National overview: Netherlands
Table of contents
- Who is responsible for MSFD implementation?
- Where is the MSFD implemented?
- Areas for MSFD reporting
- Regional cooperation
- Uses and human activities and their pressures on marine environment
- Pressures affecting environmental status
- Current environmental status and extent to which GES is achieved (as reported in 2018)
- Environmental targets to achieve GES
- Measures to meet environmental targets and to achieve GES
- Exceptions reported when targets or GES cannot be achieved
- Assessments of progress in MSFD implementation (Art. 12, 16) / 2012
- Assessments of progress in MSFD implementation (Art. 12, 16) / 2018
- Reporting history and performance
Who is responsible for MSFD implementation?
MSFD Article | Art. 7 Competent authorities |
Report date | 2018-07-09 |
Access reports | View all reports |
CA code (EU, national) |
NL_MINIW |
NL_MINLNV |
NL_MINDEF |
NL_KUSTWACHT |
---|---|---|---|---|
Acronym, Name (national) |
IenW: Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management (Minister van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat) |
LNV: Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit) |
Defensie: Ministry of Defense (Minister van Defensie) |
Kustwacht: Netherlands Coastguard (Nederlandse Kustwacht) |
Address |
Postbus 20901, The Hague/Den Haag, Nederland, 2500 EX |
Postbus 20401, The Hague/Den Haag, Nederland, 2500 EK |
Postbus 20701, The Hague/Den Haag, Nederland, 2500 ES |
Postbus 10000, Den Helder/Den Helder, Nederland, 1780 CA |
URL |
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ienw |
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ministerie-van-landbouw-natuur-en-voedselkwaliteit |
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/def |
http://www.kustwacht.nl |
Legal status |
De Minister van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat (IenW) is bevoegd gezag voor beheer van de Rijkswateren op basis van de Waterwet. Daarbij heeft de Minister van IenW specifieke bevoegdheden gekregen op basis van het Waterbesluit met betrekking tot de implementatie van de Kaderrichtlijn Mariene Strategie (KRM).
|
De Minister van Landbouw, Natuur, en Voedselkwaliteit (LNV) is op grond van de Waterwet mede verantwoordelijk voor het opstellen van het Nationaal Waterplan, en daarmee ook voor de onderdelen van de mariene strategie die hierin worden opgenomen.
|
De Minister van Defensie is bevoegd tot het uitvoeren van militaire taken op zee. Daarnaast is de Minister van Defensie beheerder van de kustwacht.
|
Het Besluit instelling Kustwacht bepaalt dat de Nederlandse Kustwacht een zelfstandige civiele organisatie is met toezichts- en handhavingstaken.
|
Responsibilities |
De Minister van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat (IenW) is verantwoordelijk voor de coördinatie van het implementatietraject voor de KRM en voor het opstellen van de mariene strategie. De Minister van IenW is mede bevoegd tot het vaststellen van het Nationaal Waterplan en stelt ook het beheerplan voor de rijkswateren (BPRW) vast (hieronder valt ook het raadplegen van organisaties en burgers op grond van artikel 4.3, eerste lid, onderdeel c, en 4.4 van het Waterbesluit). Onderdelen van de mariene strategie worden opgenomen in deze plannen, waaronder bijvoorbeeld de beheersmaatregelen uit het programma van maatregelen in het BPRW (zie art. 4.16 van het Waterbesluit).
Daarnaast is de Minister van IenW coördinerend beheerder van de Noordzee, en daarmee verantwoordelijk voor de coördinatie van maatregelen en monitoring in het kader van de mariene strategie. Daarbij is de Minister van IenW zelf verantwoordelijk voor de uitvoering van maatregelen (waaronder vergunningverlening) en monitoring voor beleidsonderwerpen en wetgeving (op het gebied van scheepvaart en zandwinning en –suppletie) die onder haar gezag vallen.
|
De Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (LNV) is verantwoordelijk voor de uitvoering en handhaving van maatregelen gericht op natuur, landbouw, visserij, onder andere voortvloeiend uit de Kaderrichtlijn Mariene Strategie (KRM). Uit dien hoofde is de Minister van LNV mede verantwoordelijk voor het opstellen van het Nationaal Waterplan en de onderdelen van de mariene strategie die hierin moeten worden opgenomen.
