MS/Art8-2024/2024/D1-P/Netherlands/NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea

Member State report / Art8-2024 / 2024 / D1-P / Netherlands / NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea

Report type	Member State report to Commission
MSFD Article	Art8
Report due	2024-10-15
GES Descriptor	D1 Pelagic habitats
Member State	Netherlands
Region/subregion	NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea
Report date	2026-04-10 12:40:24

Nederlands Continentaal Plat vanaf de basislijn (0 mijl) (ANS-NL-MS-1)

Simplified table

Regional assessment area	OSPAR-Greater North Sea	OSPAR-Greater North Sea	OSPAR-Greater North Sea	OSPAR-Greater North Sea	OSPAR-Greater North Sea	OSPAR-Greater North Sea	OSPAR-Greater North Sea	OSPAR-Greater North Sea	OSPAR-Greater North Sea	OSPAR-Greater North Sea	OSPAR-Greater North Sea
Component MRUs
GES component	D1P	D1P	D1P	D1P	D1P	D1P	D1P	D1P	D1P	D1P	D1P
Feature	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats	Pelagic broad habitats
Element	Coastal pelagic habitat	Coastal pelagic habitat	Coastal pelagic habitat	Shelf pelagic habitat	Shelf pelagic habitat	Shelf pelagic habitat	Shelf pelagic habitat	Variable salinity pelagic habitat	Variable salinity pelagic habitat	Variable salinity pelagic habitat	Variable salinity pelagic habitat
Element extent
Trend element	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Element 2
Element source	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR
Criterion	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6	D1C6
Parameter	Changes in biomass and abundance	Changes in communities	Plankton diversity	Changes in biomass and abundance	Changes in communities	Changes in communities	Plankton diversity	Changes in biomass and abundance	Changes in communities	Changes in communities	Plankton diversity
Threshold value upper
Threshold value lower
Threshold value operator
Threshold qualitative
Threshold value source	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention	OSPAR Convention
Value achieved upper
Value achieved lower
Value unit
Proportion threshold value
Proportion value achieved
Proportion threshold value unit
Trend parameter	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Parameter achieved	No	Unknown	No	No	No	Not assessed	Unknown	Unknown	Not assessed	Unknown	No
Description parameter	Integration of the indicator results for OSPAR Region II – Greater North Sea. Given the data availability and spatial coverage, and the certainty with which the possible causes of the trends have been identified, the assessment for this indicator was 'not good' for the coastal zone.	Integration of the indicator results for OSPAR Region II – Greater North Sea. The coastal zone has been given the status ‘unknown’. There are clear indications of human-induced changes in functional groups, but there is not enough data and there is insufficient spatial coverage to make a different assessment.	The results are indicative, but the models used demonstrate a correlation between reported trends and human activities (nutrients, climate). Therefore, the habitats in the coastal zone are classified as """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""poor."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" This indicator has candidate status. Therefore, this assessment has not yet been included in the overall assessment.	Integration of the indicator results for OSPAR Region II – Greater North Sea. Given the data availability and spatial coverage, and the certainty with which the possible causes of the trends have been identified, the assessment for this indicator has been ‘not good’ for the continental shelf habitats.	Integration of the indicator results for OSPAR Region II – Greater North Sea. The continental shelf has been assessed as ‘not good’ because clear long-term changes have been identified and these are probably related to (the consequences of) human activities (mainly climate change).		The first analysis with the pilot indicator PH3 shows a variety of changes. Most of the trends reported are not significant, which is strongly related to the short assessment period (2015-2019), noise in the data and the limited data availability. The assessment for the continental shelf is therefore ‘unknown’. This indicator has candidate status. Therefore, this assessment has not yet been included in the overall assessment.	Integration of the indicator results for OSPAR Region II – Greater North Sea. Given the data availability and spatial coverage, and the certainty with which the possible causes of the trends have been identified, the verdict for this indicator was 'unknown' for the habitat variable salinity.	Integration of the indicator results for OSPAR Region II – Greater North Sea. The variable salinity pelagic habitat has been given the status ‘unknown’. There are clear indications of human-induced changes in functional groups, but there is not enough data and there is insufficient spatial coverage to make a different assessment.	Integration of the indicator results for OSPAR Region II – Greater North Sea. The variable salinity pelagic habitat has been given the status ‘unknown’. There are clear indications of human-induced changes in functional groups, but there is not enough data and there is insufficient spatial coverage to make a different assessment.	The first analysis with the pilot indicator PH3 shows a variety of changes. Most of the trends reported are not significant, which is strongly related to the short assessment period (2015-2019), noise in the data and the limited data availability. Because the models used do find a relationship between reported trends and human actions (nutrients, climate), the habitat variable salinity has been classified as 'not good'. This indicator has candidate status. Therefore, this assessment has not yet been included in the overall assessment.
