Member State report / Art11 / 2020 / D6 / 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 | D6 Sea-floor integrity/D1 Benthic habitats |
| 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 |
D6/D1 |
D6/D1 |
D6/D1 |
D6/D1 |
D6/D1 |
D6/D1 |
D6/D1 |
D6/D1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Coverage of GES criteria |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Gaps and plans |
There are no monitoring gaps for D6. Although the monitoring programme is adequate, it is important to keep building upon international collaboration, for example to improve data analysis (see D6C2 and D6C5). |
There are no monitoring gaps for D6. Although the monitoring programme is adequate, it is important to keep building upon international collaboration, for example to improve data analysis (see D6C2 and D6C5). |
There are no monitoring gaps for D6. Although the monitoring programme is adequate, it is important to keep building upon international collaboration, for example to improve data analysis (see D6C2 and D6C5). |
There are no monitoring gaps for D6. Although the monitoring programme is adequate, it is important to keep building upon international collaboration, for example to improve data analysis (see D6C2 and D6C5). |
There are no monitoring gaps for D6. Although the monitoring programme is adequate, it is important to keep building upon international collaboration, for example to improve data analysis (see D6C2 and D6C5). |
There are no monitoring gaps for D6. Although the monitoring programme is adequate, it is important to keep building upon international collaboration, for example to improve data analysis (see D6C2 and D6C5). |
There are no monitoring gaps for D6. Although the monitoring programme is adequate, it is important to keep building upon international collaboration, for example to improve data analysis (see D6C2 and D6C5). |
There are no monitoring gaps for D6. Although the monitoring programme is adequate, it is important to keep building upon international collaboration, for example to improve data analysis (see D6C2 and D6C5). |
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coverage of targets |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Related measures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coverage of measures |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Adequate monitoring was in place in 2014 |
Related monitoring programmes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Programme code |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub10-Benthos |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub10-Benthos |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub10-Benthos |
ANSNL-D1346-Sub11-UndisturbedSeafloor |
ANSNL-D6-Seabed habitats-distribution and extent |
ANSNL-D6-Seabed habitats-distribution and extent |
ANSNL-D6-fysieke verstoring door visserij |
ANSNL-D6-fysieke verstoring door zandwinning |
Programme name |
Benthic species - abundance and/or biomass |
Benthic species - abundance and/or biomass |
Benthic species - abundance and/or biomass |
Physical loss- distribution and extent |
Seabed habitats-distribution and extent |
Seabed habitats-distribution and extent |
Physical disturbance-from bottom contacting fishing gear |
Physical disturbance-from sand extraction |
Update type |
Same programme as in 2014 |
Same programme as in 2014 |
Same programme as in 2014 |
Modified from 2014 |
New programme |
New programme |
New programme |
New programme |
Old programme codes |
||||||||
Programme description |
D6C3
The information requirements for the MSFD are linked to those for the Habitats Directive (HD), and specifically the Natura 2000 areas. Both directives are intended to protect the seafloor habitats. For an evaluation of GES, changes have to be identified; monitoring has to indicate whether, and preferably to what extent, improvements are occurring over time. The monitoring focuses on a selection of species that as a whole are indicative of the structure and function of the habitats, of disturbance by human activities, and of the degree of recovery. The surveys focus mainly on seabed protection areas, with the most suitable monitoring technique being selected for each type of indicator. However, in the interests of good coverage of the DCS (relatively speaking, as intensively as the seabed protection areas), the Bruine Bank area is also monitored. This area is deemed to be representative of the Southern Bight. Additional, less intensive monitoring in other parts of the DCS also provides a general impression of the status of the DCS. There is also specific monitoring to assess the effectiveness of measures. Areas in which protective measures have been taken are compared with reference areas with the same habitat composition where no protective measures have been taken (Before-After-Control-Impact [BACI] design). It is not yet possible to formulate threshold values for environmental targets and GES, so the point of departure is to be able to establish trends and/or significant differences in the situation when various measurements are in place and the baseline situation in 2015. The monitoring provides insight into changes in the presence and distribution of indicator species, including most of the typical species (benthos) under the Habitats Directive. The selected species are indicative of various pressure factors and of (initial) recovery. The monitoring surveys are designed is such a way that on the basis of the hit rate at least a change of 50 percent in the spatial distribution of at least some indicator species between two measurements can be observed. The reliability of this observation is 95 percent and it provides a basis for conclusions that will probably be correct in 80 percent of cases (actual power). The quality status of a habitat, the achievement towards GES and the effectiveness of measures are assessed on the basis of changes in the spatial distribution of populations or where possible abundance of indicator species. The suitability o |
