Member State report / Art11 / 2020 / D1-C / Netherlands / NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art. 11 Monitoring programmes (and Art. 17 updates) |
| Report due | 2020-10-15 |
| GES Descriptor | D1 Cephalopods |
| Member State | Netherlands |
| Region/subregion | NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea |
| Reported by | Rijkswaterstaat Water, Verkeer en Leefomgeving Zuiderwagenplein 2 8224 AD Lelystad Postbus 2232 3500 |
| Report date | 2020-11-17 |
| Report access |
Descriptor |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
D1.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Monitoring strategy description |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
The principal purpose of the MSFD monitoring programme is to review the progress that has been made towards achieving good environmental status prescribed for each criterion in the Marine Strategy Part I (2018). This review is based on established indicators. The monitoring can also be used to evaluate the environmental targets defined for each descriptor. The environmental targets are operational in nature and are linked to specific actions and/or measures in the Marine Strategy Part 3. The effects of individual measures cannot generally be linked directly to environmental status or the criteria. Monitoring data can, however, indirectly give an indication of the effectiveness of measures.
The monitoring (methods, spatial and temporal coverage) aims to achieve sufficient statistical confidence in the assessment. The risk of not achieving GES or deterioration from GES is addressed in the Marine Strategy, Parts 1 and 3.
The European Commission requests that the electronic reports explain how the DPSIR cycle is monitored and to which part of the cycle the monitoring surveys are linked. The MSFD monitoring programme helps to generate better insight into the relationships between the use of the sea and the marine ecosystem. This can be accomplished by monitoring pressures and the underlying activities (D1C1: incidental bycatch, D2: non-indigenous species, D3C1: fish mortality, D5: eutrophication, D6C1/D6C4: physical loss of seabed/habitats and D6C2: fisheries intensity and sand extraction, D8 and D9: pollutants, D10: litter, D11: underwater noise), and by monitoring species and habitats (D1: biodiversity (with the exception of D1C1), D3C2: spawning stock biomass, D4: food web, D6C3/D6C5: habitats ) and hydrographical characteristics (D7). The numerous relationships between the various elements of the marine ecosystem are complex, and many are still not known. Consequently, it is often only possible to give an indication of the impact of specific activities on the marine ecosystem.
Experts generally derive DPSIR relationships from the monitoring of pressures/activities and of species and habitats (from the MSFD monitoring programme), in combination with data derived from permits and research programmes. However, some surveys have been established to measure pressures and their effects and/or to learn more about the effectiveness of measures. In designing the monitoring survey for benthic animals (habitats), the Netherlands explicitly took account of the need to |
Coverage of GES criteria |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Gaps and plans |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Indicators for the criteria D1C1, D1C2 and D1C3 have to be defined not only for fish species, but also for cephalopods. This has not yet been done, primarily because so little information is available about these species. Research will be conducted into the possibility of formulating these indicators in 2020. |
Related targets |
||||||||||||||||||||
Coverage of targets |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Related measures |
||||||||||||||||||||
Coverage of measures |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Adequate monitoring will be in place by 2024 |
Related monitoring programmes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Programme code |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub2-Biomass |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub2-Biomass |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub2-Biomass |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub2-Biomass |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub2-Biomass |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub2-Biomass |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub2-Biomass |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub2-Biomass |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub2-Biomass |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub2-Biomass |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub2-Biomass |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub2-Biomass |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub2-Biomass |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub2-Biomass |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub2-Biomass |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub3-SizeDistr |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub3-SizeDistr |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub3-SizeDistr |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub3-SizeDistr |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub3-SizeDistr |
Programme name |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - abundance and/or biomass |
Mobile species - population characteristics |
Mobile species - population characteristics |
Mobile species - population characteristics |
Mobile species - population characteristics |
Mobile species - population characteristics |
Update type |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
Same programme as in 2014 |
Same programme as in 2014 |
Same programme as in 2014 |
Same programme as in 2014 |
Same programme as in 2014 |
Old programme codes |
||||||||||||||||||||
Programme description |
D3C2
The aim of the MSFD is to restore and conserve the populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The CFP constitutes the statutory framework for the fisheries sector and the Netherlands is therefore guided by it to achieve the MSFD objectives. To achieve GES, the fish mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) of all commercially exploited fish species must both comply with the international requirements.
The data for the mortality rate from fishing and spawning stock biomass are derived from monitoring carried out for the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT Fisheries) programme and the Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The DCF in its current form has been in operation since 2008. Every member state draws up a national programme enumerating the elements and parameters to be measured for the DCF. The Dutch Centre for Fisheries Research (CFR) conducts the biological research for the DCF as part of the WOT. The tasks performed by the CFR are incorporated in a continuous programme that encompasses a variety of studies into herring, blue whiting and mackerel, but also research into the impact of bottom trawling on demersal fish. The research provides an insight into the number of fish, fish larvae or fish eggs of a specific species in a particular year. The spatial coverage, density and measurement frequency are different for each survey. For example, the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) covers almost the entire North Sea every year by fishing each ICES area (roughly 56x56 km) twice with different ships with a bottom trawl.
The spawning stock biomass, expressed in tonnes per species, is derived partly from data generated by independent monitoring and partly from data supplied by fisheries. These data concern: 1) the age distribution of the fish that are caught, 2) the numbers by age, 3) the average weight per age and sex, and 4) information about the sex ratio and sexual maturity.
The monitoring surveys are adequate and have not changed compared with the previous monitoring programme (2014). The monitoring programme coordinated and prescribed by ICES guarantees the collection of the basic data required for the assessment of commercially caught fish species. This internationally coordinated monitoring and the annual recommendations made by ICES give an indication of the extent to which GES has been achieved.
D1C4
The distribution of migratory fish species has to comply with the Favourable Reference Range (FRR) in the |
D3C2
The aim of the MSFD is to restore and conserve the populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The CFP constitutes the statutory framework for the fisheries sector and the Netherlands is therefore guided by it to achieve the MSFD objectives. To achieve GES, the fish mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) of all commercially exploited fish species must both comply with the international requirements.
The data for the mortality rate from fishing and spawning stock biomass are derived from monitoring carried out for the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT Fisheries) programme and the Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The DCF in its current form has been in operation since 2008. Every member state draws up a national programme enumerating the elements and parameters to be measured for the DCF. The Dutch Centre for Fisheries Research (CFR) conducts the biological research for the DCF as part of the WOT. The tasks performed by the CFR are incorporated in a continuous programme that encompasses a variety of studies into herring, blue whiting and mackerel, but also research into the impact of bottom trawling on demersal fish. The research provides an insight into the number of fish, fish larvae or fish eggs of a specific species in a particular year. The spatial coverage, density and measurement frequency are different for each survey. For example, the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) covers almost the entire North Sea every year by fishing each ICES area (roughly 56x56 km) twice with different ships with a bottom trawl.
