Loss of an ecological baseline through the eradication of oyster reefs from coastal ecosystems and human memory. *Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology*, 29(3), 795-804.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12452

Decree of 19 February 2007 establishing the conditions for applying for and assessing exemptions defined in 4° of Article L. 411-2 of the French Environment Code relating to protected species of wild fauna and flora. - Légifrance. (s. d.).
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/LEGIT-EXT000006055961

Atkinson, J., & Bonser, S. P. (2020). "Active" and "passive" ecological restoration strategies in meta-analysis. *Restoration Ecology*, 28(5), 1032-1035.
https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13229

Bayraktarov, E., Saunders, M. I., Abdullah, S., Mills, M., Beher, J., Possingham, H. P., Mumby, P. J., & Lovelock, C. E. (2016). The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. *Ecological Applications*, 26(4), 1055-1074.
https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1077

Bayraktarov, E., Stewart-Sinclair, P. J., Brisbane, S., Boström-Einarsson, L., Saunders, M. I., Lovelock, C. E., Possingham, H. P., Mumby, P. J., & Wilson, K. A. (2019). Motivations, success, and cost of coral reef restoration. *Restoration Ecology*, 27(5), 981-991.
https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12977

Beck, M. W., Heck, K. L., Able, K. W., Childers, D. L., Eggleston, D. B., Gillanders, B. M., Halpern, B., Hays, C. G., Hoshino, K., Minello, T. J., Orth, R. J., Sheridan, P. F., & Weinstein, M. P. (2001). The Identification, Conservation, and Management of Estuarine and Marine Nurseries for

Fish and Invertebrates: A better understanding of the habitats that serve as nurseries for marine species and the factors that create site-specific variability in nursery quality will improve conservation and management of these areas. *BioScience*, 51(8), 633-641.
https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0633:TICAMO]2.0.CO;2

Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (2018). *Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice* (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235594

Borja, A., Andersen, J. H., Arvanitidis, C. D., Basset, A., Buhl-Mortensen, L., Carvalho, S., Dafforn, K. A., Devlin, M. J., Escobar-Briones, E. G., Grenz, C., Harder, T., Katsanevakis, S., Liu, D., Metaxas, A., Morán, X. A. G., Newton, A., Piroddi, C., Pochon, X., Queirós, A. M., ... Teixeira, H. (2020). Past and Future Grand Challenges in Marine Ecosystem Ecology. *Frontiers in Marine Science*, 7.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.00362

Boudouresque, C., Bernard, G., Bonhomme, P., Charbonnel, E., Diviacco, G., Meinesz, A., Pergent, G., Pergent-Martini, C., Ruitton, S., & Tunesi, L. (2012). *Protection and conservation of Posidonia oceanica meadows* (RAMOGE and RAC/SPA publisher).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233746506_Protection_and_Conservation_of_Posidonia_oceanica_Meadows

Boudouresque, C., Blanfune, A., Pergent, G., & Thibaut, T. (2021). Restoration of Seagrass Meadows in the Mediterranean Sea: A Critical Review of Effectiveness and Ethical Issues. Water, 13, 1034.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13081034

Bougault, C., Hardegen, M., Quéré, E., & Direction régionale de l'environnement de Bretagne (DIREN de Bretagne). (2004). Natura 2000 site n°46: Rade de Brest, Estuaire de l'Aulne. Inventaire et cartographie des habitats terrestres et des espèces végétales d'intérêt communautaire. Conservatoire botanique national de Brest.
https://www.cbnbrest.fr/catalogue_en_ligne/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=3666

Chen, W., Hynes, S., Wallhead, P., Tinch, R., Gambi, C., Danovaro, R., with Fagerli, C., Groeneveld, R., Papado-poulou, N., Smith, C., O'Connor, E., Andersen, G. S., & Billett, D. (2020). D7.5: *Social cost and benefits analysis for marine restoration and the policy relevance: Case studies from Europe* (p. 36).
Chevrant-Breton, L. (2021). L'évaluation des incidences Natura 2000 en mer : Un outil de protection du milieu à l'interface entre logique conciliatrice et développement de l'expertise de terrain (p. 58). *Life MarHa*.

https://www.calameo.com/ofbiodiversite/read/003502948e89e215862a9

Cochet, M., Brown, M., Kube, P., Elliott, N., & Delahunty, C. (2015). Understanding the impact of growing conditions on oysters: A study of their sensory and biochemical characteristics. *Aquaculture Research, 46*(3), 637-646

https://doi.org/10.1111/are.12210

De Falco, G., Molinaroli, E., Conforti, A., Simeone, S., & Tonielli, R. (2017). Biogenic sediments from coastal ecosystems to beach-dune systems: Implications for the adaptation of mixed and carbonate beaches to future sea level rise. *Biogeosciences, 14*(13), 3191-3205.

https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3191-2017

De Wit, R., Leruste, A., Le Fur, I., Maki Sy, M., Bec, B., Ouisse, V., Derolez, V., & Rey-Valette, H. (2020). A Multidisciplinary Approach for Restoration Ecology of Shallow Coastal Lagoons, a Case Study in South France. *Frontiers In Ecology And Evolution, 8*(108).

https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00108

Directorate-General for the Environment (European Commission). (2022). *Restoring nature: For the benefit of people, nature and the climate*. Publications Office of the European Union.

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2779/439286

Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, CONSIL, 206 OJ L (1992).

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1992/43/oj/eng

Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, EP, CONSIL, 327 OJ L (2000)..

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2000/60/oj/eng

Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), EP, CONSIL, 164 OJ L (2008).

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/56/oj/eng

Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (Codified version), CONSIL, EP, O20 OJ L (2009).

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2009/147/oj/eng

Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning, EP, CONSIL, 257 OJ L (2014).

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/89/oj/eng

Dizerbo, A. H. (1958). Itinéraire d'excursions botaniques dans la Presqu'île de Crozon. *Penn ar bed, n°14*, 4-9.