D6C3
The information requirements for the MSFD are linked to those for the Habitats Directive (HD), and specifically the Natura 2000 areas. Both directives are intended to protect the seafloor habitats. For an evaluation of GES, changes have to be identified; monitoring has to indicate whether, and preferably to what extent, improvements are occurring over time. The monitoring focuses on a selection of species that as a whole are indicative of the structure and function of the habitats, of disturbance by human activities, and of the degree of recovery. The surveys focus mainly on seabed protection areas, with the most suitable monitoring technique being selected for each type of indicator. However, in the interests of good coverage of the DCS (relatively speaking, as intensively as the seabed protection areas), the Bruine Bank area is also monitored. This area is deemed to be representative of the Southern Bight. Additional, less intensive monitoring in other parts of the DCS also provides a general impression of the status of the DCS. There is also specific monitoring to assess the effectiveness of measures. Areas in which protective measures have been taken are compared with reference areas with the same habitat composition where no protective measures have been taken (Before-After-Control-Impact [BACI] design). It is not yet possible to formulate threshold values for environmental targets and GES, so the point of departure is to be able to establish trends and/or significant differences in the situation when various measurements are in place and the baseline situation in 2015. The monitoring provides insight into changes in the presence and distribution of indicator species, including most of the typical species (benthos) under the Habitats Directive. The selected species are indicative of various pressure factors and of (initial) recovery. The monitoring surveys are designed is such a way that on the basis of the hit rate at least a change of 50 percent in the spatial distribution of at least some indicator species between two measurements can be observed. The reliability of this observation is 95 percent and it provides a basis for conclusions that will probably be correct in 80 percent of cases (actual power). The quality status of a habitat, the achievement towards GES and the effectiveness of measures are assessed on the basis of changes in the spatial distribution of populations or where possible abundance of indicator species. The suitability o |
D6C3
The information requirements for the MSFD are linked to those for the Habitats Directive (HD), and specifically the Natura 2000 areas. Both directives are intended to protect the seafloor habitats. For an evaluation of GES, changes have to be identified; monitoring has to indicate whether, and preferably to what extent, improvements are occurring over time. The monitoring focuses on a selection of species that as a whole are indicative of the structure and function of the habitats, of disturbance by human activities, and of the degree of recovery. The surveys focus mainly on seabed protection areas, with the most suitable monitoring technique being selected for each type of indicator. However, in the interests of good coverage of the DCS (relatively speaking, as intensively as the seabed protection areas), the Bruine Bank area is also monitored. This area is deemed to be representative of the Southern Bight. Additional, less intensive monitoring in other parts of the DCS also provides a general impression of the status of the DCS. There is also specific monitoring to assess the effectiveness of measures. Areas in which protective measures have been taken are compared with reference areas with the same habitat composition where no protective measures have been taken (Before-After-Control-Impact [BACI] design). It is not yet possible to formulate threshold values for environmental targets and GES, so the point of departure is to be able to establish trends and/or significant differences in the situation when various measurements are in place and the baseline situation in 2015. The monitoring provides insight into changes in the presence and distribution of indicator species, including most of the typical species (benthos) under the Habitats Directive. The selected species are indicative of various pressure factors and of (initial) recovery. The monitoring surveys are designed is such a way that on the basis of the hit rate at least a change of 50 percent in the spatial distribution of at least some indicator species between two measurements can be observed. The reliability of this observation is 95 percent and it provides a basis for conclusions that will probably be correct in 80 percent of cases (actual power). The quality status of a habitat, the achievement towards GES and the effectiveness of measures are assessed on the basis of changes in the spatial distribution of populations or where possible abundance of indicator species. The suitability o |
