Member State report / Art8-2024 / 2024 / D6 / Netherlands / NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea
| Report type | Member State report to Commission |
| MSFD Article | Art8 |
| Report due | 2024-10-15 |
| GES Descriptor | D6 Sea-floor integrity/D1 Benthic 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)
Regional assessment area |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
OSPAR-Southern North Sea |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Component MRUs |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES component |
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
D6
|
Feature |
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Benthic broad habitats
|
Element |
Circalittoral coarse sediment |
Circalittoral coarse sediment |
Circalittoral coarse sediment |
Circalittoral coarse sediment |
Circalittoral mixed sediment |
Circalittoral mixed sediment |
Circalittoral mixed sediment |
Circalittoral mixed sediment |
Circalittoral mud |
Circalittoral mud |
Circalittoral mud |
Circalittoral mud |
Circalittoral sand |
Circalittoral sand |
Circalittoral sand |
Circalittoral sand |
Infralittoral coarse sediment |
Infralittoral coarse sediment |
Infralittoral coarse sediment |
Infralittoral coarse sediment |
Infralittoral mud |
Infralittoral mud |
Infralittoral mud |
Infralittoral mud |
Infralittoral sand |
Infralittoral sand |
Infralittoral sand |
Infralittoral sand |
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment |
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment |
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment |
Offshore circalittoral coarse sediment |
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment |
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment |
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment |
Offshore circalittoral mixed sediment |
Offshore circalittoral mud |
Offshore circalittoral mud |
Offshore circalittoral mud |
Offshore circalittoral mud |
Offshore circalittoral sand |
Offshore circalittoral sand |
Offshore circalittoral sand |
Offshore circalittoral sand |
Element extent |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trend element |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Element 2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Element source |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
EU |
Criterion |
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C5
|
D6C3
|
D6C4
|
D6C5
|
D6C5
|
Parameter |
Extent
|
Extent
|
Habitat condition
|
Habitat condition
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Habitat condition
|
Habitat condition
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Habitat condition
|
Habitat condition
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Habitat condition
|
Habitat condition
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Habitat condition
|
Habitat condition
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Habitat condition
|
Habitat condition
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Habitat condition
|
Habitat condition
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Habitat condition
|
Habitat condition
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Habitat condition
|
Habitat condition
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Habitat condition
|
Habitat condition
|
Extent
|
Extent
|
Habitat condition
|
Habitat condition
|
Threshold value upper |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value lower |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value operator |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold qualitative |
The BISI index gives a score between 0 and 1, with 1 being the reference state |
The BISI index gives a score between 0 and 1, with 1 being the reference state |
The BISI index gives a score between 0 and 1, with 1 being the reference state |
The BISI index gives a score between 0 and 1, with 1 being the reference state |
The BISI index gives a score between 0 and 1, with 1 being the reference state |
The BISI index gives a score between 0 and 1, with 1 being the reference state |
The BISI index gives a score between 0 and 1, with 1 being the reference state |
The BISI index gives a score between 0 and 1, with 1 being the reference state |
The BISI index gives a score between 0 and 1, with 1 being the reference state |
The BISI index gives a score between 0 and 1, with 1 being the reference state |
The BISI index gives a score between 0 and 1, with 1 being the reference state |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Threshold value source |
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
National
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
National
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
National
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
National
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
National
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
National
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
National
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
National
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
National
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
National
|
OSPAR Convention
|
OSPAR Convention
|
National
|
|||||||||||
Value achieved upper |
39.0 |
0.52 |
0.07 |
38.0 |
0.84 |
0.07 |
56.0 |
0.87 |
0.08 |
57.0 |
0.47 |
0.09 |
8.0 |
0.62 |
0.07 |
16.0 |
0.24 |
0.08 |
56.0 |
0.45 |
0.09 |
5.0 |
0.58 |
0.07 |
26.0 |
0.91 |
0.07 |
97.0 |
0.85 |
0.16 |
69.0 |
0.61 |
0.21 |
|||||||||||
Value achieved lower |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Value unit |
percentage
|
percentage
|
ratio
|
ratio
|
percentage
|
percentage
|
ratio
|
ratio
|
percentage
|
percentage
|
ratio
|
ratio
|
percentage
|
percentage
|
ratio
|
ratio
|
percentage
|
percentage
|
ratio
|
ratio
|
percentage
|
percentage
|
ratio
|
ratio
|
percentage
|
percentage
|
ratio
|
ratio
|
percentage
|
percentage
|
ratio
|
ratio
|
percentage
|
percentage
|
ratio
|
ratio
|
percentage
|
percentage
|
ratio
|
ratio
|
percentage
|
percentage
|
ratio
|
ratio
|
Proportion threshold value |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
2.0 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion value achieved |
0.2 |
0.6 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
1.5 |
0.2 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Proportion threshold value unit |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
% area of habitat adversely affected |
|||||||||||
Trend parameter |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Improving |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Stable |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Improving |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Stable |
Deteriorating |
Unknown |
Unknown |
Improving |
Deteriorating |
Parameter achieved |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
No |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
No |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
No |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
No |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
No |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
No |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
No |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
No |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
No |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
No |
Unknown |
Yes |
Unknown |
No |
Description parameter |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
The BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. No thresholds have yet been agreed upon for the BISI indicator. Therefore, the reported results are only indicative. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
The BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. No thresholds have yet been agreed upon for the BISI indicator. Therefore, the reported results are only indicative. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
The BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. No thresholds have yet been agreed upon for the BISI indicator. Therefore, the reported results are only indicative. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
The BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. No thresholds have yet been agreed upon for the BISI indicator. Therefore, the reported results are only indicative. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
The BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. No thresholds have yet been agreed upon for the BISI indicator. Therefore, the reported results are only indicative. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
The BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. No thresholds have yet been agreed upon for the BISI indicator. Therefore, the reported results are only indicative. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
The BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. No thresholds have yet been agreed upon for the BISI indicator. Therefore, the reported results are only indicative. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
The BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. No thresholds have yet been agreed upon for the BISI indicator. Therefore, the reported results are only indicative. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
The BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. No thresholds have yet been agreed upon for the BISI indicator. Therefore, the reported results are only indicative. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
The BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. No thresholds have yet been agreed upon for the BISI indicator. Therefore, the reported results are only indicative. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
The BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. No thresholds have yet been agreed upon for the BISI indicator. Therefore, the reported results are only indicative. |
|||||||||||
Related indicator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criteria status |
Unknown |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Unknown |
Good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description criteria |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
It is estimated that a large portion (58 percent) of the seabed in the Southern North Sea is medium to heavily affected by physical disturbance caused by bottom-disturbing fishing. The impact varies by habitat, but most habitat types are estimated to be at least 30 percent medium affected.
In the Dutch North Sea, the impact from sand extraction is limited (a maximum of 0.3 percent of sandy habitat types). This assessment is qualitative, as no threshold has yet been established for the impacted status. Therefore, the status is unknown. |
Criterion D6C4 considers loss by habitat type. The EU threshold value entails a maximum acceptable loss of 2 per cent per BHT. According to the OSPAR analysis, in the Dutch part of the North Sea there is surface loss of off-shore circalittoral silty habitat only. This loss due to bottom trawling amounts to 1.5 per cent. The habitat type occurs on and around the Central Oyster Grounds, Friese Front and Cleaver Bank. An additional national analysis shows that the area of loss due to the presence of structures (pipelines, platforms and wind turbines) and loss due to sand extraction (including deepened unloading docks) and deepening of shipping channels has been limited to a maximum of 0.56 per cent per broad habitat type. The loss of broad habitat types in the Dutch part of the North Sea thus remains below the threshold value of 2 percent and meets the standard for good environmental status for this criterion. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
For criterion D6C5, an EU threshold value has been set indicating the maximum proportion of a habitat type in an assessment area that may be substantially physically disturbed. As it is unclear what exactly is meant by 'substantially physically disturbed', the Netherlands has not yet adopted this threshold value. Under criterion D6C5, three indicators were used to determine the condition of the habitat types. Because the indicators react to different aspects, the combination gives a more complete picture of the condition than each of the three separately. The so-called BISI indicator shows that several typical, sensitive and key species are widely absent or occur in lower densities than would be expected under good conditions. This is observed in almost all broad habitat types. Relative species diversity in coastal areas is also low. However, despite the lack of specific sensitive species, several offshore habitat types are relatively species-rich. |
Element status |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Not good |
Description element |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
In the assessment of D6, all criteria are considered together. Despite residual methodological limitations, it was concluded that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is based on field measurements and specifically on the BISI indicator. The results of the other indicators support this conclusion, especially the OSPAR indicator BH3 that calculates the extent to which habitat type are adversely affected (criterion D6C3). Habitat loss does remain below the European threshold, however (D6C4). |
Source assessment feature |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reporting method feature |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Type D |
Trend feature |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
Stable |
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
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
Integration rule description parameter |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Integration rule type criteria |
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
OOAO
|
Integration rule description criteria |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GES extent threshold |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
100.00 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Habitat loss remains below the threshold value (D6C4). Despite the lack of threshold values for the other criteria, it can be said that good environmental status has not been achieved in the Dutch part of the North Sea. This assessment is mainly based on the moderate to poor condition of different habitat types (D6C5). Despite a slight decrease in fishing pressure (D6C2), the status is virtually unchanged compared to the previous planning period. |
Assessments period |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
2016-2021 |
Related pressures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related targets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Test TV |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
Test results |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |
Correct |
False |