The spawning stock biomass, expressed in tonnes per species, is derived partly from data generated by independent monitoring and partly from data supplied by fisheries. These data concern: 1) the age distribution of the fish that are caught, 2) the numbers by age, 3) the average weight per age and sex, and 4) information about the sex ratio and sexual maturity.
The monitoring surveys are adequate and have not changed compared with the previous monitoring programme (2014). The monitoring programme coordinated and prescribed by ICES guarantees the collection of the basic data required for the assessment of commercially caught fish species. This internationally coordinated monitoring and the annual recommendations made by ICES give an indication of the extent to which GES has been achieved.
D1C4
The distribution of migratory fish species has to comply with the Favourable Reference Range (FRR) in the |
D3C2
The aim of the MSFD is to restore and conserve the populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The CFP constitutes the statutory framework for the fisheries sector and the Netherlands is therefore guided by it to achieve the MSFD objectives. To achieve GES, the fish mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) of all commercially exploited fish species must both comply with the international requirements.
The data for the mortality rate from fishing and spawning stock biomass are derived from monitoring carried out for the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT Fisheries) programme and the Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The DCF in its current form has been in operation since 2008. Every member state draws up a national programme enumerating the elements and parameters to be measured for the DCF. The Dutch Centre for Fisheries Research (CFR) conducts the biological research for the DCF as part of the WOT. The tasks performed by the CFR are incorporated in a continuous programme that encompasses a variety of studies into herring, blue whiting and mackerel, but also research into the impact of bottom trawling on demersal fish. The research provides an insight into the number of fish, fish larvae or fish eggs of a specific species in a particular year. The spatial coverage, density and measurement frequency are different for each survey. For example, the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) covers almost the entire North Sea every year by fishing each ICES area (roughly 56x56 km) twice with different ships with a bottom trawl.
The spawning stock biomass, expressed in tonnes per species, is derived partly from data generated by independent monitoring and partly from data supplied by fisheries. These data concern: 1) the age distribution of the fish that are caught, 2) the numbers by age, 3) the average weight per age and sex, and 4) information about the sex ratio and sexual maturity.
The monitoring surveys are adequate and have not changed compared with the previous monitoring programme (2014). The monitoring programme coordinated and prescribed by ICES guarantees the collection of the basic data required for the assessment of commercially caught fish species. This internationally coordinated monitoring and the annual recommendations made by ICES give an indication of the extent to which GES has been achieved.
D1C4
The distribution of migratory fish species has to comply with the Favourable Reference Range (FRR) in the |
D3C2
The aim of the MSFD is to restore and conserve the populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The CFP constitutes the statutory framework for the fisheries sector and the Netherlands is therefore guided by it to achieve the MSFD objectives. To achieve GES, the fish mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) of all commercially exploited fish species must both comply with the international requirements.
The data for the mortality rate from fishing and spawning stock biomass are derived from monitoring carried out for the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT Fisheries) programme and the Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The DCF in its current form has been in operation since 2008. Every member state draws up a national programme enumerating the elements and parameters to be measured for the DCF. The Dutch Centre for Fisheries Research (CFR) conducts the biological research for the DCF as part of the WOT. The tasks performed by the CFR are incorporated in a continuous programme that encompasses a variety of studies into herring, blue whiting and mackerel, but also research into the impact of bottom trawling on demersal fish. The research provides an insight into the number of fish, fish larvae or fish eggs of a specific species in a particular year. The spatial coverage, density and measurement frequency are different for each survey. For example, the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) covers almost the entire North Sea every year by fishing each ICES area (roughly 56x56 km) twice with different ships with a bottom trawl.
The spawning stock biomass, expressed in tonnes per species, is derived partly from data generated by independent monitoring and partly from data supplied by fisheries. These data concern: 1) the age distribution of the fish that are caught, 2) the numbers by age, 3) the average weight per age and sex, and 4) information about the sex ratio and sexual maturity.
The monitoring surveys are adequate and have not changed compared with the previous monitoring programme (2014). The monitoring programme coordinated and prescribed by ICES guarantees the collection of the basic data required for the assessment of commercially caught fish species. This internationally coordinated monitoring and the annual recommendations made by ICES give an indication of the extent to which GES has been achieved.
D1C4
The distribution of migratory fish species has to comply with the Favourable Reference Range (FRR) in the |
D3C2
The aim of the MSFD is to restore and conserve the populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The CFP constitutes the statutory framework for the fisheries sector and the Netherlands is therefore guided by it to achieve the MSFD objectives. To achieve GES, the fish mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) of all commercially exploited fish species must both comply with the international requirements.
The data for the mortality rate from fishing and spawning stock biomass are derived from monitoring carried out for the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT Fisheries) programme and the Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The DCF in its current form has been in operation since 2008. Every member state draws up a national programme enumerating the elements and parameters to be measured for the DCF. The Dutch Centre for Fisheries Research (CFR) conducts the biological research for the DCF as part of the WOT. The tasks performed by the CFR are incorporated in a continuous programme that encompasses a variety of studies into herring, blue whiting and mackerel, but also research into the impact of bottom trawling on demersal fish. The research provides an insight into the number of fish, fish larvae or fish eggs of a specific species in a particular year. The spatial coverage, density and measurement frequency are different for each survey. For example, the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) covers almost the entire North Sea every year by fishing each ICES area (roughly 56x56 km) twice with different ships with a bottom trawl.
The spawning stock biomass, expressed in tonnes per species, is derived partly from data generated by independent monitoring and partly from data supplied by fisheries. These data concern: 1) the age distribution of the fish that are caught, 2) the numbers by age, 3) the average weight per age and sex, and 4) information about the sex ratio and sexual maturity.
The monitoring surveys are adequate and have not changed compared with the previous monitoring programme (2014). The monitoring programme coordinated and prescribed by ICES guarantees the collection of the basic data required for the assessment of commercially caught fish species. This internationally coordinated monitoring and the annual recommendations made by ICES give an indication of the extent to which GES has been achieved.
D1C4
The distribution of migratory fish species has to comply with the Favourable Reference Range (FRR) in the |
D3C2
The aim of the MSFD is to restore and conserve the populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The CFP constitutes the statutory framework for the fisheries sector and the Netherlands is therefore guided by it to achieve the MSFD objectives. To achieve GES, the fish mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) of all commercially exploited fish species must both comply with the international requirements.