Related indicator	changes-plankton-biomass-abundance-qsr23-ospar	changes-plankton-communities-qsr23-ospar	changes-plankton-diversity-qsr23-ospar	changes-plankton-biomass-abundance-qsr23-ospar	changes-plankton-communities-qsr23-ospar	changes-plankton-communities-qsr23-ospar	changes-plankton-diversity-qsr23-ospar	changes-plankton-biomass-abundance-qsr23-ospar	changes-plankton-communities-qsr23-ospar	changes-plankton-communities-qsr23-ospar	changes-plankton-diversity-qsr23-ospar
Criteria status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Description criteria	The observed increases in meroplankton and fish larvae may (with relatively low certainty) be related to increasing seawater temperatures and increasing salinity, respectively. In this habitat, phytoplankton biomass decreased during 2015-2019, most likely related to an increasing ratio of available nitrogen to phosphorus (N:P ratio). Increased zooplankton abundance in the coastal zone may be related to the shallowing of the water layer above the transition layer. The contrasting trends between phytoplankton and zooplankton suggest that there is no bottom-up control of zooplankton by phytoplankton productivity (although this indicator does not specifically test for this). If phytoplankton biomass continues to decrease, and with it phytoplankton productivity, this may change.	The observed increases in meroplankton and fish larvae may (with relatively low certainty) be related to increasing seawater temperatures and increasing salinity, respectively. In this habitat, phytoplankton biomass decreased during 2015-2019, most likely related to an increasing ratio of available nitrogen to phosphorus (N:P ratio). Increased zooplankton abundance in the coastal zone may be related to the shallowing of the water layer above the transition layer. The contrasting trends between phytoplankton and zooplankton suggest that there is no bottom-up control of zooplankton by phytoplankton productivity (although this indicator does not specifically test for this). If phytoplankton biomass continues to decrease, and with it phytoplankton productivity, this may change.	The observed increases in meroplankton and fish larvae may (with relatively low certainty) be related to increasing seawater temperatures and increasing salinity, respectively. In this habitat, phytoplankton biomass decreased during 2015-2019, most likely related to an increasing ratio of available nitrogen to phosphorus (N:P ratio). Increased zooplankton abundance in the coastal zone may be related to the shallowing of the water layer above the transition layer. The contrasting trends between phytoplankton and zooplankton suggest that there is no bottom-up control of zooplankton by phytoplankton productivity (although this indicator does not specifically test for this). If phytoplankton biomass continues to decrease, and with it phytoplankton productivity, this may change.	Over a longer period, diatoms, meroplankton and fish larvae increased and dinoflagellates, holoplankton and small copepods decreased. The trends for meroplankton and holoplankton coincided with increasing seawater temperatures. A very likely cause of the increase in fish larvae is the abundance of the fish parent populations (probably more eggs were laid), but this indicator does not test for this. As in the coastal zone, the decrease in phytoplankton productivity in the period 2015-2019 seems to be related to an increasing N:P ratio. The decrease in zooplankton abundance is possibly related to the depth of the mixed water layer (above the transition layer). It should also be noted that zooplankton abundance could be driven by the decrease in phytoplankton biomass (but this was also not tested).	Over a longer period, diatoms, meroplankton and fish larvae increased and dinoflagellates, holoplankton and small copepods decreased. The trends for meroplankton and holoplankton coincided with increasing seawater temperatures. A very likely cause of the increase in fish larvae is the abundance of the fish parent populations (probably more eggs were laid), but this indicator does not test for this. As in the coastal zone, the decrease in phytoplankton productivity in the period 2015-2019 seems to be related to an increasing N:P ratio. The decrease in zooplankton abundance is possibly related to the depth of the mixed water layer (above the transition layer). It should also be noted that zooplankton abundance could be driven by the decrease in phytoplankton biomass (but this was also not tested).	