Duchene, J., Bernard, I., & Pouvreau, S. (n. d.). *Vers un retour de l'huître indigène en rade de Brest*.

https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00270/38085/36220.pdf

Edwards, M., John, A. W. G., Hunt, H. G., & Lindley, J. A. (1999). Exceptional influx of oceanic species into the North Sea late 1997. *Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 79*(4), 737-739.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315498000885

European Environment Agency (EU body or agency). (2020). State of nature in the EU: *Results from reporting under the nature directives 2013 2018*. Publications Office of the European Union.

https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2800/088178

FAO. (2022). *United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration*.

https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0461fr

Féral, J., Niquil, N., Le Loc'h, F., Beaugrand, G., Mialet, B., Rombouts, I., Fizzala, X., Renaud, F., & Durieux, E. (2012). *Rapport final sur la définition du Bon Etat Ecologique (BEE)—Descripteur 4. Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Definition of Good Ecological Status (GES)* (p. 105).

https://dcsmm.milieumarinfrance.fr/content/download/4755/file/Rapport_final_D4.pdf

Fourqurean, J. W., Duarte, C. M., Kennedy, H., Marbà, N., Holmer, M., Mateo, M. A., Apostolaki, E. T., Kendrick, G. A., Krause-Jensen, D., McGlathery, K. J., & Serrano, O. (2012). Seagrass ecosystems as a globally significant carbon stock. *Nature Geoscience, 5*(7), Article 7.

https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1477
Francour, P., Taneez, M., Hurel, C., Guibbolini, M., & Risso, C. (2017). État des lieux de la zone aménagée en récifs artificiels à l'aide de pneumatiques dans la baie de Golfe Juan (Alpes-Maritimes, France). Rapport final, octobre 2017. Convention de partenariat Agence des aires marines protégées et Université Nice-Sophia Antipolis.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321916415_Etat_des_lieux_de_la_zone_ameagee_en_recifs_artificiels_a_l'aide_de_pneumatiques_dans_la_baie_de_Golfe_Juan_Alpes-Maritimes_France_Rapport_final_octobre_2017

Gallet, S., Jaunatre, R., Regnery, B., Alignan, J.-F., Heckenroth, A., Muller, I., Bernez, I., Combroux, I., Glasser, T., Jund, S., Lelièvre, S., Malaval, S., Moussard, S., Vérin-Stablo, M.-P., & Buisson, E. (n. d.). L'écologie de la restauration en France. Dynamique actuelle et rôle d'un réseau multi-acteurs, REVER.

https://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/sites/default/files/articles/pdf/naturae-7-pdf.pdf

Gann, G. D., McDonald, T., Walder, B., Aronson, J., Nelson, C. R., Jonson, J., Hallett, J. G., Eisenberg, C., Guariguata, M. R., Liu, J., Hua, F., Echeverría, C., Gonzales, E., Shaw, N., Decleer, K., & Dixon, K. W. (2019). International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition. *Restoration Ecology*, 27(S1), S1-S46.

https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13035

Gattuso, J.-P., Magnan, A., Bopp, L., Cheung, W., Duarte, C. M., Hinkel, J., Mcleod, E., Micheli, F., Oschlies, A., Williamson, P., Bille, R., Chalastani, V. I., Gates, R., Irisson, J.-O., Middelburg, J. J., Pörtner, H.-O., & Rau, G. H. (2018). Ocean Solutions to Address Climate Change and Its Effects on Marine Ecosystems. *Frontiers in Marine Science*, 5, 337.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00337

Gianni, F., Bartolini, F., Airoldi, L., Ballesteros, E., Francour, P., Guidetti, P., Meinesz, A., Thibaut, T., & Mangialajo, L. (2013). Conservation and restoration of marine forests in the Mediterranean Sea and the potential role of Marine Protected Areas. *Advances in Oceanography and Limnology*, 4(2), 83-101.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19475721.2013.845604

Groeneveld, R., Chen, W., Hynes, S., Tinch, R., & Papadopoulou, N. (2019). D7.4: Restoring marine ecosystems cost-effectively: Lessons learned from the MERCES project (p. 13).

http://www.merces-project.eu/sites/default/files/MERCES%20D7.5%20revision_Jan2021.pdf

Hobbs, R., & Harris, J. (2001). Restoration Ecology: Repairing the Earth's Ecosystems in the New Millennium. *Restoration Ecology*, 9, 239-246.

https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1526-100x.2001.009002239.x

Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E., Hall, C. M., Bridgewater, P., Chapin III, F. S., Ellis, E. C., Ewel, J. J., Hallett, L. M., Harris, J., Hulvey, K. B., Jackson, S. T., Kennedy, P. L., Kueffer, C., Lach, L., Lantz, T. C., Lugo, A. E., Mascaro, J., Murphy, S. D., Nelson, C. R., ... Yung, L. (2014). Managing the whole landscape: Historical, hybrid, and novel ecosystems. *Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment*, 12(10), 557-564.

https://doi.org/10.1890/130300

Hughes, T. P., Graham, N. A. J., Jackson, J. B. C., Mumby, P. J., & Steneck, R. S. (2010). Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, 25(11), 633-642.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.07.011

ICES, 2006. Report of the Working Group on Marine Habitat Mapping (WGMHM), 4-7 April, 2006, Galway, Ireland, ICES CM 2006/MHC:05, Ref. FTC, ACE 136 p. (n. d.).

https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/CM%20Doccuments/2006/MHC/wgmhm06.pdf

Javel, F., Thibaut, T., Grondin, J., Blanfuné, A., Delaye, M., Belmont, C., & Bizzozero, L. (2015). Valorisation écologique d'infrastructures maritimes par transplantation d'algues du genre Cystoseira, bilan final et perspectives. Convention Agence de l'eau Rhône Méditerranée Corse - Safege. Safegepubl (p. 77 + appendices).