|
De Minister van Defensie dient ernaar te streven dat zijn taken worden uitgevoerd op een wijze die verenigbaar is met de mariene strategie en het realiseren van een Goede Milieu Toestand. Daarnaast moet de Minister van Defensie toezien op het naar behoren uitvoeren van de taken en verantwoordelijkheden van de kustwacht.
|
De taken van de Nederlandse kustwacht zijn
Dienstverlening:
a. nood-, spoed- en veiligheidsverkeer; b. opsporing en redding; c. rampen- en incidentenbestrijding; d. maritieme hulpverlening; e. verkeersdiensttaken; f. vaarwegmarkering; g. zeeverkeersonderzoek.
Handhaving in het kader van:
a. de algemene politietaak; b. het douanetoezicht; c. de grensbewaking; d. de wetgeving met betrekking tot milieu, visserij, mijnbouw, en scheepvaart.
|
Reference |
http://wetten.overheid.nl/ |
http://wetten.overheid.nl/ |
http://wetten.overheid.nl/ |
http://wetten.overheid.nl/ |
Membership |
De Minister van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat (IenW) is coördinerend orgaan voor het opstellen van de mariene strategie en het Nationaal Waterplan met onderdelen van deze mariene strategie. Hierbij wordt in een interdepartementaal samengesteld kernteam gewerkt aan de verschillende onderdelen van de mariene strategie. Alle stukken en bepalende besluiten worden voorbereid in dit team, vervolgens beoordeeld en overeen gekomen door het Interdepartementaal Directeuren Overleg Noordzee (IDON), en ten slotte door de Minister van IenW, mede namens de Minister van LNV voorgelegd in de Ministerraad waarin alle departementen vertegenwoordigd zijn.
|
De Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (LNV) participeert met de Minister van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat en de Minister van Defensie in het implementatietraject voor de KRM en neemt eigen verantwoordelijkheid op de onderdelen waarvoor de Minister van LNV bevoegd gezag is.
|
De Minister van Defensie participeert met de Minister van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat en de Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit in het implementatietraject voor de Kaderrichtlijn Mariene Strategie en neemt eigen verantwoordelijkheid op de onderdelen waarvoor de Minister van Defensie bevoegd gezag is.
|
n.v.t.
|
Regional coordination |
Nederland is verdragpartij bij OSPAR (Trb. 1993, 16). De Minister van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat is verantwoordelijk voor de samenwerking en afstemming in regionaal OSPAR-verband. Hiervoor bestaan onder OSPAR verschillende werkvormen waar Nederland in participeert. Een overzicht van deze werkvormen is te vinden op www.ospar.org. OSPAR is de enige regionale conventie die zich specifiek voor de Noordzee richt op de implementatie van de KRM. Daarnaast is er nog een aantal conventies en koepelorganisaties waaraan Nederland deelneemt die indirect invloed hebben op de invulling en uitvoering van de KRM. Het gaat dan bijvoorbeeld om IMO, UNCLOS en de BONN Agreement.
|
Nederland is verdragpartij bij OSPAR (Trb. 1993, 16). Onder OSPAR bestaan verschillende werkvormen waar Nederland in participeert. Een overzicht van deze werkvormen is te vinden op www.ospar.org. De Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (LNV) is in deze werkvormen vertegenwoordigd. De vertegenwoordigers van de Minister van LNV nemen deel in internationale overlegvormen gericht op aan de KRM grenzende beleidsvelden, zoals visserij (NEAFC, RFAC, FAO) en biodiverseit (CBD, Ascobans).
|
n.v.t.
|
n.v.t.
|
Where is the MSFD implemented?