Over a longer period, diatoms, meroplankton and fish larvae increased and dinoflagellates, holoplankton and small copepods decreased. The trends for meroplankton and holoplankton coincided with increasing seawater temperatures. A very likely cause of the increase in fish larvae is the abundance of the fish parent populations (probably more eggs were laid), but this indicator does not test for this. As in the coastal zone, the decrease in phytoplankton productivity in the period 2015-2019 seems to be related to an increasing N:P ratio. The decrease in zooplankton abundance is possibly related to the depth of the mixed water layer (above the transition layer). It should also be noted that zooplankton abundance could be driven by the decrease in phytoplankton biomass (but this was also not tested).	Over a longer period, diatoms, meroplankton and fish larvae increased and dinoflagellates, holoplankton and small copepods decreased. The trends for meroplankton and holoplankton coincided with increasing seawater temperatures. A very likely cause of the increase in fish larvae is the abundance of the fish parent populations (probably more eggs were laid), but this indicator does not test for this. As in the coastal zone, the decrease in phytoplankton productivity in the period 2015-2019 seems to be related to an increasing N:P ratio. The decrease in zooplankton abundance is possibly related to the depth of the mixed water layer (above the transition layer). It should also be noted that zooplankton abundance could be driven by the decrease in phytoplankton biomass (but this was also not tested).	In this habitat, an increase in dinoflagellates and fish larvae was observed in the long term, while holoplankton and large and small copepods showed a decrease. Limited data are available, especially for zooplankton, so the significance of this outcome is relatively low. No clear link was found between these trends and human actions. In the habitat, a decrease in phytoplankton biomass can be seen (possibly caused by a decrease in dissolved inorganic phosphate) and a decrease in zooplankton abundance (most likely related to an increase in surface water temperature). The latter is also based on a low geographical coverage of the data, which makes the reliability of the observation relatively low. It is possible, but this has not been tested, that the downward trend in phytoplankton has an impact on the decrease in zooplankton abundance.	In this habitat, an increase in dinoflagellates and fish larvae was observed in the long term, while holoplankton and large and small copepods showed a decrease. Limited data are available, especially for zooplankton, so the significance of this outcome is relatively low. No clear link was found between these trends and human actions. In the habitat, a decrease in phytoplankton biomass can be seen (possibly caused by a decrease in dissolved inorganic phosphate) and a decrease in zooplankton abundance (most likely related to an increase in surface water temperature). The latter is also based on a low geographical coverage of the data, which makes the reliability of the observation relatively low. It is possible, but this has not been tested, that the downward trend in phytoplankton has an impact on the decrease in zooplankton abundance.	In this habitat, an increase in dinoflagellates and fish larvae was observed in the long term, while holoplankton and large and small copepods showed a decrease. Limited data are available, especially for zooplankton, so the significance of this outcome is relatively low. No clear link was found between these trends and human actions. In the habitat, a decrease in phytoplankton biomass can be seen (possibly caused by a decrease in dissolved inorganic phosphate) and a decrease in zooplankton abundance (most likely related to an increase in surface water temperature). The latter is also based on a low geographical coverage of the data, which makes the reliability of the observation relatively low. It is possible, but this has not been tested, that the downward trend in phytoplankton has an impact on the decrease in zooplankton abundance.	In this habitat, an increase in dinoflagellates and fish larvae was observed in the long term, while holoplankton and large and small copepods showed a decrease. Limited data are available, especially for zooplankton, so the significance of this outcome is relatively low. No clear link was found between these trends and human actions. In the habitat, a decrease in phytoplankton biomass can be seen (possibly caused by a decrease in dissolved inorganic phosphate) and a decrease in zooplankton abundance (most likely related to an increase in surface water temperature). The latter is also based on a low geographical coverage of the data, which makes the reliability of the observation relatively low. It is possible, but this has not been tested, that the downward trend in phytoplankton has an impact on the decrease in zooplankton abundance.