Jones, H. P., Jones, P. C., Barbier, E. B., Blackburn, R. C., Rey Benayas, J. M., Holl, K. D., McCrackin, M., Meli, P., Montoya, D., & Mateos, D. M. (2018). Restoration and repair of Earth's damaged ecosystems. *Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences*, 285(1873), 20172577.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.2577

Kéfi, S. (2012). R37 : Ecosystèmes et transitions catastrophiques, Sonia Kéfi. sfecologie.org.

https://sfecologie.org/regard/r37-hysteresis-sonia-kefi/

Korpinen, S., & Andersen, J. H. (2016). A Global Review of Cumulative Pressure and Impact Assessments in Marine Environments. *Frontiers in Marine Science*, 3.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2016.00153
La Rivière, M., Aisch, A., Gauthier, O., Grall, J., Guérin, L., Janson, A.-L., Labrune, C., Thibaut, T., & Thiébaut, E. (2015). *Méthodologie pour l'évaluation de la sensibilité des habitats benthiques aux pressions anthropiques* (Rapport SPN 2015-69).

https://inpn.mnhn.fr/docs/sensibilite/SPN_2015_69_La_Riviere_et_al_2015 Methodologie_Sensibilite_MNHN.pdf

La Rivière, M., & Hébert, C. (2023). *Evaluation de la sensibilité des habitats marins benthiques de la Manche, de la mer du Nord et de l'Atlantique aux pressions physiques* (p. 364) [Report, Patrinat (OFB-MNHN-CNRS-IRD)].

https://mnhn.hal.science/mnhn-04264006

La Rivière, M., Michez, N., Aish, A., Bellan-Santini, D., Bellan, G., Chevaldonné, P., Dauvin, J.-C., Derrien-Courtel, S., Grall, J., Guérin, L., Janson, A.-L., Labrune, C., Sartoretto, S., Thibaut, T., Thiébaut, E., & Verlaque, M. (2016). *Evaluation de la sensibilité des habitats benthiques de Méditerranée aux pressions physiques* (Rapport SPN 2015-70; p. 101).

https://inpn.mnhn.fr/docs/sensibilite/SPN_2015_70_La_Riviere et al 2016 Eval sensibilité_Mediterranee_Pressions physiques.pdf

Laforge, D., Carré, A., Laigle, I., de Bettignies, T., & Rivière, M. L. (2024). La restauration écologique : Analyse sémantique, concepts associés et stratégies d'intervention. *PatriNat* (OFB-MNHN-CNRS-IRD), 44.

https://mnhn.hal.science/mnhn-04486091v2

Le Floc'h, É. L., & Aronson, J. (1995). Écologie de la restauration. Définition de quelques concepts de base. *Natures Sciences Sociétés*, 3, s29-s35.

https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/199503s029

Levrel, H., Guillet, F., Lombard-Latune, J., Delforge, P., & Frascaria-Lacoste, N. (2018). Application de la séquence éviter réduire-compenser en France : Le principe d'additionnalité mis à mal par 5 dérives. *VertigO, Volume 18 numéro 2*.

https://doi.org/10.4000/vertigo.20619

Loi n° 76-629 du 10 juillet 1976 relative à la protection de la nature - Légifrance, 76-629 (1976).

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/LEGIT-EXT000006068553

LOI n° 2016-1087 du 8 août 2016 pour la reconquête de la biodiversité, de la nature et des paysages (1), 2016-1087 (2016).

Maciejewski, L., Lepareur, F., Viry, D., Bensettiti, F., Puissauve, R., & Touroult, J. (2016). État de conservation des habitats : Propositions de définitions et de concepts pour l'évaluation à l'échelle d'un site Natura 2000. *Revue d'Écologie*, 71(1), 3-20.

https://hal.science/hal-03530365/document

Michez, N., Fourt, M., Aish, A., Bellan, G., Bellan, D., Chevaldonné, P., Fabri, M.-C., Goujard, A., Harmelin, G., Labrune, C., Pergent, G., Sartoretto, S., Vacelet, J., & Verlaque, M. (n. d.). *Typologie des biocénoses benthiques de Méditerranée Version 2* (Rapport SPN 2014; p. 26).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281530706_Typologie_des_biocenoses_benthiques_de_Mediterranee_Version_2

Michez, N., Thiébaut, É., Dubois, S., Gall, L. L., Dauvin, J.-C., Andersen, A., Baffreau, A., Bajjouk, T., Blanchet, H., Houbin, C., Janson, A.-L., Rivière, M., Lévèque, L., Menot, L., Sauriau, P.-G., Simon, N., & Viard, F. (n. d.). *Typologie des habitats marins benthiques de la Manche, de la Mer du Nord et de l'Atlantique VERSION 3*.

https://normandie-univ.hal.science/hal-02084698

Ministère de l'Écologie, du Développement durable et de l'Énergie (MEDDE). (2013). *Lignes directrices nationales sur la séquence éviter, réduire et compenser les impacts sur les milieux naturels* 2017.pdf. Service de l'économie, de l'évaluation et de l'intégration du développement durable, Ministère de l'Économie de l'Environnement et du Développement durable, Paris.

https://temis/documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/docs/Temis/0079/Temis-0079094/20917.pdf

Mongruel, R., Kermagoret, C., Carlier, A., Scemama, P., Le Mao, P., Levain, A., Balle-Beganton, J., Vaschalde, D., & Bailly, D. (2019). *Milieux marins et littoraux : Évaluation des écosystèmes et des services rendus*.

https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00600/71260/

United Nations (1973). *Rapport de la conférence des Nations Unies sur l'environnement* (A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1; p. 83).

https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n73/039/05/pdf/n7303905.pdf?token=TqwrkvP-PjmeBEU1is8&fe=true

United Nations (1992). *Convention on Biological Diversity*

https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
Papadopoulou, N., Sevastou, K., Smith, C., Gerovasileiou, V., Dailianis, T., Fraschetti, S., Guarnieri, G., McOwen, C., Billett, D., Grehan, A., Bakran-Petriciol, T., Bekkby, T., Bilan, M., Boström, C., Carriero-Silva, M., Carugati, L., Cebrian, E., Cerrano, C., Danovaro, R., ... Sarà, A. (2017). D1.3_Restoration_20171128_final.pdf (Deliverable 1.3; p. 181).

http://www.merces-project.eu/sites/default/files/D1.3_Restoration_20171128_final.pdf

Pauly, D. (1995). Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, 10(10), 430.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89171-5