The data for the mortality rate from fishing and spawning stock biomass are derived from monitoring carried out for the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT Fisheries) programme and the Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The DCF in its current form has been in operation since 2008. Every member state draws up a national programme enumerating the elements and parameters to be measured for the DCF. The Dutch Centre for Fisheries Research (CFR) conducts the biological research for the DCF as part of the WOT. The tasks performed by the CFR are incorporated in a continuous programme that encompasses a variety of studies into herring, blue whiting and mackerel, but also research into the impact of bottom trawling on demersal fish. The research provides an insight into the number of fish, fish larvae or fish eggs of a specific species in a particular year. The spatial coverage, density and measurement frequency are different for each survey. For example, the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) covers almost the entire North Sea every year by fishing each ICES area (roughly 56x56 km) twice with different ships with a bottom trawl.
The spawning stock biomass, expressed in tonnes per species, is derived partly from data generated by independent monitoring and partly from data supplied by fisheries. These data concern: 1) the age distribution of the fish that are caught, 2) the numbers by age, 3) the average weight per age and sex, and 4) information about the sex ratio and sexual maturity.
The monitoring surveys are adequate and have not changed compared with the previous monitoring programme (2014). The monitoring programme coordinated and prescribed by ICES guarantees the collection of the basic data required for the assessment of commercially caught fish species. This internationally coordinated monitoring and the annual recommendations made by ICES give an indication of the extent to which GES has been achieved.
D1C4
The distribution of migratory fish species has to comply with the Favourable Reference Range (FRR) in the |
D3C2
The aim of the MSFD is to restore and conserve the populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The CFP constitutes the statutory framework for the fisheries sector and the Netherlands is therefore guided by it to achieve the MSFD objectives. To achieve GES, the fish mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) of all commercially exploited fish species must both comply with the international requirements.
The data for the mortality rate from fishing and spawning stock biomass are derived from monitoring carried out for the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT Fisheries) programme and the Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The DCF in its current form has been in operation since 2008. Every member state draws up a national programme enumerating the elements and parameters to be measured for the DCF. The Dutch Centre for Fisheries Research (CFR) conducts the biological research for the DCF as part of the WOT. The tasks performed by the CFR are incorporated in a continuous programme that encompasses a variety of studies into herring, blue whiting and mackerel, but also research into the impact of bottom trawling on demersal fish. The research provides an insight into the number of fish, fish larvae or fish eggs of a specific species in a particular year. The spatial coverage, density and measurement frequency are different for each survey. For example, the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) covers almost the entire North Sea every year by fishing each ICES area (roughly 56x56 km) twice with different ships with a bottom trawl.
The spawning stock biomass, expressed in tonnes per species, is derived partly from data generated by independent monitoring and partly from data supplied by fisheries. These data concern: 1) the age distribution of the fish that are caught, 2) the numbers by age, 3) the average weight per age and sex, and 4) information about the sex ratio and sexual maturity.
The monitoring surveys are adequate and have not changed compared with the previous monitoring programme (2014). The monitoring programme coordinated and prescribed by ICES guarantees the collection of the basic data required for the assessment of commercially caught fish species. This internationally coordinated monitoring and the annual recommendations made by ICES give an indication of the extent to which GES has been achieved.
D1C4
The distribution of migratory fish species has to comply with the Favourable Reference Range (FRR) in the |
D3C2
The aim of the MSFD is to restore and conserve the populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The CFP constitutes the statutory framework for the fisheries sector and the Netherlands is therefore guided by it to achieve the MSFD objectives. To achieve GES, the fish mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) of all commercially exploited fish species must both comply with the international requirements.
The data for the mortality rate from fishing and spawning stock biomass are derived from monitoring carried out for the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT Fisheries) programme and the Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The DCF in its current form has been in operation since 2008. Every member state draws up a national programme enumerating the elements and parameters to be measured for the DCF. The Dutch Centre for Fisheries Research (CFR) conducts the biological research for the DCF as part of the WOT. The tasks performed by the CFR are incorporated in a continuous programme that encompasses a variety of studies into herring, blue whiting and mackerel, but also research into the impact of bottom trawling on demersal fish. The research provides an insight into the number of fish, fish larvae or fish eggs of a specific species in a particular year. The spatial coverage, density and measurement frequency are different for each survey. For example, the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) covers almost the entire North Sea every year by fishing each ICES area (roughly 56x56 km) twice with different ships with a bottom trawl.
The spawning stock biomass, expressed in tonnes per species, is derived partly from data generated by independent monitoring and partly from data supplied by fisheries. These data concern: 1) the age distribution of the fish that are caught, 2) the numbers by age, 3) the average weight per age and sex, and 4) information about the sex ratio and sexual maturity.
The monitoring surveys are adequate and have not changed compared with the previous monitoring programme (2014). The monitoring programme coordinated and prescribed by ICES guarantees the collection of the basic data required for the assessment of commercially caught fish species. This internationally coordinated monitoring and the annual recommendations made by ICES give an indication of the extent to which GES has been achieved.
D1C4
The distribution of migratory fish species has to comply with the Favourable Reference Range (FRR) in the |
D3C2
The aim of the MSFD is to restore and conserve the populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The CFP constitutes the statutory framework for the fisheries sector and the Netherlands is therefore guided by it to achieve the MSFD objectives. To achieve GES, the fish mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) of all commercially exploited fish species must both comply with the international requirements.
The data for the mortality rate from fishing and spawning stock biomass are derived from monitoring carried out for the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT Fisheries) programme and the Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The DCF in its current form has been in operation since 2008. Every member state draws up a national programme enumerating the elements and parameters to be measured for the DCF. The Dutch Centre for Fisheries Research (CFR) conducts the biological research for the DCF as part of the WOT. The tasks performed by the CFR are incorporated in a continuous programme that encompasses a variety of studies into herring, blue whiting and mackerel, but also research into the impact of bottom trawling on demersal fish. The research provides an insight into the number of fish, fish larvae or fish eggs of a specific species in a particular year. The spatial coverage, density and measurement frequency are different for each survey. For example, the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) covers almost the entire North Sea every year by fishing each ICES area (roughly 56x56 km) twice with different ships with a bottom trawl.
The spawning stock biomass, expressed in tonnes per species, is derived partly from data generated by independent monitoring and partly from data supplied by fisheries. These data concern: 1) the age distribution of the fish that are caught, 2) the numbers by age, 3) the average weight per age and sex, and 4) information about the sex ratio and sexual maturity.
The monitoring surveys are adequate and have not changed compared with the previous monitoring programme (2014). The monitoring programme coordinated and prescribed by ICES guarantees the collection of the basic data required for the assessment of commercially caught fish species. This internationally coordinated monitoring and the annual recommendations made by ICES give an indication of the extent to which GES has been achieved.
D1C4
The distribution of migratory fish species has to comply with the Favourable Reference Range (FRR) in the |
D3C2
The aim of the MSFD is to restore and conserve the populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The CFP constitutes the statutory framework for the fisheries sector and the Netherlands is therefore guided by it to achieve the MSFD objectives. To achieve GES, the fish mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) of all commercially exploited fish species must both comply with the international requirements.