Element status	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Not good	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown	Unknown
Description element	Coastal Zone (assessment: not good). Phytoplankton biomass decreased in this habitat between 2015 and 2019, most likely related to an increasing ratio of available nitrogen to phosphorus (N:P ratio). Increases in meroplankton and fish larvae may be related (with relatively low certainty) to rising seawater temperatures and increasing salinity, respectively. Increased zooplankton abundance in the coastal zone may be related to the shallowing of the water layer above the transition layer. The contrasting trends between phytoplankton and zooplankton suggest that there is no bottom-up control of zooplankton by phytoplankton productivity.	Coastal Zone (assessment: not good). Phytoplankton biomass decreased in this habitat between 2015 and 2019, most likely related to an increasing ratio of available nitrogen to phosphorus (N:P ratio). Increases in meroplankton and fish larvae may be related (with relatively low certainty) to rising seawater temperatures and increasing salinity, respectively. Increased zooplankton abundance in the coastal zone may be related to the shallowing of the water layer above the transition layer. The contrasting trends between phytoplankton and zooplankton suggest that there is no bottom-up control of zooplankton by phytoplankton productivity.	Coastal Zone (assessment: not good). Phytoplankton biomass decreased in this habitat between 2015 and 2019, most likely related to an increasing ratio of available nitrogen to phosphorus (N:P ratio). Increases in meroplankton and fish larvae may be related (with relatively low certainty) to rising seawater temperatures and increasing salinity, respectively. Increased zooplankton abundance in the coastal zone may be related to the shallowing of the water layer above the transition layer. The contrasting trends between phytoplankton and zooplankton suggest that there is no bottom-up control of zooplankton by phytoplankton productivity.	Continental shelf (rating: not good). As in the coastal zone, the decline in phytoplankton productivity between 2015 and 2019 appears to be associated with an increasing N:P ratio. Over a longer period, diatoms, meroplankton, and fish larvae increased, while dinoflagellates, holoplankton, and small copepods decreased. The trends for meroplankton and holoplankton coincided with rising seawater temperatures. A very likely cause of the increase in fish larvae is the abundance of parent fish populations (probably more eggs were laid), but this indicator does not test for this. The decline in zooplankton abundance may be related to the depth of the mixed water layer (above the transition layer). It should also be noted that zooplankton abundance could be driven by the decline in phytoplankton biomass (but this too has not been tested).	Continental shelf (rating: not good). As in the coastal zone, the decline in phytoplankton productivity between 2015 and 2019 appears to be associated with an increasing N:P ratio. Over a longer period, diatoms, meroplankton, and fish larvae increased, while dinoflagellates, holoplankton, and small copepods decreased. The trends for meroplankton and holoplankton coincided with rising seawater temperatures. A very likely cause of the increase in fish larvae is the abundance of parent fish populations (probably more eggs were laid), but this indicator does not test for this. The decline in zooplankton abundance may be related to the depth of the mixed water layer (above the transition layer). It should also be noted that zooplankton abundance could be driven by the decline in phytoplankton biomass (but this too has not been tested).	Continental shelf (rating: not good). As in the coastal zone, the decline in phytoplankton productivity between 2015 and 2019 appears to be associated with an increasing N:P ratio. Over a longer period, diatoms, meroplankton, and fish larvae increased, while dinoflagellates, holoplankton, and small copepods decreased. The trends for meroplankton and holoplankton coincided with rising seawater temperatures. A very likely cause of the increase in fish larvae is the abundance of parent fish populations (probably more eggs were laid), but this indicator does not test for this. The decline in zooplankton abundance may be related to the depth of the mixed water layer (above the transition layer). It should also be noted that zooplankton abundance could be driven by the decline in phytoplankton biomass (but this too has not been tested).	