Pendleton, L. (2010). *Measuring-and-monitoring-the-economic-effects-of-habitat-restoration-a-summary-of-a-noaa-blue-ribbon-panel-paper.pdf*.

https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/publications/measuring-and-monitoring-the-economic-effects-of-habitat-restoration-a-summary-of-a-noaa-blue-ribbon-panel-paper.pdf

Pouvreau, S. (2023). *Les huîtres, ces architectes essentiels de nos milieux côtiers : Écologie de deux espèces emblématiques, sentinelles du changement global*.

https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00827/93936/

Pouvreau, S., Cochet, H., Bargat, F., Petton, S., Le Roy, V., Guillet, T., & Potet, M. (2021). *Current distribution of the residual flat oysters beds (Ostrea edulis) along the west coast of France* [Jeu de données]. SEANOE.

https://doi.org/10.17882/79821

Quéré, E. (2010). Vingt ans de suivi et de conservation du *Limonium humile* Miller en rade de Brest. E.R.I.C.A., n°23, 71-90.

https://www.cbnbrest.fr/pmb pdf/CBNB Collection_1997_vol1_66594.pdf

Rapport d'activité 1996—Proposition de programme 1997. (s. d.).

https://www.cbnbrest.fr/pmb pdf/CBNB Collection_1997_vol1_66594.pdf

Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869 (2024).

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=OJ:L_202401991

Ruitton, S., Boudouresque, C., & Chabert, A. (2021). *Analyse coût - bénéfice environnemental de l'enlèvement des engins de pêche perdus*.

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.18849.53602

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2014). *Global Biodiversity Outlook 4*.

https://www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo4/publication/gbo4-en-hr.pdf

Society for Ecological Restoration International Science & Policy Working Group. (2004). *The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration*. www.ser.org & Tucson: Society for Ecological Restoration International

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.ser.org/resource/resmgr/custompages/publications/ser_publications/ser_primer.pdf

Sparfel, L., Fichaut, B., & Suanez, S. (2005). Progression de la Spartine (Spartina alterniflora Loisel) en rade de Brest (Finistère) entre 1952 et 2004 : De la mesure à la réponse gestionnaire. *Norois. Environnement, aménagement, société, 196, Article 196*.

https://doi.org/10.4000/norois.438

Stewart-Sinclair, P. J., Purandare, J., Bayraktarov, E., Waltham, N., Reeves, S., Statton, J., Sinclair, E. A., Brown, B. M., Shribman, Z. I., & Lovelock, C. E. (2020). Blue Restoration - Building Confidence and Overcoming Barriers. *Frontiers in Marine Science, 7*.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.541700

Webster, J. R., Gurtz, M. E., Hains, J. J., Meyer, J. L., Swank, W. T., Waide, J. B., & Wallace, J. B. (1983). Stability of Stream Ecosystems. In J. R. Barnes & G. W. Minshall (Eds.), *Stream Ecology: Application and Testing of General Ecological Theory* (p. 355-395). Springer US.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3775-1_14

Westman, W. E. (1978). Measuring the Inertia and Resilience of Ecosystems. *BioScience, 28*(11), 705-710.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1307321
It is important to note that the names of the scientific species presented below are under revision and may be subject to change.

## Annex 1

### Marine ecosystems - habitat types and groups of habitat types referred to in Article 5(1) and (2)

#### SEAGRASS BEDS

<table><thead><tr><th>EUNIS code</th><th>EUNIS habitat type name</th><th>Related habitat type code, referred to in Annex I of Directive 92/43/EEC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">Atlantic</td></tr><tr><td>MA522</td><td>Seagrass beds on Atlantic littoral sand</td><td>1140; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MA623</td><td>Seagrass beds on Atlantic littoral mud</td><td>1140; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB522</td><td>Seagrass beds on Atlantic infralittoral sand</td><td>1110; 1150; 1160</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">Baltic Sea</td></tr><tr><td>MA332</td><td>Baltic hydrolittoral coarse sediment characterized by submerged vegetation</td><td>1130; 1160; 1610; 1620</td></tr><tr><td>MA432</td><td>Baltic hydrolittoral mixed sediment characterized by submerged vegetation</td><td>1130; 1140; 1160; 1610</td></tr><tr><td>MA532</td><td>Baltic hydrolittoral sand characterized by submerged rooted plants</td><td>1130; 1140; 1160; 1610</td></tr><tr><td>MA632</td><td>Baltic hydrolittoral mud dominated by submerged rooted plants</td><td>1130; 1140; 1160; 1650</td></tr><tr><td>MB332</td><td>Baltic infralittoral coarse sediment characterized by submerged rooted plants</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB432</td><td>Baltic infralittoral mixed sediment characterized by submerged rooted plants</td><td>1110; 1160; 1650</td></tr><tr><td>MB532</td><td>Baltic infralittoral sand characterized by submerged rooted plants</td><td>1110; 1130; 1150; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB632</td><td>Baltic infralittoral mud sediment characterized by submerged rooted plants</td><td>1130; 1150; 1160; 1650</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">Black Sea</td></tr><tr><td>MB546</td><td>Seagrass and rhizomatous algal meadows in Black Sea freshwater influenced infralittoral muddy sands</td><td>1110; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB547</td><td>Black Sea seagrass meadows on moderately exposed upper infralittoral clean sands</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>MB548</td><td>Black Sea seagrass meadows on lower infralittoral sands</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Mediterranean Sea</td></tr><tr><td>MB252</td><td>Biocenosis of Posidonia oceanica</td><td>1120</td></tr><tr><td>MB2521</td><td>Ecomorphosis of striped Posidonia oceanica meadows</td><td>1120; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB2522</td><td>Ecomorphosis of "barrier-reef" Posidonia oceanica meadows</td><td>1120; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB2523</td><td>Facies of dead "mattes" of Posidonia oceanica without much epiflora</td><td>1120; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB2524</td><td>Association with Caulerpa prolifera on Posidonia beds</td><td>1120; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB5521</td><td>Association with Cymodocea nodosa on well sorted fine sands</td><td>1110; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB5534</td><td>Association with Cymodocea nodosa on superficial muddy sands in sheltered waters</td><td>1110; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB5535</td><td>Association with Zostera noltei on superficial muddy sands in sheltered waters</td><td>1110; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB5541</td><td>Association with Ruppia cirrhosa and/or Ruppia maritima on sand</td><td>1110; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB5544</td><td>Association with Zostera noltei in euryhaline and eurythermal environment on sand</td><td>1110; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB5545</td><td>Association with Zostera marina in euryhaline and eurythermal environment</td><td>1110; 1130; 1160</td></tr></table>