MSFD Article | Art. 3(1) Marine waters |
Report date | 2018-10-01 |
Access reports | View all reports |
Member state marine waters |
The Dutch Marine Strategy relates to the Dutch part of the North Sea. This coverage comprises the water, the seabed and the subsoil seaward of the base line from where the width of the territorial sea is measured. The outer limit of the coverage is defined by the international boundaries of the Dutch Continental Shelf (also the boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)). The Oosterschelde, the Westerschelde and the Wadden Sea are beyond the coverage of the Marine Strategy; although these areas clearly do relate to the North Sea they are already fully protected under the Birds Directive and the Habitats Directive (together the BHD) and are, as such, designated Natura 2000 areas. They are also governed by the Water Framework Directive (WFD). This safeguards the ecological protection of these areas. |
---|
-
Areas for MSFD reporting
MSFD Article | Art. 4/2017 Decision: Marine regions, subregions, and subdivisions |
Report date | 2018-10-01 |
Access reports | View all reports |
Region / subregion description |
No regional or subregional boundary occurs within the NL marine waters |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subdivisions |
No formal sub-divisions have been defined
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MRUs description (AreaType) |
Several Assessment Areas have been defined.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MRUs |
|
Regional cooperation
MSFD Article | Art. 5(2) and Art. 6 Regional cooperation |
Report date | 2018-10-01 |
Access reports | View all reports |
Region/ subregion |
ANS |
---|---|
Art. 8 countries involved |
NO, CH, FR, IS, LU, NL, UK, PT,
, BE, DE, ES, FI, IE, SE, DK, |
Art. 8 nature of coordination |
1. There has been a high level of information sharing and joint assessment in the North-East Atlantic through the work of the OSPAR Commission.
2. The OSPAR Intermediate Assessment (IA) 2017 provides a basis for coordination of national assessments across the North-East Atlantic. OSPAR Contracting Parties (CP’s) that are also EU Member States have the opportunity to use the information presented in the IA 2017 for their update in 2018 to the EU on the initial assessment (2012) for the MSFD. However, it should be noted that at this point in time, OSPAR IA 2017 indicator assessment values are not necessarily equivalent to EU MSFD criteria threshold values.
3. The IA 2017 is a summary of the current understanding and knowledge supporting the implementation of the OSPAR Thematic Strategies. It is a compilation of 47 assessments that demonstrates the close cooperation and coordination between OSPAR CP’s, as well as with other regional organisations.
4. The IA 2017 builds on assessment processes developed by OSPAR over many years and includes the assessment of recently developed new indicators e.g. in the field of biodiversity, marine litter and underwater noise. The EcApRHA project, co-financed by the EU DG Environment, has significantly contributed to the development of regional indicators for pelagic habitats, benthic habitats and food webs.
5. The IA 2017 presents new and developing aspects in the areas of socio-economics and ecosystem assessment of the OSPAR area. Both areas are of increasing relevance, but a common typology and methodology among OSPAR CP’s needs further development. The next OSPAR Quality Status Report (QSR) could capture such descriptions.
6. OSPAR has developed an assessment portal and a data and information portal, which will enable better collaboration and data exchange between CP’s and other organisations, and support the EU MSFD-reporting obligation.
7. There is still a lack of harmonized valuation methods and indicator assessment values for a number of indicators. Therefore the national Initial Assessments are not always comparable. However, so far no country has flagged major inconsistencies in the conclusions of neighbouring national initial assessments. |
Art. 8 regional coherence |
Partial |
Art. 8 regional coherence problems |
As the IA2017 lacks regionally agreed threshold values for some indicators, GES determinations and the integration of indicator assessment results, it does not always provide robust conclusions on the quality status of OSPAR waters. Therefore, EU Member States had to strike a balance between the need to nationally express the extent to which GES has been achieved, in order to meet MSFD requirements, and the degree to which the regionally coordinated IA2017 could be used in this process. |
Art. 9 countries involved |
NO, CH, FR, IS, LU, NL, UK, PT,
, BE, DE, ES, FI, IE, SE, DK, |
Art. 9 nature of coordination |
1. There has been a moderate level of information sharing in the development of coherent good environmental status (GES) determinations at descriptor and criteria level through the OSPAR Commission.
2. OSPAR supports the cooperation between EU Member States towards coherent and measurable determinations of GES - where possible and appropriate - based on the best available knowledge. The ICG-MSFD will continue to identify opportunities for (sub)regionally coherent GES determinations and common GES determinations where appropriate inter alia on the basis of the agreed common indicators..
3. In the process of updating the EU GES Commission Decision (2017/848/EU) OSPAR Contracting Parties have collaborated and jointly contributed to the process from the OSPAR perspective.
4. The current assessment values that have been proposed during development of the OSPAR indicators as part of IA 2017, remain exploratory, and may be revised in advance of any subsequent OSPAR assessment. Furthermore, such values are not systematically indicative of GES under the MSFD.