Continental shelf (rating: not good). As in the coastal zone, the decline in phytoplankton productivity between 2015 and 2019 appears to be associated with an increasing N:P ratio. Over a longer period, diatoms, meroplankton, and fish larvae increased, while dinoflagellates, holoplankton, and small copepods decreased. The trends for meroplankton and holoplankton coincided with rising seawater temperatures. A very likely cause of the increase in fish larvae is the abundance of parent fish populations (probably more eggs were laid), but this indicator does not test for this. The decline in zooplankton abundance may be related to the depth of the mixed water layer (above the transition layer). It should also be noted that zooplankton abundance could be driven by the decline in phytoplankton biomass (but this too has not been tested).	Variable salinity habitat (assessment: unknown). A decrease in phytoplankton biomass (possibly caused by a decrease in dissolved inorganic phosphate) and a decrease in zooplankton abundance (most likely related to increasing surface water temperature) are observed in the habitat. The latter is also based on low geographic coverage of the data, making the reliability of the observation relatively low. It is possible, but this has not been tested, that the downward trend in phytoplankton is reflected in the decrease in zooplankton abundance. In this habitat, a long-term increase in dinoflagellates and fish larvae has been observed, while holoplankton and both large and small copepods showed a decrease. Limited data are available, especially for zooplankton, so the significance of this finding is relatively low. No clear link has been found between these trends and human activities.	Variable salinity habitat (assessment: unknown). A decrease in phytoplankton biomass (possibly caused by a decrease in dissolved inorganic phosphate) and a decrease in zooplankton abundance (most likely related to increasing surface water temperature) are observed in the habitat. The latter is also based on low geographic coverage of the data, making the reliability of the observation relatively low. It is possible, but this has not been tested, that the downward trend in phytoplankton is reflected in the decrease in zooplankton abundance. In this habitat, a long-term increase in dinoflagellates and fish larvae has been observed, while holoplankton and both large and small copepods showed a decrease. Limited data are available, especially for zooplankton, so the significance of this finding is relatively low. No clear link has been found between these trends and human activities.	Variable salinity habitat (assessment: unknown). A decrease in phytoplankton biomass (possibly caused by a decrease in dissolved inorganic phosphate) and a decrease in zooplankton abundance (most likely related to increasing surface water temperature) are observed in the habitat. The latter is also based on low geographic coverage of the data, making the reliability of the observation relatively low. It is possible, but this has not been tested, that the downward trend in phytoplankton is reflected in the decrease in zooplankton abundance. In this habitat, a long-term increase in dinoflagellates and fish larvae has been observed, while holoplankton and both large and small copepods showed a decrease. Limited data are available, especially for zooplankton, so the significance of this finding is relatively low. No clear link has been found between these trends and human activities.	Variable salinity habitat (assessment: unknown). A decrease in phytoplankton biomass (possibly caused by a decrease in dissolved inorganic phosphate) and a decrease in zooplankton abundance (most likely related to increasing surface water temperature) are observed in the habitat. The latter is also based on low geographic coverage of the data, making the reliability of the observation relatively low. It is possible, but this has not been tested, that the downward trend in phytoplankton is reflected in the decrease in zooplankton abundance. In this habitat, a long-term increase in dinoflagellates and fish larvae has been observed, while holoplankton and both large and small copepods showed a decrease. Limited data are available, especially for zooplankton, so the significance of this finding is relatively low. No clear link has been found between these trends and human activities.