## MACROALGAL FORESTS

<table><thead><tr><th>EUNIS code</th><th>EUNIS habitat type name</th><th>Related habitat type code, referred to in Annex I of Directive 92/43/EEC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3">Atlantic</td></tr><tr><td>MA123</td><td>Seaweed communities on full salinity Atlantic littoral rock</td><td>1160; 1170; 1130</td></tr><tr><td>MA125</td><td>Fucoids on variable salinity Atlantic littoral rock</td><td>1170; 1130</td></tr><tr><td>MB121</td><td>Kelp and seaweed communities on Atlantic infralittoral rock</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB123</td><td>Kelp and seaweed communities on sediment-affected or disturbed Atlantic infralittoral rock</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB124</td><td>Kelp communities on variable salinity Atlantic infralittoral rock</td><td>1170; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB321</td><td>Kelp and seaweed communities on Atlantic infralittoral coarse sediment</td><td>1160</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td>MB521</td><td>Kelp and seaweed communities on Atlantic infralittoral sand</td><td>1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB621</td><td>Vegetated communities on Atlantic infralittoral mud</td><td>1160</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Baltic Sea</strong></td></tr><tr><td>MA131</td><td>Baltic hydrolittoral rocks and boulders characterized by perennial algae</td><td>1160; 1170; 1130; 1610; 1620</td></tr><tr><td>MB131</td><td>Perennial algae on Baltic infralittoral rock and boulders</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB232</td><td>Baltic infralittoral bottoms characterized by shell gravel</td><td>1160; 1110</td></tr><tr><td>MB333</td><td>Baltic infralittoral coarse sediment characterized by perennial algae</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB433</td><td>Baltic infralittoral mixed sediment characterized by perennial algae</td><td>1110; 1130; 1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Black Sea</strong></td></tr><tr><td>MB144</td><td>Mytilid dominated Black sea exposed upper infralittoral rock with fucales</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB149</td><td>Mytilid-dominated Black sea exposed upper infralittoral rock with fucales</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB14A</td><td>Fucales and other algae on Black Sea sheltered upper infralittoral rock, well illuminated</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><strong>Mediterranean Sea</strong></td></tr><tr><td>MA1548</td><td>Association with Fucus virsoides</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MB1512</td><td>Association with Cystoseira tamariscifolia and Saccorhiza polyschides</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MB1513</td><td>Association with Cystoseira amentacea (var. amentacea, var. stricta, var. spicata)</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MB151F</td><td>Association with Cystoseira brachycarpa</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MB151G</td><td>Association with Cystoseira crinita</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MB151H</td><td>Association with Cystoseira crinitophylla</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MB151J</td><td>Association with Cystoseira sauvageauana</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MB151K</td><td>Association with Cystoseira spinosa</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MB151L</td><td>Association with Sargassum vulgare</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MB151M</td><td>Association with Dictyopteris polypodioides</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MB151W</td><td>Association with Cystoseira compressa</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MB1524</td><td>Association with Cystoseira barbata</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MC1511</td><td>Association with Cystoseira zosteroides</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MC1512</td><td>Association with Cystoseira usneoides</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MC1513</td><td>Association with Cystoseira dubia</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>MC1514</td><td>Association with Cystoseira corniculata</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MC1515</td><td>Association with Sargassum spp.</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MC1518</td><td>Association with Laminaria ochroleuca</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MC3517</td><td>Association with Laminaria rodriguezii on detritic beds</td><td>1160</td></tr></table>

## SHELLFISH BEDS

<table><thead><tr><th>EUNIS code</th><th>EUNIS habitat type name</th><th>Related habitat type code, referred to in Annex I of Directive 92/43/EEC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3" style="background-color: #003366; color: white; text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">Atlantic</td></tr><tr><td>MA122</td><td>Mytilus edulis and/or barnacle communities on wave-exposed Atlantic littoral rock</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MA124</td><td>Mussel and/or barnacle communities with seaweeds on Atlantic littoral rock</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MA227</td><td>Bivalve reefs in the Atlantic littoral zone</td><td>1170; 1140</td></tr><tr><td>MB222</td><td>Bivalve reefs in the Atlantic infralittoral zone</td><td>1170; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC223</td><td>Bivalve reefs in the Atlantic circalittoral zone</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="background-color: #003366; color: white; text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">Baltic Sea</td></tr><tr><td>MB231</td><td>Baltic infralittoral bottoms dominated by epibenthic bivalves</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC231</td><td>Baltic circalittoral bottoms dominated by epibenthic bivalves</td><td>1170; 1160; 1110</td></tr><tr><td>MD231</td><td>Baltic offshore circalittoral biogenic bottoms characterized by epibenthic bivalves</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MD232</td><td>Baltic offshore circalittoral shell gravel bottoms characterized by bivalves</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MD431</td><td>Baltic offshore circalittoral mixed bottoms characterized by macroscopic epibenthic biotic structures</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MD531</td><td>Baltic offshore circalittoral sand characterized by macroscopic epibenthic biotic structures</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MD631</td><td>Baltic offshore circalittoral mud characterized by epibenthic bivalves</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="background-color: #003366; color: white; text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">Black Sea</td></tr><tr><td>MB141</td><td>Invertebrate dominated Black sea lower infralittoral rock</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MB143</td><td>Mytilid-dominated Black Sea exposed upper infralittoral rock with foliose algae (no Fucales)</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>MB148</td><td>Mytilid dominated Black sea moderately exposed upper infralittoral rock with foliose algae (other than fucales)</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB242</td><td>Mussel beds in the Black Sea infralittoral zone</td><td>1170; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB243</td><td>Oyster reefs on Black sea lower infralittoral rock</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MB642</td><td>Black Sea infralittoral terrigenous muds</td><td>1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC141</td><td>Invertebrate dominated Black sea circalittoral rock</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MC241</td><td>Mussel beds on Black Sea circalittoral terrigenous muds</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MC645</td><td>Black Sea lower circalittoral mud</td><td></td></tr></table>