To establish whether GES is maintained it must be possible to determine the physical loss of both seabed and habitats. Every activity that could lead to physical loss (to a significant extent) of the seabed must be covered. The Netherlands regulates all activities that could lead to physical loss, as well as compensation in case of significant loss. Accordingly, no structural monitoring is required for the evaluation of environmental status, which therefore is an administrative analysis. Licensing conditions and general rules prescribe that on completion of the construction of a wind farm or the laying of a pipeline the as-built data must be provided to Rijkswaterstaat. These data are then entered in GIS files, which can also be consulted by third parties. Rijkswaterstaat’s Sea and Delta unit is responsible for keeping these records up to date. |
To establish whether GES is maintained it must be possible to determine the physical loss of both seabed and habitats. Every activity that could lead to physical loss (to a significant extent) of the seabed must be covered. The Netherlands regulates all activities that could lead to physical loss, as well as compensation in case of significant loss. Accordingly, no structural monitoring is required for the evaluation of environmental status, which therefore is an administrative analysis. Licensing conditions and general rules prescribe that on completion of the construction of a wind farm or the laying of a pipeline the as-built data must be provided to Rijkswaterstaat. These data are then entered in GIS files, which can also be consulted by third parties. Rijkswaterstaat’s Sea and Delta unit is responsible for keeping these records up to date. |
To establish whether GES is maintained it must be possible to determine the physical loss of both seabed and habitats. Every activity that could lead to physical loss (to a significant extent) of the seabed must be covered. The Netherlands regulates all activities that could lead to physical loss, as well as compensation in case of significant loss. Accordingly, no structural monitoring is required for the evaluation of environmental status, which therefore is an administrative analysis. Licensing conditions and general rules prescribe that on completion of the construction of a wind farm or the laying of a pipeline the as-built data must be provided to Rijkswaterstaat. These data are then entered in GIS files, which can also be consulted by third parties. Rijkswaterstaat’s Sea and Delta unit is responsible for keeping these records up to date. |
The proportion of the seabed that has been physically disturbed by human activities must be established every six years. The necessary monitoring consists of the registration of activities that disturb the seabed. In the Dutch section of the North Sea, those activities are bottom-disturbing fisheries and sand extraction.
The extent of the disturbance of the seabed by fisheries is derived from data collected by the EU Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) within the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The area of seabed disturbed by sand extraction and suppletion is included in the data that sand extraction companies are required to supply during the licensing procedure.
The following data are collected:
• The EU Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)
The VMS records the location and speed of all fishing vessels larger than 12 metres in the North Sea at least once every two hours. The method and GA/GC [quality control] are described in an ICES advisory report (ICES, 2017) and in http://nielshintzen.github.io/ vmstools/.
• Logbook data from fishing vessels
Under the CFP, fishing vessels are obliged to keep logbook data and report them. Every ship longer than 10 metres must register, by day and by trawl, the type of fishing gear that was used and the ICES area in which it fished. For each trawl, the catch (per kilogram) of the primary target species must also be recorded. The requirements are set out in the implementing regulation for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (EC, 2011).
• Sand extraction data in accordance with the licensing conditions.
Rijkswaterstaat Sea and Delta keeps the data for current sand extrations up to date. The licences for sand extraction on the DCS provide that the precise locations of the extraction must be registered with a mandatory blackbox system, so that it is known where sand is actually being extracted. The volumes of extracted sand must also be reported on a monthly basis.
The monitoring programme is in principle adequate, but the absence of international VMS data limits its usefulness. The most important change needed is a coordinated action by ICES to consolidate the international VMS data for the purposes of joint analysis. |
The proportion of the seabed that has been physically disturbed by human activities must be established every six years. The necessary monitoring consists of the registration of activities that disturb the seabed. In the Dutch section of the North Sea, those activities are bottom-disturbing fisheries and sand extraction.
The extent of the disturbance of the seabed by fisheries is derived from data collected by the EU Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) within the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The area of seabed disturbed by sand extraction and suppletion is included in the data that sand extraction companies are required to supply during the licensing procedure.