Source assessment feature	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR	OSPAR
Reporting method feature	Type A	Type A	Type A	Type A	Type A	Type A	Type A	Type A	Type A	Type A	Type A
Trend feature	Stable	Stable	Stable	Stable	Stable	Stable	Stable	Stable	Stable	Stable	Stable
Integration rule type parameter	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO	OOAO
Integration rule description parameter	The OSPAR CEMP guidelines were applied for integration. For the International North Sea, it was determined for each of the three habitat types whether the status is good, not good or unknown based on the two ‘common’ indicators (candidate indicator PH3 does not count for the International North Sea). The following applies: one out, all out: both PH1 and PH2 must score well to comply.	The OSPAR CEMP guidelines were applied for integration. For the International North Sea, it was determined for each of the three habitat types whether the status is good, not good or unknown based on the two ‘common’ indicators (candidate indicator PH3 does not count for the International North Sea). The following applies: one out, all out: both PH1 and PH2 must score well to comply.	The OSPAR CEMP guidelines were applied for integration. For the International North Sea, it was determined for each of the three habitat types whether the status is good, not good or unknown based on the two ‘common’ indicators (candidate indicator PH3 does not count for the International North Sea). The following applies: one out, all out: both PH1 and PH2 must score well to comply.	The OSPAR CEMP guidelines were applied for integration. For the International North Sea, it was determined for each of the three habitat types whether the status is good, not good or unknown based on the two ‘common’ indicators (candidate indicator PH3 does not count for the International North Sea). The following applies: one out, all out: both PH1 and PH2 must score well to comply.	The OSPAR CEMP guidelines were applied for integration. For the International North Sea, it was determined for each of the three habitat types whether the status is good, not good or unknown based on the two ‘common’ indicators (candidate indicator PH3 does not count for the International North Sea). The following applies: one out, all out: both PH1 and PH2 must score well to comply.	The OSPAR CEMP guidelines were applied for integration. For the International North Sea, it was determined for each of the three habitat types whether the status is good, not good or unknown based on the two ‘common’ indicators (candidate indicator PH3 does not count for the International North Sea). The following applies: one out, all out: both PH1 and PH2 must score well to comply.	The OSPAR CEMP guidelines were applied for integration. For the International North Sea, it was determined for each of the three habitat types whether the status is good, not good or unknown based on the two ‘common’ indicators (candidate indicator PH3 does not count for the International North Sea). The following applies: one out, all out: both PH1 and PH2 must score well to comply.	The OSPAR CEMP guidelines were applied for integration. For the International North Sea, it was determined for each of the three habitat types whether the status is good, not good or unknown based on the two ‘common’ indicators (candidate indicator PH3 does not count for the International North Sea). The following applies: one out, all out: both PH1 and PH2 must score well to comply.	The OSPAR CEMP guidelines were applied for integration. For the International North Sea, it was determined for each of the three habitat types whether the status is good, not good or unknown based on the two ‘common’ indicators (candidate indicator PH3 does not count for the International North Sea). The following applies: one out, all out: both PH1 and PH2 must score well to comply.	The OSPAR CEMP guidelines were applied for integration. For the International North Sea, it was determined for each of the three habitat types whether the status is good, not good or unknown based on the two ‘common’ indicators (candidate indicator PH3 does not count for the International North Sea). The following applies: one out, all out: both PH1 and PH2 must score well to comply.	The OSPAR CEMP guidelines were applied for integration. For the International North Sea, it was determined for each of the three habitat types whether the status is good, not good or unknown based on the two ‘common’ indicators (candidate indicator PH3 does not count for the International North Sea). The following applies: one out, all out: both PH1 and PH2 must score well to comply.