## Mediterranean Sea

<table><tr><td>MA1544</td><td>Facies with <i>Mytilus galloprovincialis</i> in waters enriched in organic matter</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MB1514</td><td>Facies with <i>Mytilus galloprovincialis</i></td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Mediterranean infralittoral oyster beds</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Mediterranean circalittoral oyster beds</td><td></td></tr></table>

## MAERL BEDS

<table><thead><tr><th>EUNIS code</th><th>EUNIS habitat type name</th><th>Related habitat type code, referred to in Annex I of Directive 92/43/EEC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3" style="background-color: #003366; color: white; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; padding: 5px;">Atlantic</td></tr><tr><td>MB322</td><td>Maerl beds on Atlantic infralittoral coarse sediment</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB421</td><td>Maerl beds on Atlantic infralittoral mixed sediment</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB622</td><td>Maerl beds on Atlantic infralittoral muddy sediment</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Mediterranean Sea

<table><tr><td>MB3511</td><td>Association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels mixed by waves</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB3521</td><td>Association with rhodoliths in coarse sands and fine gravels under the influence of bottom currents</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB3522</td><td>Association with maerl (= Association with <i>Lithothamnion corallioides</i> and <i>Phymatolithon calcareum</i>) on Mediterranean coarse sands and gravel</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>MC3521</td><td>Association with rhodoliths on coastal detritic bottoms</td><td>1110</td></tr><tr><td>MC3523</td><td>Association with maerl (Lithothamnion corallioi- des and Phymatholithon calcareum) on coastal dendritic bottoms</td><td>1110</td></tr></table>

## SPONGE, CORAL AND CORALLIGENOUS BEDS

<table><thead><tr><th>EUNIS code</th><th>EUNIS habitat type name</th><th>Related habitat type code, referred to in Annex I of Directive 92/43/EEC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3" style="background-color: #003366; color: white; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; padding: 5px;">Atlantic</td></tr><tr><td>MC121</td><td>Faunal turf communities on Atlantic circalittoral rock</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MC124</td><td>Faunal communities on variable salinity Atlantic circalittoral rock</td><td>1170; 1130</td></tr><tr><td>MC126</td><td>Communities of Atlantic circalittoral caves and overhangs</td><td>8330; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MC222</td><td>Cold water coral reefs in the Atlantic circalittoral zone</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MD121</td><td>Sponge communities on Atlantic offshore cir- calittoral rock</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MD221</td><td>Cold water coral reefs in the Atlantic offshore circalittoral zone</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>ME122</td><td>Sponge communities on Atlantic upper bathyal rock</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>ME123</td><td>Mixed cold water coral communities on Atlantic upper bathyal rock</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>ME221</td><td>Atlantic upper bathyal cold water coral reef</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>ME322</td><td>Mixed cold water coral community on Atlantic upper bathyal coarse sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ME324</td><td>Sponge aggregation on Atlantic upper bathyal coarse sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ME422</td><td>Sponge aggregation on Atlantic upper bathyal mixed sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ME623</td><td>Sponge aggregation on Atlantic upper bathyal mud</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ME624</td><td>Erect coral field on Atlantic upper bathyal mud</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF121</td><td>Mixed cold water coral community on Atlantic lower bathyal rock</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MF221</td><td>Atlantic lower bathyal cold water coral reef</td><td>1170</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>MF321</td><td>Mixed cold water coral community on Atlantic lower bathyal coarse sediment</td></tr><tr><td>MF622</td><td>Sponge aggregation on Atlantic lower bathyal mud</td></tr><tr><td>MF623</td><td>Erect coral field on Atlantic lower bathyal mud</td></tr></table>

Baltic Sea

<table><tr><td>MB138</td><td>Baltic infralittoral rock and boulders characterized by epibenthic sponges</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB43A</td><td>Baltic infralittoral mixed sediment characterized by epibenthic sponges (Porifera)</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC133</td><td>Baltic circalittoral rock and boulders characterized by epibenthic cnidarians</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC136</td><td>Baltic circalittoral rock and boulders characterized by epibenthic sponges</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC433</td><td>Baltic circalittoral mixed sediment characterized by epibenthic cnidarians</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC436</td><td>Baltic circalittoral mixed sediment characterized by epibenthic sponges</td><td>1160</td></tr></table>

Black Sea

<table><tr><td>MD24</td><td>Black Sea offshore circalittoral biogenic habitats</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>ME14</td><td>Black Sea upper bathyal rock</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>ME24</td><td>Black Sea upper bathyal biogenic habitat</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MF14</td><td>Black Sea lower bathyal rock</td><td>1170</td></tr></table>