The data for the mortality rate from fishing and spawning stock biomass are derived from monitoring carried out for the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT Fisheries) programme and the Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The DCF in its current form has been in operation since 2008. Every member state draws up a national programme enumerating the elements and parameters to be measured for the DCF. The Dutch Centre for Fisheries Research (CFR) conducts the biological research for the DCF as part of the WOT. The tasks performed by the CFR are incorporated in a continuous programme that encompasses a variety of studies into herring, blue whiting and mackerel, but also research into the impact of bottom trawling on demersal fish. The research provides an insight into the number of fish, fish larvae or fish eggs of a specific species in a particular year. The spatial coverage, density and measurement frequency are different for each survey. For example, the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) covers almost the entire North Sea every year by fishing each ICES area (roughly 56x56 km) twice with different ships with a bottom trawl.
The spawning stock biomass, expressed in tonnes per species, is derived partly from data generated by independent monitoring and partly from data supplied by fisheries. These data concern: 1) the age distribution of the fish that are caught, 2) the numbers by age, 3) the average weight per age and sex, and 4) information about the sex ratio and sexual maturity.
The monitoring surveys are adequate and have not changed compared with the previous monitoring programme (2014). The monitoring programme coordinated and prescribed by ICES guarantees the collection of the basic data required for the assessment of commercially caught fish species. This internationally coordinated monitoring and the annual recommendations made by ICES give an indication of the extent to which GES has been achieved.
D1C4
The distribution of migratory fish species has to comply with the Favourable Reference Range (FRR) in the |
D3C2
The aim of the MSFD is to restore and conserve the populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The CFP constitutes the statutory framework for the fisheries sector and the Netherlands is therefore guided by it to achieve the MSFD objectives. To achieve GES, the fish mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) of all commercially exploited fish species must both comply with the international requirements.
The data for the mortality rate from fishing and spawning stock biomass are derived from monitoring carried out for the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT Fisheries) programme and the Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The DCF in its current form has been in operation since 2008. Every member state draws up a national programme enumerating the elements and parameters to be measured for the DCF. The Dutch Centre for Fisheries Research (CFR) conducts the biological research for the DCF as part of the WOT. The tasks performed by the CFR are incorporated in a continuous programme that encompasses a variety of studies into herring, blue whiting and mackerel, but also research into the impact of bottom trawling on demersal fish. The research provides an insight into the number of fish, fish larvae or fish eggs of a specific species in a particular year. The spatial coverage, density and measurement frequency are different for each survey. For example, the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) covers almost the entire North Sea every year by fishing each ICES area (roughly 56x56 km) twice with different ships with a bottom trawl.
The spawning stock biomass, expressed in tonnes per species, is derived partly from data generated by independent monitoring and partly from data supplied by fisheries. These data concern: 1) the age distribution of the fish that are caught, 2) the numbers by age, 3) the average weight per age and sex, and 4) information about the sex ratio and sexual maturity.
The monitoring surveys are adequate and have not changed compared with the previous monitoring programme (2014). The monitoring programme coordinated and prescribed by ICES guarantees the collection of the basic data required for the assessment of commercially caught fish species. This internationally coordinated monitoring and the annual recommendations made by ICES give an indication of the extent to which GES has been achieved.
D1C4
The distribution of migratory fish species has to comply with the Favourable Reference Range (FRR) in the |
D3C2
The aim of the MSFD is to restore and conserve the populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The CFP constitutes the statutory framework for the fisheries sector and the Netherlands is therefore guided by it to achieve the MSFD objectives. To achieve GES, the fish mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) of all commercially exploited fish species must both comply with the international requirements.
The data for the mortality rate from fishing and spawning stock biomass are derived from monitoring carried out for the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT Fisheries) programme and the Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The DCF in its current form has been in operation since 2008. Every member state draws up a national programme enumerating the elements and parameters to be measured for the DCF. The Dutch Centre for Fisheries Research (CFR) conducts the biological research for the DCF as part of the WOT. The tasks performed by the CFR are incorporated in a continuous programme that encompasses a variety of studies into herring, blue whiting and mackerel, but also research into the impact of bottom trawling on demersal fish. The research provides an insight into the number of fish, fish larvae or fish eggs of a specific species in a particular year. The spatial coverage, density and measurement frequency are different for each survey. For example, the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) covers almost the entire North Sea every year by fishing each ICES area (roughly 56x56 km) twice with different ships with a bottom trawl.
The spawning stock biomass, expressed in tonnes per species, is derived partly from data generated by independent monitoring and partly from data supplied by fisheries. These data concern: 1) the age distribution of the fish that are caught, 2) the numbers by age, 3) the average weight per age and sex, and 4) information about the sex ratio and sexual maturity.
The monitoring surveys are adequate and have not changed compared with the previous monitoring programme (2014). The monitoring programme coordinated and prescribed by ICES guarantees the collection of the basic data required for the assessment of commercially caught fish species. This internationally coordinated monitoring and the annual recommendations made by ICES give an indication of the extent to which GES has been achieved.
D1C4
The distribution of migratory fish species has to comply with the Favourable Reference Range (FRR) in the |
D3C2
The aim of the MSFD is to restore and conserve the populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The CFP constitutes the statutory framework for the fisheries sector and the Netherlands is therefore guided by it to achieve the MSFD objectives. To achieve GES, the fish mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) of all commercially exploited fish species must both comply with the international requirements.
The data for the mortality rate from fishing and spawning stock biomass are derived from monitoring carried out for the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT Fisheries) programme and the Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The DCF in its current form has been in operation since 2008. Every member state draws up a national programme enumerating the elements and parameters to be measured for the DCF. The Dutch Centre for Fisheries Research (CFR) conducts the biological research for the DCF as part of the WOT. The tasks performed by the CFR are incorporated in a continuous programme that encompasses a variety of studies into herring, blue whiting and mackerel, but also research into the impact of bottom trawling on demersal fish. The research provides an insight into the number of fish, fish larvae or fish eggs of a specific species in a particular year. The spatial coverage, density and measurement frequency are different for each survey. For example, the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) covers almost the entire North Sea every year by fishing each ICES area (roughly 56x56 km) twice with different ships with a bottom trawl.
The spawning stock biomass, expressed in tonnes per species, is derived partly from data generated by independent monitoring and partly from data supplied by fisheries. These data concern: 1) the age distribution of the fish that are caught, 2) the numbers by age, 3) the average weight per age and sex, and 4) information about the sex ratio and sexual maturity.
The monitoring surveys are adequate and have not changed compared with the previous monitoring programme (2014). The monitoring programme coordinated and prescribed by ICES guarantees the collection of the basic data required for the assessment of commercially caught fish species. This internationally coordinated monitoring and the annual recommendations made by ICES give an indication of the extent to which GES has been achieved.