Integration rule type criteria	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant	Not relevant
Integration rule description criteria
GES extent threshold
GES extent achieved
GES extent unit	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status	Proportion of habitats in good status
GES achieved	GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported	GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported	GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported	GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported	GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported	GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported	GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported	GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported	GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported	GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported	GES later than 2024, Art14ExceptionNotReported
Description overall status	Plankton communities have changed significantly both in previous periods and in the 2015-2019 planning period. Exploratory analysis suggests that these changes correlate, among other things, with warming waters in the North Sea and fluctuations in nutrient concentrations. The observed changes can probably be linked to human activity. Because of this, it is concluded that pelagic habitat types in the International North Sea are overall not in good environmental status.	Plankton communities have changed significantly both in previous periods and in the 2015-2019 planning period. Exploratory analysis suggests that these changes correlate, among other things, with warming waters in the North Sea and fluctuations in nutrient concentrations. The observed changes can probably be linked to human activity. Because of this, it is concluded that pelagic habitat types in the International North Sea are overall not in good environmental status.	Plankton communities have changed significantly both in previous periods and in the 2015-2019 planning period. Exploratory analysis suggests that these changes correlate, among other things, with warming waters in the North Sea and fluctuations in nutrient concentrations. The observed changes can probably be linked to human activity. Because of this, it is concluded that pelagic habitat types in the International North Sea are overall not in good environmental status.	Plankton communities have changed significantly both in previous periods and in the 2015-2019 planning period. Exploratory analysis suggests that these changes correlate, among other things, with warming waters in the North Sea and fluctuations in nutrient concentrations. The observed changes can probably be linked to human activity. Because of this, it is concluded that pelagic habitat types in the International North Sea are overall not in good environmental status.	Plankton communities have changed significantly both in previous periods and in the 2015-2019 planning period. Exploratory analysis suggests that these changes correlate, among other things, with warming waters in the North Sea and fluctuations in nutrient concentrations. The observed changes can probably be linked to human activity. Because of this, it is concluded that pelagic habitat types in the International North Sea are overall not in good environmental status.	Plankton communities have changed significantly both in previous periods and in the 2015-2019 planning period. Exploratory analysis suggests that these changes correlate, among other things, with warming waters in the North Sea and fluctuations in nutrient concentrations. The observed changes can probably be linked to human activity. Because of this, it is concluded that pelagic habitat types in the International North Sea are overall not in good environmental status.	Plankton communities have changed significantly both in previous periods and in the 2015-2019 planning period. Exploratory analysis suggests that these changes correlate, among other things, with warming waters in the North Sea and fluctuations in nutrient concentrations. The observed changes can probably be linked to human activity. Because of this, it is concluded that pelagic habitat types in the International North Sea are overall not in good environmental status.	Plankton communities have changed significantly both in previous periods and in the 2015-2019 planning period. Exploratory analysis suggests that these changes correlate, among other things, with warming waters in the North Sea and fluctuations in nutrient concentrations. The observed changes can probably be linked to human activity. Because of this, it is concluded that pelagic habitat types in the International North Sea are overall not in good environmental status.	Plankton communities have changed significantly both in previous periods and in the 2015-2019 planning period. Exploratory analysis suggests that these changes correlate, among other things, with warming waters in the North Sea and fluctuations in nutrient concentrations. The observed changes can probably be linked to human activity. Because of this, it is concluded that pelagic habitat types in the International North Sea are overall not in good environmental status.	Plankton communities have changed significantly both in previous periods and in the 2015-2019 planning period. Exploratory analysis suggests that these changes correlate, among other things, with warming waters in the North Sea and fluctuations in nutrient concentrations. The observed changes can probably be linked to human activity. Because of this, it is concluded that pelagic habitat types in the International North Sea are overall not in good environmental status.	Plankton communities have changed significantly both in previous periods and in the 2015-2019 planning period. Exploratory analysis suggests that these changes correlate, among other things, with warming waters in the North Sea and fluctuations in nutrient concentrations. The observed changes can probably be linked to human activity. Because of this, it is concluded that pelagic habitat types in the International North Sea are overall not in good environmental status.