Mediterranean Sea

<table><tr><td>MB151E</td><td>Facies with Cladocora caespitosa</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB151Q</td><td>Facies with Astroides calycularis</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB151α</td><td>Facies and association of coralligenous biocenosis (in enclave)</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC1519</td><td>Facies with Eunicella cavolini</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC151A</td><td>Facies with Eunicella singularis</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC151B</td><td>Facies with Paramuricea clavata</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC151E</td><td>Facies with Leptogorgia sarmentosa</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC151F</td><td>Facies with Anthipatella subpinnata and sparse red algae</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC151G</td><td>Facies with massive sponges and sparse red algae</td><td>1170; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC1522</td><td>Facies with Corallium rubrum</td><td>8330; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MC1523</td><td>Facies with Leptopsammia pruvoti</td><td>8330; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MC251</td><td>Coralligenous platforms</td><td>1170</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>MC6514</td><td>Facies of sticky muds with Alcyonium palmatum and Parastichopus regalis on circalittoral mud</td><td>1160</td></tr><tr><td>MD151</td><td>Biocenosis of Mediterranean shelf-edge rock</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MD25</td><td>Mediterranean offshore circalittoral biogenic habitats</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MD6512</td><td>Facies of sticky muds with Alcyonium palmatum and Parastichopus regalis on lower circalittoral mud</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ME1511</td><td>Mediterranean upper bathyal Lophelia pertusa reefs</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>ME1512</td><td>Mediterranean upper bathyal Madrepora oculata reefs</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>ME1513</td><td>Mediterranean upper bathyal Madrepora oculata and Lophelia pertusa reefs</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>ME6514</td><td>Mediterranean upper bathyal facies of with Pheronema carpenteri</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF1511</td><td>Mediterranean lower bathyal Lophelia pertusa reefs</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MF1512</td><td>Mediterranean lower bathyal Madrepora oculata reefs</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MF1513</td><td>Mediterranean lower bathyal Madrepora oculata and Lophelia pertusa reefs</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MF6511</td><td>Mediterranean lower bathyal facies of sandy muds with Thenea muricata</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF6513</td><td>Mediterranean lower bathyal facies of compact muds with Isidella elongata</td><td></td></tr></table>

## VENTS AND SEEPS

<table><thead><tr><th>EUNIS code</th><th>EUNIS habitat type name</th><th>Related habitat type code, referred to in Annex I of Directive 92/43/EEC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3" style="background-color: #003366; color: white; text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">Atlantic</td></tr><tr><td>MB128</td><td>Vents and seeps in Atlantic infralittoral rock</td><td>1170; 1160; 1180</td></tr><tr><td>MB627</td><td>Vents and seeps in Atlantic infralittoral mud</td><td>1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC127</td><td>Vents and seeps in Atlantic circalittoral rock</td><td>1170; 1180</td></tr><tr><td>MC622</td><td>Vents and seeps in Atlantic circalittoral mud</td><td>1160</td></tr><tr><td>MD122</td><td>Vents and seeps on Atlantic offshore circalittoral rock</td><td>1170</td></tr><tr><td>MD622</td><td>Vents and seeps on Atlantic offshore circalittoral mud</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
SOFT SEDIMENTS (NOT DEEPER THAN 1 000 METRES OF DEPTH)

<table><thead><tr><th>EUNIS code</th><th>EUNIS habitat type name</th><th>Related habitat type code, referred to in Annex I of Directive 92/43/EEC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="3" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">Atlantic</td></tr><tr><td>MA32</td><td>Atlantic littoral coarse sediment</td><td>1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MA42</td><td>Atlantic littoral mixed sediment</td><td>1130; 1140; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MA52</td><td>Atlantic littoral sand</td><td>1130; 1140; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MA62</td><td>Atlantic littoral mud</td><td>1130; 1140; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB32</td><td>Atlantic infralittoral coarse sediment</td><td>1110; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB42</td><td>Atlantic infralittoral mixed sediment</td><td>1110; 1130; 1150; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB52</td><td>Atlantic infralittoral sand</td><td>1110; 1130; 1150; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB62</td><td>Atlantic infralittoral mud</td><td>1110; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC32</td><td>Atlantic circalittoral coarse sediment</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC42</td><td>Atlantic circalittoral mixed sediment</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC52</td><td>Atlantic circalittoral sand</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC62</td><td>Atlantic circalittoral mud</td><td>1160</td></tr><tr><td>MD32</td><td>Atlantic offshore circalittoral coarse sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MD42</td><td>Atlantic offshore circalittoral mixed sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MD52</td><td>Atlantic offshore circalittoral sand</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MD62</td><td>Atlantic offshore circalittoral mud</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ME32</td><td>Atlantic upper bathyal coarse sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ME42</td><td>Atlantic upper bathyal mixed sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ME52</td><td>Atlantic upper bathyal sand</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ME62</td><td>Atlantic upper bathyal mud</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF32</td><td>Atlantic lower bathyal coarse sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF42</td><td>Atlantic lower bathyal mixed sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF52</td><td>Atlantic lower bathyal sand</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF62</td><td>Atlantic lower bathyal mud</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">Baltic Sea</td></tr><tr><td>MA33</td><td>Baltic hydrolittoral coarse sediment</td><td>1130; 1160; 1610; 1620</td></tr><tr><td>MA43</td><td>Baltic hydrolittoral mixed sediment</td><td>1130; 1140; 1160; 1610</td></tr><tr><td>MA53</td><td>Baltic hydrolittoral sand</td><td>1130; 1140; 1160; 1610</td></tr><tr><td>MA63</td><td>Baltic hydrolittoral mud</td><td>1130; 1140; 1160; 1650</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>MB33</td><td>Baltic infralittoral coarse sediment</td><td>1110; 1150; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB43</td><td>Baltic infralittoral mixed sediment</td><td>1110; 1130; 1150; 1160; 1170; 1650</td></tr><tr><td>MB53</td><td>Baltic infralittoral sand</td><td>1110; 1130; 1150; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB63</td><td>Baltic infralittoral mud</td><td>1130; 1150; 1160; 1650</td></tr><tr><td>MC33</td><td>Baltic circalittoral coarse sediment</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC43</td><td>Baltic circalittoral mixed sediment</td><td>1160; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MC53</td><td>Baltic circalittoral sand</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC63</td><td>Baltic circalittoral mud</td><td>1160; 1650</td></tr><tr><td>MD33</td><td>Baltic offshore circalittoral coarse sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MD43</td><td>Baltic offshore circalittoral mixed sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MD53</td><td>Baltic offshore circalittoral sand</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MD63</td><td>Baltic offshore circalittoral mud</td><td></td></tr></table>