D1C4
The distribution of migratory fish species has to comply with the Favourable Reference Range (FRR) in the |
D3C2
The aim of the MSFD is to restore and conserve the populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The CFP constitutes the statutory framework for the fisheries sector and the Netherlands is therefore guided by it to achieve the MSFD objectives. To achieve GES, the fish mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) of all commercially exploited fish species must both comply with the international requirements.
The data for the mortality rate from fishing and spawning stock biomass are derived from monitoring carried out for the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT Fisheries) programme and the Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The DCF in its current form has been in operation since 2008. Every member state draws up a national programme enumerating the elements and parameters to be measured for the DCF. The Dutch Centre for Fisheries Research (CFR) conducts the biological research for the DCF as part of the WOT. The tasks performed by the CFR are incorporated in a continuous programme that encompasses a variety of studies into herring, blue whiting and mackerel, but also research into the impact of bottom trawling on demersal fish. The research provides an insight into the number of fish, fish larvae or fish eggs of a specific species in a particular year. The spatial coverage, density and measurement frequency are different for each survey. For example, the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) covers almost the entire North Sea every year by fishing each ICES area (roughly 56x56 km) twice with different ships with a bottom trawl.
The spawning stock biomass, expressed in tonnes per species, is derived partly from data generated by independent monitoring and partly from data supplied by fisheries. These data concern: 1) the age distribution of the fish that are caught, 2) the numbers by age, 3) the average weight per age and sex, and 4) information about the sex ratio and sexual maturity.
The monitoring surveys are adequate and have not changed compared with the previous monitoring programme (2014). The monitoring programme coordinated and prescribed by ICES guarantees the collection of the basic data required for the assessment of commercially caught fish species. This internationally coordinated monitoring and the annual recommendations made by ICES give an indication of the extent to which GES has been achieved.
D1C4
The distribution of migratory fish species has to comply with the Favourable Reference Range (FRR) in the |
D3C2
The aim of the MSFD is to restore and conserve the populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish. The CFP constitutes the statutory framework for the fisheries sector and the Netherlands is therefore guided by it to achieve the MSFD objectives. To achieve GES, the fish mortality rate (D3C1) and the spawning stock biomass (D3C2) of all commercially exploited fish species must both comply with the international requirements.
The data for the mortality rate from fishing and spawning stock biomass are derived from monitoring carried out for the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT Fisheries) programme and the Data Collection Framework (DCF).
The DCF in its current form has been in operation since 2008. Every member state draws up a national programme enumerating the elements and parameters to be measured for the DCF. The Dutch Centre for Fisheries Research (CFR) conducts the biological research for the DCF as part of the WOT. The tasks performed by the CFR are incorporated in a continuous programme that encompasses a variety of studies into herring, blue whiting and mackerel, but also research into the impact of bottom trawling on demersal fish. The research provides an insight into the number of fish, fish larvae or fish eggs of a specific species in a particular year. The spatial coverage, density and measurement frequency are different for each survey. For example, the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) covers almost the entire North Sea every year by fishing each ICES area (roughly 56x56 km) twice with different ships with a bottom trawl.
The spawning stock biomass, expressed in tonnes per species, is derived partly from data generated by independent monitoring and partly from data supplied by fisheries. These data concern: 1) the age distribution of the fish that are caught, 2) the numbers by age, 3) the average weight per age and sex, and 4) information about the sex ratio and sexual maturity.
The monitoring surveys are adequate and have not changed compared with the previous monitoring programme (2014). The monitoring programme coordinated and prescribed by ICES guarantees the collection of the basic data required for the assessment of commercially caught fish species. This internationally coordinated monitoring and the annual recommendations made by ICES give an indication of the extent to which GES has been achieved.
D1C4
The distribution of migratory fish species has to comply with the Favourable Reference Range (FRR) in the |
D1C3:
To determine the ‘demographic characteristics´ (D1C3) of the fish population, the distribution by size of the fish community is assessed using OSPAR’s Large Fish Indicator (LFI). The necessary data are collected for the assessment of fish stocks in accordance with the CFP.
Most of the data for the OSPAR Large Fish Indicator (LFI) are derived from the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS). This survey falls under the monitoring for the Common Fisheries Policy and has been operational since the end of the 1960s. For the MSFD reporting, data since 1983 are used because the monitoring survey is guaranteed to have the necessary consistency from that year. One way that consistency is ensured is through the use of the standard bottom trawl, the Grand Ouverture Verticale (GOV), which involves multiple trawls according to the principles of ‘stratified random sampling’ in the relevant ICES blocks, in principle by different member states. Every year the trawls are aggregated to calculate the indices (ICES, 2012). The IBTS monitoring survey registers at least the species and size of every fish that is caught.
The Dutch contribution to the IBTS falls under the Statutory Research Task (WOT) for Fisheries and the Data Collection Framework (DCF). This monitoring is conducted annually, in cooperation/coordination? with other countries, at the Greater North Sea level. ICES coordinates the monitoring and is responsible for the necessary quality assurance and quality control. An additional quality assurance and quality control process has been incorporated for calculations for this indicator (Moriarty, 2017, Greenstreet, 2017).
There are no changes in the monitoring compared with the MSFD monitoring programme in 2014.
D4C3:
The size structure in trophic guilds is measured in relation to the fish community and is expressed in terms of ‘typical length’.
The size structure of fish is monitored with the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) as part of the monitoring for the CFP. This monitoring survey has been operational since the end of the 1960s, however, only data that have been collected since 1983 are used for MSFD reporting, since the necessary consistency in the monitoring can only be guaranteed from that year. The survey employs the stratified random sampling method, with multiple trawls in each relevant ICES area, in principle carried out by different member states. At least the species and size of each fish caught is registered. The Netherlands contrib |
D1C3:
To determine the ‘demographic characteristics´ (D1C3) of the fish population, the distribution by size of the fish community is assessed using OSPAR’s Large Fish Indicator (LFI). The necessary data are collected for the assessment of fish stocks in accordance with the CFP.
Most of the data for the OSPAR Large Fish Indicator (LFI) are derived from the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS). This survey falls under the monitoring for the Common Fisheries Policy and has been operational since the end of the 1960s. For the MSFD reporting, data since 1983 are used because the monitoring survey is guaranteed to have the necessary consistency from that year. One way that consistency is ensured is through the use of the standard bottom trawl, the Grand Ouverture Verticale (GOV), which involves multiple trawls according to the principles of ‘stratified random sampling’ in the relevant ICES blocks, in principle by different member states. Every year the trawls are aggregated to calculate the indices (ICES, 2012). The IBTS monitoring survey registers at least the species and size of every fish that is caught.