Assessments period	2015-2019	2015-2019	2015-2019	2015-2019	2015-2019	2015-2019	2015-2019	2015-2019	2015-2019	2015-2019	2015-2019
Related pressures	Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition	Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition	Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition	Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition	Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition	Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition	Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition	Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition	Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition	Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition	Input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition
Related targets	ANSNL-D4-T4.1 ANSNL-D4-T4.4a ANSNL-D4-T4.4b ANSNL-D5-T5.1 ANSNL-D5-T5.2 ANSNL-D5-T5.3 ANSNL-D5-T5.4a ANSNL-D5-T5.4b	ANSNL-D4-T4.1 ANSNL-D4-T4.4a ANSNL-D4-T4.4b ANSNL-D5-T5.1 ANSNL-D5-T5.2 ANSNL-D5-T5.3 ANSNL-D5-T5.4a ANSNL-D5-T5.4b	ANSNL-D4-T4.1 ANSNL-D4-T4.4a ANSNL-D4-T4.4b ANSNL-D5-T5.1 ANSNL-D5-T5.2 ANSNL-D5-T5.3 ANSNL-D5-T5.4a ANSNL-D5-T5.4b	ANSNL-D4-T4.1 ANSNL-D4-T4.4a ANSNL-D4-T4.4b ANSNL-D5-T5.1 ANSNL-D5-T5.2 ANSNL-D5-T5.3 ANSNL-D5-T5.4a ANSNL-D5-T5.4b	ANSNL-D4-T4.1 ANSNL-D4-T4.4a ANSNL-D4-T4.4b ANSNL-D5-T5.1 ANSNL-D5-T5.2 ANSNL-D5-T5.3 ANSNL-D5-T5.4a ANSNL-D5-T5.4b	ANSNL-D4-T4.1 ANSNL-D4-T4.4a ANSNL-D4-T4.4b ANSNL-D5-T5.1 ANSNL-D5-T5.2 ANSNL-D5-T5.3 ANSNL-D5-T5.4a ANSNL-D5-T5.4b	ANSNL-D4-T4.1 ANSNL-D4-T4.4a ANSNL-D4-T4.4b ANSNL-D5-T5.1 ANSNL-D5-T5.2 ANSNL-D5-T5.3 ANSNL-D5-T5.4a ANSNL-D5-T5.4b	ANSNL-D4-T4.1 ANSNL-D4-T4.4a ANSNL-D4-T4.4b ANSNL-D5-T5.1 ANSNL-D5-T5.2 ANSNL-D5-T5.3 ANSNL-D5-T5.4a ANSNL-D5-T5.4b	ANSNL-D4-T4.1 ANSNL-D4-T4.4a ANSNL-D4-T4.4b ANSNL-D5-T5.1 ANSNL-D5-T5.2 ANSNL-D5-T5.3 ANSNL-D5-T5.4a ANSNL-D5-T5.4b	ANSNL-D4-T4.1 ANSNL-D4-T4.4a ANSNL-D4-T4.4b ANSNL-D5-T5.1 ANSNL-D5-T5.2 ANSNL-D5-T5.3 ANSNL-D5-T5.4a ANSNL-D5-T5.4b	ANSNL-D4-T4.1 ANSNL-D4-T4.4a ANSNL-D4-T4.4b ANSNL-D5-T5.1 ANSNL-D5-T5.2 ANSNL-D5-T5.3 ANSNL-D5-T5.4a ANSNL-D5-T5.4b
Test TV	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Test results	False	Correct	False	False	False	Correct	Correct	Correct	Correct	Correct	False