Black Sea

<table><tr><td>MA34</td><td>Black sea littoral coarse sediment</td><td>1160</td></tr><tr><td>MA44</td><td>Black sea littoral mixed sediment</td><td>1130; 1140; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MA54</td><td>Black sea littoral sand</td><td>1130; 1140; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MA64</td><td>Black sea littoral mud</td><td>1130; 1140; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB34</td><td>Black Sea infralittoral coarse sediment</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB44</td><td>Black Sea infralittoral mixed sediment</td><td>1110; 1170</td></tr><tr><td>MB54</td><td>Black Sea infralittoral sand</td><td>1110; 1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB64</td><td>Black Sea infralittoral mud</td><td>1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC34</td><td>Black Sea circalittoral coarse sediment</td><td>1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC44</td><td>Black Sea circalittoral mixed sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MC54</td><td>Black Sea circalittoral sand</td><td>1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC64</td><td>Black Sea circalittoral mud</td><td>1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MD34</td><td>Black Sea offshore circalittoral coarse sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MD44</td><td>Black Sea offshore circalittoral mixed sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MD54</td><td>Black Sea offshore circalittoral sand</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MD64</td><td>Black Sea offshore circalittoral mud</td><td></td></tr></table>

Mediterranean Sea

<table><tr><td>MA35</td><td>Mediterranean littoral coarse sediment</td><td>1160; 1130</td></tr><tr><td>MA45</td><td>Mediterranean littoral mixed sediment</td><td>1140; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MA55</td><td>Mediterranean littoral sand</td><td>1130; 1140; 1160</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>MA65</td><td>Mediterranean littoral mud</td><td>1130; 1140; 1150; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB35</td><td>Mediterranean infralittoral coarse sediment</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB45</td><td>Mediterranean infralittoral mixed sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MB55</td><td>Mediterranean infralittoral sand</td><td>1110; 1130; 1150; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MB65</td><td>Mediterranean infralittoral mud</td><td>1130; 1150</td></tr><tr><td>MC35</td><td>Mediterranean circalittoral coarse sediment</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC45</td><td>Mediterranean circalittoral mixed sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MC55</td><td>Mediterranean circalittoral sand</td><td>1110; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MC65</td><td>Mediterranean circalittoral mud</td><td>1130; 1160</td></tr><tr><td>MD35</td><td>Mediterranean offshore circalittoral coarse sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MD45</td><td>Mediterranean offshore circalittoral mixed sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MD55</td><td>Mediterranean offshore circalittoral sand</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MD65</td><td>Mediterranean offshore circalittoral mud</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ME35</td><td>Mediterranean upper bathyal coarse sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ME45</td><td>Mediterranean upper bathyal mixed sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ME55</td><td>Mediterranean upper bathyal sand</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>ME65</td><td>Mediterranean upper bathyal mud</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF35</td><td>Mediterranean lower bathyal coarse sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF45</td><td>Mediterranean lower bathyal mixed sediment</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF55</td><td>Mediterranean lower bathyal sand</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>MF65</td><td>Mediterranean lower bathyal mud</td><td></td></tr></table>
# Annex 2

## Marine species referred to in Article 5(5)

1. Dwarf sawfish (*Pristis clavata*);

2. Smalltooth sawfish (*Pristis pectinata*);

3. Largetooth sawfish (*Pristis pristis*);

4. Basking shark (*Cetorhinus maximus*);

5. White shark (*Carcharodon carcharias*);

6. Smooth lantern shark (*Etmopterus pusillus*);

7. Reef manta ray (*Mobula alfredi*);

8. Giant manta ray (*Mobula birostris*);

9. Devil fish (*Mobula mobular*);

10. Lesser Guinean devil ray (*Mobula rochebrunei*);

11. Spinetail mobula (*Mobula japanica*);

12. Smoothtail mobula (*Mobula thurstoni*);

13. Longhorned mobula (*Mobula eregoodootenkee*);

14. Chilean devil ray (*Mobula tarapacana*);

15. Shortfin devil ray (*Mobula kuhlii*);

16. Lesser devil ray (*Mobula hypostoma*);

17. Norwegian skate (*Dipturus nidarosiensis*);

18. White skate (*Rostroraja alba*);

19. Guitarfishes (*Rhinobatidae*);

20. Angel shark (*Squatina squatina*);

21. Salmon (*Salmo salar*);

22. Sea trout (*Salmo trutta*);

23. Houting (*Coregonus oxyrhynchus*)
<figure><img src="image_102.png" /></figure>

Gymnangium montagui community off the Basque coast

© Jonathan Sagan/French Biodiversity Agency

**Coordination:**

French Biodiversity Agency (Jonathan Sagan and Alain Pibot)

**Contribution and proofreading:**

Isabelle Gailhard-Rocher - OFB DRAS; Hippolyte Gilante - OFB DRAS; Diane Laforge - OFB PATRINAT; Thibaut de Bettignies - OFB PATRINAT; Alix Meslin - OFB DREI; Anne Vivier - OFB DRAS; Stéphane Pouvreau - IFREMER; Charlotte Genest - OFB LIFE MarHa.

**Suggested citation:**

Jonathan Sagan, Alain Pibot, Thibaut de Bettignies, Diane Laforge, Isabelle Gaillard-Rocher, Hippolyte Gilante, Stéphane Pouvreau, Anne Vivier, Alix Meslin. 2024 - Restoration of benthic habitats in coastal marine environments, LIFE IP MarHa technical note, 2024.

We would also like to thank all those who contributed their knowledge, expertise, suggestions and participation to this document.

Life MarHa aims to restore and maintain the good conservation state of the nine marine habitats of Community interest in mainland France. It mobilises all the players involved in the management of Natura 2000 marine or coastal sites designated under the Habitats Directive. Led by the French Biodiversity Agency with 13 other partners, it is partly funded by the European Union and the French Ministry for Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion, and runs until 2025.

Contact: life.marha@ofb.gouv.fr

Website: www.life-marha.fr

Follow us on LinkedIn:

www.linkedin.com/groups/13618978

<figure><img src="image_103.png" /></figure>

RÉPUBLIQUE
FRANÇAISE

Liberté
Égalité
Fraternité

OFB
OFFICE FRANÇAIS
DE LA BIODIVERSITÉ

French Biodiversity Agency

12, cours Lumière
94300 Vincennes

This document has been produced with the financial support of the European Union Life programme, as part of the Life MarHa project. The content of this report/document reflects the views only of the author, and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information it contains.