The following data are collected:
• The EU Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)
The VMS records the location and speed of all fishing vessels larger than 12 metres in the North Sea at least once every two hours. The method and GA/GC [quality control] are described in an ICES advisory report (ICES, 2017) and in http://nielshintzen.github.io/ vmstools/.
• Logbook data from fishing vessels
Under the CFP, fishing vessels are obliged to keep logbook data and report them. Every ship longer than 10 metres must register, by day and by trawl, the type of fishing gear that was used and the ICES area in which it fished. For each trawl, the catch (per kilogram) of the primary target species must also be recorded. The requirements are set out in the implementing regulation for ensuring compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy (EC, 2011).
• Sand extraction data in accordance with the licensing conditions.
Rijkswaterstaat Sea and Delta keeps the data for current sand extrations up to date. The licences for sand extraction on the DCS provide that the precise locations of the extraction must be registered with a mandatory blackbox system, so that it is known where sand is actually being extracted. The volumes of extracted sand must also be reported on a monthly basis.
The monitoring programme is in principle adequate, but the absence of international VMS data limits its usefulness. The most important change needed is a coordinated action by ICES to consolidate the international VMS data for the purposes of joint analysis. |
Monitoring purpose |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other policies and conventions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional cooperation - coordinating body |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regional cooperation - countries involved |
NL |
NL |
NL |
NL |
||||
Regional cooperation - implementation level |
Agreed data collection methods |
Agreed data collection methods |
Agreed data collection methods |
Agreed data collection methods |
Agreed data collection methods |
Agreed data collection methods |
Coordinated data collection |
Agreed data collection methods |
Monitoring details |
D6C3
The macrozoobenthos surveys are part of Rijkswaterstaat’s monitoring programme (MWTL) and the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT) shellfish survey for the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. Since 2015, the benthic fauna monitoring programme in the North Sea has been adapted to the needs of the MSFD (and HD). Within the MWTL programme, since then samples have been taken not only with box corers, but also with a trawl, video and Hamon grabs. The number of monitoring locations was also greatly expanded at the time. The number of monitoring locations was expanded again in 2018 following the definitive demarcation of the boundaries of the Frisian Front and the Central Oyster Grounds. The WOT survey has been expanded with 51 locations since 2015. The numbers of monitoring locations used for assessment of D6C3 are: 164 (boxcores), 557 (trawl), 37 (Hamon grabs), and 33 (video). For further details of the monitoring programme, see Wijnhoven (2019). For the methods, parameters such as numbers, biomass and length, and other specifications, see the protocols of Rijkswaterstaat and WOT.
D6C5
Sampling is in the spring, preferably before the spatfall, since the index is sensitive to the observation of large numbers of juveniles if the sampling continues until after the spatfall. Juveniles are in any case identified separately so that they can be excluded in the calculation of the index.
At DCS level, five zones have been designated for monitoring the diversity of species (with the number of monitoring locations between brackets): coastal zone (56), Dogger Bank (19), Frisian Front (21), offshore (32) and Oyster Grounds (36). These zones differ in terms of sediment type, depth and location in relation to the coast (see Van Loon and Walvoort, 2018). For further details of the monitoring programme, see Wijnhoven (2019). For the methods, parameters such as numbers, biomass and length, and other specifications, see the protocols of Rijkswaterstaat. |
D6C3
The macrozoobenthos surveys are part of Rijkswaterstaat’s monitoring programme (MWTL) and the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT) shellfish survey for the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. Since 2015, the benthic fauna monitoring programme in the North Sea has been adapted to the needs of the MSFD (and HD). Within the MWTL programme, since then samples have been taken not only with box corers, but also with a trawl, video and Hamon grabs. The number of monitoring locations was also greatly expanded at the time. The number of monitoring locations was expanded again in 2018 following the definitive demarcation of the boundaries of the Frisian Front and the Central Oyster Grounds. The WOT survey has been expanded with 51 locations since 2015. The numbers of monitoring locations used for assessment of D6C3 are: 164 (boxcores), 557 (trawl), 37 (Hamon grabs), and 33 (video). For further details of the monitoring programme, see Wijnhoven (2019). For the methods, parameters such as numbers, biomass and length, and other specifications, see the protocols of Rijkswaterstaat and WOT.