The Dutch contribution to the IBTS falls under the Statutory Research Task (WOT) for Fisheries and the Data Collection Framework (DCF). This monitoring is conducted annually, in cooperation/coordination? with other countries, at the Greater North Sea level. ICES coordinates the monitoring and is responsible for the necessary quality assurance and quality control. An additional quality assurance and quality control process has been incorporated for calculations for this indicator (Moriarty, 2017, Greenstreet, 2017).
There are no changes in the monitoring compared with the MSFD monitoring programme in 2014.
D4C3:
The size structure in trophic guilds is measured in relation to the fish community and is expressed in terms of ‘typical length’.
The size structure of fish is monitored with the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) as part of the monitoring for the CFP. This monitoring survey has been operational since the end of the 1960s, however, only data that have been collected since 1983 are used for MSFD reporting, since the necessary consistency in the monitoring can only be guaranteed from that year. The survey employs the stratified random sampling method, with multiple trawls in each relevant ICES area, in principle carried out by different member states. At least the species and size of each fish caught is registered. The Netherlands contrib |
D1C3:
To determine the ‘demographic characteristics´ (D1C3) of the fish population, the distribution by size of the fish community is assessed using OSPAR’s Large Fish Indicator (LFI). The necessary data are collected for the assessment of fish stocks in accordance with the CFP.
Most of the data for the OSPAR Large Fish Indicator (LFI) are derived from the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS). This survey falls under the monitoring for the Common Fisheries Policy and has been operational since the end of the 1960s. For the MSFD reporting, data since 1983 are used because the monitoring survey is guaranteed to have the necessary consistency from that year. One way that consistency is ensured is through the use of the standard bottom trawl, the Grand Ouverture Verticale (GOV), which involves multiple trawls according to the principles of ‘stratified random sampling’ in the relevant ICES blocks, in principle by different member states. Every year the trawls are aggregated to calculate the indices (ICES, 2012). The IBTS monitoring survey registers at least the species and size of every fish that is caught.
The Dutch contribution to the IBTS falls under the Statutory Research Task (WOT) for Fisheries and the Data Collection Framework (DCF). This monitoring is conducted annually, in cooperation/coordination? with other countries, at the Greater North Sea level. ICES coordinates the monitoring and is responsible for the necessary quality assurance and quality control. An additional quality assurance and quality control process has been incorporated for calculations for this indicator (Moriarty, 2017, Greenstreet, 2017).
There are no changes in the monitoring compared with the MSFD monitoring programme in 2014.
D4C3:
The size structure in trophic guilds is measured in relation to the fish community and is expressed in terms of ‘typical length’.
The size structure of fish is monitored with the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) as part of the monitoring for the CFP. This monitoring survey has been operational since the end of the 1960s, however, only data that have been collected since 1983 are used for MSFD reporting, since the necessary consistency in the monitoring can only be guaranteed from that year. The survey employs the stratified random sampling method, with multiple trawls in each relevant ICES area, in principle carried out by different member states. At least the species and size of each fish caught is registered. The Netherlands contrib |
D1C3:
To determine the ‘demographic characteristics´ (D1C3) of the fish population, the distribution by size of the fish community is assessed using OSPAR’s Large Fish Indicator (LFI). The necessary data are collected for the assessment of fish stocks in accordance with the CFP.
Most of the data for the OSPAR Large Fish Indicator (LFI) are derived from the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS). This survey falls under the monitoring for the Common Fisheries Policy and has been operational since the end of the 1960s. For the MSFD reporting, data since 1983 are used because the monitoring survey is guaranteed to have the necessary consistency from that year. One way that consistency is ensured is through the use of the standard bottom trawl, the Grand Ouverture Verticale (GOV), which involves multiple trawls according to the principles of ‘stratified random sampling’ in the relevant ICES blocks, in principle by different member states. Every year the trawls are aggregated to calculate the indices (ICES, 2012). The IBTS monitoring survey registers at least the species and size of every fish that is caught.
The Dutch contribution to the IBTS falls under the Statutory Research Task (WOT) for Fisheries and the Data Collection Framework (DCF). This monitoring is conducted annually, in cooperation/coordination? with other countries, at the Greater North Sea level. ICES coordinates the monitoring and is responsible for the necessary quality assurance and quality control. An additional quality assurance and quality control process has been incorporated for calculations for this indicator (Moriarty, 2017, Greenstreet, 2017).
There are no changes in the monitoring compared with the MSFD monitoring programme in 2014.
D4C3:
The size structure in trophic guilds is measured in relation to the fish community and is expressed in terms of ‘typical length’.
The size structure of fish is monitored with the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) as part of the monitoring for the CFP. This monitoring survey has been operational since the end of the 1960s, however, only data that have been collected since 1983 are used for MSFD reporting, since the necessary consistency in the monitoring can only be guaranteed from that year. The survey employs the stratified random sampling method, with multiple trawls in each relevant ICES area, in principle carried out by different member states. At least the species and size of each fish caught is registered. The Netherlands contrib |
D1C3:
To determine the ‘demographic characteristics´ (D1C3) of the fish population, the distribution by size of the fish community is assessed using OSPAR’s Large Fish Indicator (LFI). The necessary data are collected for the assessment of fish stocks in accordance with the CFP.
Most of the data for the OSPAR Large Fish Indicator (LFI) are derived from the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS). This survey falls under the monitoring for the Common Fisheries Policy and has been operational since the end of the 1960s. For the MSFD reporting, data since 1983 are used because the monitoring survey is guaranteed to have the necessary consistency from that year. One way that consistency is ensured is through the use of the standard bottom trawl, the Grand Ouverture Verticale (GOV), which involves multiple trawls according to the principles of ‘stratified random sampling’ in the relevant ICES blocks, in principle by different member states. Every year the trawls are aggregated to calculate the indices (ICES, 2012). The IBTS monitoring survey registers at least the species and size of every fish that is caught.
The Dutch contribution to the IBTS falls under the Statutory Research Task (WOT) for Fisheries and the Data Collection Framework (DCF). This monitoring is conducted annually, in cooperation/coordination? with other countries, at the Greater North Sea level. ICES coordinates the monitoring and is responsible for the necessary quality assurance and quality control. An additional quality assurance and quality control process has been incorporated for calculations for this indicator (Moriarty, 2017, Greenstreet, 2017).
There are no changes in the monitoring compared with the MSFD monitoring programme in 2014.
D4C3:
The size structure in trophic guilds is measured in relation to the fish community and is expressed in terms of ‘typical length’.