D6C5
Sampling is in the spring, preferably before the spatfall, since the index is sensitive to the observation of large numbers of juveniles if the sampling continues until after the spatfall. Juveniles are in any case identified separately so that they can be excluded in the calculation of the index.
At DCS level, five zones have been designated for monitoring the diversity of species (with the number of monitoring locations between brackets): coastal zone (56), Dogger Bank (19), Frisian Front (21), offshore (32) and Oyster Grounds (36). These zones differ in terms of sediment type, depth and location in relation to the coast (see Van Loon and Walvoort, 2018). For further details of the monitoring programme, see Wijnhoven (2019). For the methods, parameters such as numbers, biomass and length, and other specifications, see the protocols of Rijkswaterstaat. |
D6C3
The macrozoobenthos surveys are part of Rijkswaterstaat’s monitoring programme (MWTL) and the Statutory Research Tasks (WOT) shellfish survey for the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. Since 2015, the benthic fauna monitoring programme in the North Sea has been adapted to the needs of the MSFD (and HD). Within the MWTL programme, since then samples have been taken not only with box corers, but also with a trawl, video and Hamon grabs. The number of monitoring locations was also greatly expanded at the time. The number of monitoring locations was expanded again in 2018 following the definitive demarcation of the boundaries of the Frisian Front and the Central Oyster Grounds. The WOT survey has been expanded with 51 locations since 2015. The numbers of monitoring locations used for assessment of D6C3 are: 164 (boxcores), 557 (trawl), 37 (Hamon grabs), and 33 (video). For further details of the monitoring programme, see Wijnhoven (2019). For the methods, parameters such as numbers, biomass and length, and other specifications, see the protocols of Rijkswaterstaat and WOT.
D6C5
Sampling is in the spring, preferably before the spatfall, since the index is sensitive to the observation of large numbers of juveniles if the sampling continues until after the spatfall. Juveniles are in any case identified separately so that they can be excluded in the calculation of the index.
At DCS level, five zones have been designated for monitoring the diversity of species (with the number of monitoring locations between brackets): coastal zone (56), Dogger Bank (19), Frisian Front (21), offshore (32) and Oyster Grounds (36). These zones differ in terms of sediment type, depth and location in relation to the coast (see Van Loon and Walvoort, 2018). For further details of the monitoring programme, see Wijnhoven (2019). For the methods, parameters such as numbers, biomass and length, and other specifications, see the protocols of Rijkswaterstaat. |
|||||
Features |
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Physical loss of the seabed
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Other benthic habitats
|
Physical disturbance to seabed
|
Physical disturbance to seabed
|
Elements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GES criteria |
D6C3 |
D6C3 |
D6C5 |
D6C1 |
D6C4 |
D6C4 |
D6C2 |
D6C2 |
Parameters |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parameter Other |
||||||||
Spatial scope |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marine reporting units |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Temporal scope (start date - end date) |
2015-9999 |
2015-9999 |
2015-9999 |
2012-9999 |
2012-9999 |
2012-9999 |
2013-9999 |
1960-9999 |
Monitoring frequency |
3-yearly |
3-yearly |
3-yearly |
Continually |
Continually |
Continually |
Continually |
Continually |
Monitoring type |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitoring method |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monitoring method other |
Physical loss of the seabed is calculated on the basis of licensing information |
Licensing conditions and general rules prescribe that on completion of the construction of a wind farm or the laying of a cable or pipeline the as-built data must be provided to Rijkswaterstaat. These data are then entered in GIS files, which can also be consulted by
third parties. Rijkswaterstaat’s is responsible for keeping these records up to date. The indicator describes the spatial extent and distribution of the physical loss (permanent change) of the natural seabed. |
Licensing conditions and general rules prescribe that on completion of the construction of a wind farm or the laying of a cable or pipeline the as-built data must be provided to Rijkswaterstaat. These data are then entered in GIS files, which can also be consulted by
third parties. Rijkswaterstaat’s is responsible for keeping these records up to date. The indicator describes the spatial extent and distribution of the physical loss (permanent change) of the natural seabed. |
Rijkswaterstaat keeps the data for current sand extraction up to date. The licences for sand extraction on the DCS provide that the precise locations of the extraction must be registered with a mandatory blackbox system, so that it is known where sand is actually being extracted. The volumes of extracted sand must also be reported on a monthly basis. |
||||
Quality control |
Quality assurance (ISO 9001) and accreditation (NEN-EN-ISO / IEC17025) are required from executing parties. This guarantees, among other things, the accuracy of measurements and (taxonomic) analysis within set limits. |
Quality assurance (ISO 9001) and accreditation (NEN-EN-ISO / IEC17025) are required from executing parties. This guarantees, among other things, the accuracy of measurements and (taxonomic) analysis within set limits. |
Quality assurance (ISO 9001) and accreditation (NEN-EN-ISO / IEC17025) are required from executing parties. This guarantees, among other things, the accuracy of measurements and (taxonomic) analysis within set limits. |
not applicable
|
not applicable
|
not applicable
|
DCF and ICES
|
The measurements are carried out under the responsibility of Rijkswaterstaat by certified contractors.
Rijkswaterstaat checks the data supplied and carries out quality checks. |
Data management |
Marine Information and Data Centre
|
Marine Information and Data Centre
|
Marine Information and Data Centre
|
Rijkswaterstaat
|
Rijkswaterstaat
|
Rijkswaterstaat
|
EA
|
|
Data access |
www.rws.nl |
www.rws.nl |
www.rws.nl |
www.ices.dk |
||||
Related indicator/name |
||||||||
Contact |
https://www.informatiehuismarien.nl/uk/secundaire-navigatie/contact/ |
https://www.informatiehuismarien.nl/uk/secundaire-navigatie/contact/ |
https://www.informatiehuismarien.nl/uk/secundaire-navigatie/contact/ |
|||||
References |
RWS (2018) A2.107 Analysevoorschrift Code: A2.107. Waterbodem, marien – Uitzoeken en determineren van Macrozoöbenthos. Rijkswaterstaat, Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, Versie 7 (10-10-2018).Troost K., Van Asch M., Brummelhuis E., Van den Ende D., Jol J., Perdon J. & Van Zweeden C. (2016) Handboek bestandsopnames schelpdieren WOT Versie 2. CVO rapport: 16.005.Wijnhoven S. (2018) Protocol Benthic Indicator Species Index (BISI): Protocol BISI for generic application (BISI v2), v181218. Ecoauthor Report Series 2018 - 04, Heinkenszand, the Netherlands. |
RWS (2018) A2.107 Analysevoorschrift Code: A2.107. Waterbodem, marien – Uitzoeken en determineren van Macrozoöbenthos. Rijkswaterstaat, Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, Versie 7 (10-10-2018).Troost K., Van Asch M., Brummelhuis E., Van den Ende D., Jol J., Perdon J. & Van Zweeden C. (2016) Handboek bestandsopnames schelpdieren WOT Versie 2. CVO rapport: 16.005.Wijnhoven S. (2018) Protocol Benthic Indicator Species Index (BISI): Protocol BISI for generic application (BISI v2), v181218. Ecoauthor Report Series 2018 - 04, Heinkenszand, the Netherlands. |
RWS (2018) A2.107 Analysevoorschrift Code: A2.107. Waterbodem, marien – Uitzoeken en determineren van Macrozoöbenthos. Rijkswaterstaat, Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, Versie 7 (10-10-2018).Troost K., Van Asch M., Brummelhuis E., Van den Ende D., Jol J., Perdon J. & Van Zweeden C. (2016) Handboek bestandsopnames schelpdieren WOT Versie 2. CVO rapport: 16.005.Wijnhoven S. (2018) Protocol Benthic Indicator Species Index (BISI): Protocol BISI for generic application (BISI v2), v181218. Ecoauthor Report Series 2018 - 04, Heinkenszand, the Netherlands. |