The size structure of fish is monitored with the International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) as part of the monitoring for the CFP. This monitoring survey has been operational since the end of the 1960s, however, only data that have been collected since 1983 are used for MSFD reporting, since the necessary consistency in the monitoring can only be guaranteed from that year. The survey employs the stratified random sampling method, with multiple trawls in each relevant ICES area, in principle carried out by different member states. At least the species and size of each fish caught is registered. The Netherlands contrib |
Monitoring purpose |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other policies and conventions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional cooperation - coordinating body |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional cooperation - countries involved |
||||||||||||||||||||
Regional cooperation - implementation level |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Joint data collection |
Monitoring details |
||||||||||||||||||||
Features |
Coastal fish
|
Coastal fish
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Coastal fish
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Coastal fish
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish
|
Coastal fish
|
Deep-sea fish
|
Demersal shelf fish
|
Pelagic shelf fish
|
Shelf ecosystems
|
Elements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GES criteria |
D1C2 |
D1C2 |
D1C2 |
D1C2 |
D1C2 |
D1C2 |
D1C2 |
D1C4 |
D1C4 |
D1C4 |
D1C5 |
D1C5 |
D1C5 |
D1C5 |
D3C2 |
D1C3 |
D1C3 |
D1C3 |
D1C3 |
D4C3 |
Parameters |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parameter Other |
Proportion Failing to Spawn (PFS) |
Proportion Failing to Spawn (PFS) |
Proportion Failing to Spawn (PFS) |
Proportion Failing to Spawn (PFS) |
Proportion Failing to Spawn (PFS) |
Habitat condition
Suitability |
Habitat condition
Suitability |
Habitat condition
Suitability |
Habitat condition
Suitability |
|||||||||||
Spatial scope |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marine reporting units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Temporal scope (start date - end date) |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1960-9999 |
1983-9999 |
1983-9999 |
1983-9999 |
1983-9999 |
1983-9999 |
Monitoring frequency |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Yearly |
Monitoring type |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitoring method |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitoring method other |
Spawning Stock Biomass has been fully incorporated into the existing monitoring programmes relating to the Statutory Research Tasks for Fisheries (WOT) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF, coordinated by ICES).
Information from, among others, the following monitoring programmes is used: Sole Net Survey (SNS) [A], Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) [B], International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) [C], International Herring Larvae Surveys (IHLS)[D], Mackerel and horse mackerel eggs [E], Beam trawl Survey (BTS)[B]. |
Spawning Stock Biomass has been fully incorporated into the existing monitoring programmes relating to the Statutory Research Tasks for Fisheries (WOT) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF, coordinated by ICES).
Information from, among others, the following monitoring programmes is used: Sole Net Survey (SNS) [A], Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) [B], International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) [C], International Herring Larvae Surveys (IHLS)[D], Mackerel and horse mackerel eggs [E], Beam trawl Survey (BTS)[B]. |
Spawning Stock Biomass has been fully incorporated into the existing monitoring programmes relating to the Statutory Research Tasks for Fisheries (WOT) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF, coordinated by ICES).
Information from, among others, the following monitoring programmes is used: Sole Net Survey (SNS) [A], Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) [B], International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) [C], International Herring Larvae Surveys (IHLS)[D], Mackerel and horse mackerel eggs [E], Beam trawl Survey (BTS)[B]. |
Spawning Stock Biomass has been fully incorporated into the existing monitoring programmes relating to the Statutory Research Tasks for Fisheries (WOT) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF, coordinated by ICES).
Information from, among others, the following monitoring programmes is used: Sole Net Survey (SNS) [A], Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) [B], International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) [C], International Herring Larvae Surveys (IHLS)[D], Mackerel and horse mackerel eggs [E], Beam trawl Survey (BTS)[B]. |
Spawning Stock Biomass has been fully incorporated into the existing monitoring programmes relating to the Statutory Research Tasks for Fisheries (WOT) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF, coordinated by ICES).
Information from, among others, the following monitoring programmes is used: Sole Net Survey (SNS) [A], Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) [B], International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) [C], International Herring Larvae Surveys (IHLS)[D], Mackerel and horse mackerel eggs [E], Beam trawl Survey (BTS)[B]. |
Spawning Stock Biomass has been fully incorporated into the existing monitoring programmes relating to the Statutory Research Tasks for Fisheries (WOT) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF, coordinated by ICES).
Information from, among others, the following monitoring programmes is used: Sole Net Survey (SNS) [A], Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) [B], International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) [C], International Herring Larvae Surveys (IHLS)[D], Mackerel and horse mackerel eggs [E], Beam trawl Survey (BTS)[B]. |
Spawning Stock Biomass has been fully incorporated into the existing monitoring programmes relating to the Statutory Research Tasks for Fisheries (WOT) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF, coordinated by ICES).
Information from, among others, the following monitoring programmes is used: Sole Net Survey (SNS) [A], Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) [B], International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) [C], International Herring Larvae Surveys (IHLS)[D], Mackerel and horse mackerel eggs [E], Beam trawl Survey (BTS)[B]. |
Spawning Stock Biomass has been fully incorporated into the existing monitoring programmes relating to the Statutory Research Tasks for Fisheries (WOT) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF, coordinated by ICES).
Information from, among others, the following monitoring programmes is used: Sole Net Survey (SNS) [A], Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) [B], International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) [C], International Herring Larvae Surveys (IHLS)[D], Mackerel and horse mackerel eggs [E], Beam trawl Survey (BTS)[B]. |
Spawning Stock Biomass has been fully incorporated into the existing monitoring programmes relating to the Statutory Research Tasks for Fisheries (WOT) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF, coordinated by ICES).
Information from, among others, the following monitoring programmes is used: Sole Net Survey (SNS) [A], Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) [B], International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) [C], International Herring Larvae Surveys (IHLS)[D], Mackerel and horse mackerel eggs [E], Beam trawl Survey (BTS)[B]. |
Spawning Stock Biomass has been fully incorporated into the existing monitoring programmes relating to the Statutory Research Tasks for Fisheries (WOT) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF, coordinated by ICES).
Information from, among others, the following monitoring programmes is used: Sole Net Survey (SNS) [A], Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) [B], International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) [C], International Herring Larvae Surveys (IHLS)[D], Mackerel and horse mackerel eggs [E], Beam trawl Survey (BTS)[B]. |
Spawning Stock Biomass has been fully incorporated into the existing monitoring programmes relating to the Statutory Research Tasks for Fisheries (WOT) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF, coordinated by ICES).
Information from, among others, the following monitoring programmes is used: Sole Net Survey (SNS) [A], Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) [B], International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) [C], International Herring Larvae Surveys (IHLS)[D], Mackerel and horse mackerel eggs [E], Beam trawl Survey (BTS)[B]. |
Spawning Stock Biomass has been fully incorporated into the existing monitoring programmes relating to the Statutory Research Tasks for Fisheries (WOT) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF, coordinated by ICES).
Information from, among others, the following monitoring programmes is used: Sole Net Survey (SNS) [A], Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) [B], International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) [C], International Herring Larvae Surveys (IHLS)[D], Mackerel and horse mackerel eggs [E], Beam trawl Survey (BTS)[B]. |
Spawning Stock Biomass has been fully incorporated into the existing monitoring programmes relating to the Statutory Research Tasks for Fisheries (WOT) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF, coordinated by ICES).
Information from, among others, the following monitoring programmes is used: Sole Net Survey (SNS) [A], Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) [B], International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) [C], International Herring Larvae Surveys (IHLS)[D], Mackerel and horse mackerel eggs [E], Beam trawl Survey (BTS)[B]. |
Spawning Stock Biomass has been fully incorporated into the existing monitoring programmes relating to the Statutory Research Tasks for Fisheries (WOT) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF, coordinated by ICES).
Information from, among others, the following monitoring programmes is used: Sole Net Survey (SNS) [A], Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) [B], International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) [C], International Herring Larvae Surveys (IHLS)[D], Mackerel and horse mackerel eggs [E], Beam trawl Survey (BTS)[B]. |
Spawning Stock Biomass has been fully incorporated into the existing monitoring programmes relating to the Statutory Research Tasks for Fisheries (WOT) and the Data Collection Framework (DCF, coordinated by ICES).
Information from, among others, the following monitoring programmes is used: Sole Net Survey (SNS) [A], Demersal Young Fish Survey (DYFS) [B], International Bottom Trawl Survey (IBTS) [C], International Herring Larvae Surveys (IHLS)[D], Mackerel and horse mackerel eggs [E], Beam trawl Survey (BTS)[B]. |
Size distribution is not a standard parameter yet, however, the required data for the assessment is available through the regular surveys that are done for the DCF. Additional analyses of the data are necessary. The required data can be derived from the current database and based on this information the size distribution can be determined. |
Size distribution is not a standard parameter yet, however, the required data for the assessment is available through the regular surveys that are done for the DCF. Additional analyses of the data are necessary. The required data can be derived from the current database and based on this information the size distribution can be determined. |
Size distribution is not a standard parameter yet, however, the required data for the assessment is available through the regular surveys that are done for the DCF. Additional analyses of the data are necessary. The required data can be derived from the current database and based on this information the size distribution can be determined. |
Size distribution is not a standard parameter yet, however, the required data for the assessment is available through the regular surveys that are done for the DCF. Additional analyses of the data are necessary. The required data can be derived from the current database and based on this information the size distribution can be determined. |
Size distribution is not a standard parameter yet, however, the required data for the assessment is available through the regular surveys that are done for the DCF. Additional analyses of the data are necessary. The required data can be derived from the current database and based on this information the size distribution can be determined. |
Quality control |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. The data collected at national level undergoes quality control at ICES. |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. The data collected at national level undergoes quality control at ICES. |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. The data collected at national level undergoes quality control at ICES. |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. The data collected at national level undergoes quality control at ICES. |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. The data collected at national level undergoes quality control at ICES. |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. The data collected at national level undergoes quality control at ICES. |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. The data collected at national level undergoes quality control at ICES. |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. The data collected at national level undergoes quality control at ICES. |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. The data collected at national level undergoes quality control at ICES. |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. The data collected at national level undergoes quality control at ICES. |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. The data collected at national level undergoes quality control at ICES. |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. The data collected at national level undergoes quality control at ICES. |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. The data collected at national level undergoes quality control at ICES. |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. The data collected at national level undergoes quality control at ICES. |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. The data collected at national level undergoes quality control at ICES. |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. . ICES coordinates the monitoring and the quality assurance and quality control. An additional Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedure is incorporated for the calculation of this indicator (D4C3). |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. . ICES coordinates the monitoring and the quality assurance and quality control. An additional Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedure is incorporated for the calculation of this indicator (D4C3). |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. . ICES coordinates the monitoring and the quality assurance and quality control. An additional Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedure is incorporated for the calculation of this indicator (D4C3). |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. . ICES coordinates the monitoring and the quality assurance and quality control. An additional Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedure is incorporated for the calculation of this indicator (D4C3). |
Fish stocks are monitored by experienced researchers in accordance with internationally agreed working methods. . ICES coordinates the monitoring and the quality assurance and quality control. An additional Quality Assurance/Quality Control procedure is incorporated for the calculation of this indicator (D4C3). |
Data management |
www.ICES.dk
|
www.ICES.dk
|
www.ICES.dk
|
www.ICES.dk
|
www.ICES.dk
|
www.ICES.dk
|
www.ICES.dk
|
www.ICES.dk
|
www.ICES.dk
|
www.ICES.dk
|
www.ICES.dk
|
www.ICES.dk
|
www.ICES.dk
|
www.ICES.dk
|
www.ICES.dk
|
|||||
Data access |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
www.ices.dk |
Related indicator/name |
||||||||||||||||||||
Contact |
||||||||||||||||||||
References |
Greenstreet S.P.R. & Moriarty M. (2017) Manual for Version 3 of the Groundfish Survey Monitoring and Assessment Data Product. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 8 No 18.Greenstreet S.P.R. & Moriarty M. (2017) OSPAR Interim Assessment 2017 Fish Indicator Manual (Relating to 587 Version 2 of the Groundfish Survey Monitoring and Assessment Data Product). |
Greenstreet S.P.R. & Moriarty M. (2017) Manual for Version 3 of the Groundfish Survey Monitoring and Assessment Data Product. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 8 No 18.Greenstreet S.P.R. & Moriarty M. (2017) OSPAR Interim Assessment 2017 Fish Indicator Manual (Relating to 587 Version 2 of the Groundfish Survey Monitoring and Assessment Data Product). |
Greenstreet S.P.R. & Moriarty M. (2017) Manual for Version 3 of the Groundfish Survey Monitoring and Assessment Data Product. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 8 No 18.Greenstreet S.P.R. & Moriarty M. (2017) OSPAR Interim Assessment 2017 Fish Indicator Manual (Relating to 587 Version 2 of the Groundfish Survey Monitoring and Assessment Data Product). |
Greenstreet S.P.R. & Moriarty M. (2017) Manual for Version 3 of the Groundfish Survey Monitoring and Assessment Data Product. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 8 No 18.Greenstreet S.P.R. & Moriarty M. (2017) OSPAR Interim Assessment 2017 Fish Indicator Manual (Relating to 587 Version 2 of the Groundfish Survey Monitoring and Assessment Data Product). |
Greenstreet S.P.R. & Moriarty M. (2017) Manual for Version 3 of the Groundfish Survey Monitoring and Assessment Data Product. Scottish Marine and Freshwater Science Vol 8 No 18.Greenstreet S.P.R. & Moriarty M. (2017) OSPAR Interim Assessment 2017 Fish Indicator Manual (Relating to 587 Version 2 of the Groundfish Survey Monitoring and Assessment Data Product). |