5. In 2017/2018. an analysis was conducted in order to assess the fit of the existing OSPAR indicators with the GES Commission Decision. Mismatches and gaps were identified regarding criteria, lists of elements, threshold values and integration / aggregation rules. Resources needed to develop the required solutions have been estimated. The OSPAR Commission agreed the priority is to address the Primary Criteria as described in the Commission Decision. From 2018 onwards OSPAR Committees will be working to address the requirements of the Commission Decision. |
Art. 9 regional coherence |
Partial |
Art. 9 regional coherence problems |
After the adoption of the GES Commission Decision there was no time left for joint work on GES determinations because member states were focusing efforts on national reporting.
There is lack of scientific knowledge, consensus on methodologies and/or political support for setting coordinated, quantified threshold values and GES determinations. |
Art. 10 countries involved |
NO, CH, FR, IS, LU, NL, UK, PT,
, BE, DE, ES, FI, IE, SE, DK, |
Art. 10 nature of coordination |
1. There has been a low level of information sharing on the development of coordinated environmental targets and indicators.
2. OSPAR aims to contribute to strengthening regional coordination in the implementation of the MSFD and to ensuring coherence with regard to the establishment of environmental targets.
3. In 2018/2019 ICG-MSFD will share information on national targets for five Descriptors, or parts of Descriptors (marine litter, mobile species, non-indigenous species, underwater noise and nutrients) and develop a way forward towards coherent environmental targets in the third cycle of the MSFD.
4. OSPAR strives towards more coordination between its North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy and environmental targets set for the implementation of the MSFD. |
Art. 10 regional coherence |
Incomplete |
Art. 10 regional coherence problems |
OSPAR aims to contribute to strengthening regional coordination of implementation of the MSFD and to ensuring coherence with regard to the establishment of environmental targets. However, the timing of a joint effort was not because CP’s that are EU Member States were focused on the update of the Commission Decision (2017/848/EU).
After the adoption of the Commission Decision there was no time for setting joint ambitions because member states were focusing efforts on national reporting.
There is lack of scientific knowledge, consensus on methodologies and/or political support for setting coordinated quantified and specific targets. Furthermore, each CP may have specific process to involve local stakeholders in environmental targets definition. It can be challenging to converge on common environmental targets that are endorsed both at a local, national and (sub)regional level. |
Uses and human activities and their pressures on marine environment
Title | Analysis of predominant pressures and impacts, including human activity (Art. 8(1)(b)) |
Access reports | View reports |
Pressures affecting environmental status
Title | Assessments of current environental status and pressures and impacts (Art. 8(1)(a)(b)) |
Access reports | View reports |
Current environmental status and extent to which GES is achieved (as reported in 2018)
Title | Assessments of current environental status and pressures and impacts (Art. 8(1)(a)(b)) |
Access reports | View reports |
Environmental targets to achieve GES
Title | Environmental targets (Art. 10) |
Access reports | View reports |
Measures to meet environmental targets and to achieve GES
Title | Programme of measures (Art. 13) |
Access reports | View reports |
Exceptions reported when targets or GES cannot be achieved
Title | Exceptions (Art. 14) |
Access reports | View reports |
Assessments of progress in MSFD implementation (Art. 12, 16) / 2012
Title | Implementation of marine strategies (Art. 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18) |
First cycle | 2012-2017 |
Access reports | View Art12 (8-9-10) report |
NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea
Descriptor | Article 9 - GES Determination | Article 8 - Initial Assessment | Article 10 - Environmental Targets | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Pressure-based descriptors |
D2 - Non-indigenous species
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Inadequate (1)
|
D5 - Eutrophication
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
|
D7 - Hydrographical changes
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Adequate (3)
|
Adequate (3)
|
|
D8 - Contaminants
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
|
D9 - Contaminants in seafood
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Adequate (3)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
|
D10 - Marine litter
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
|
D11 - Energy, incl. underwater noise
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Inadequate (1)
|
|
State-based descriptors |
D1 - Biodiversity – birds
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Adequate (3)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
D1 - Biodiversity – mammals
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Adequate (3)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – reptiles
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Adequate (3)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – fish
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Adequate (3)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – cephalopods
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Adequate (3)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
|
D3 - Commercial fish and shellfish
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Adequate (3)
|
Adequate (3)
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – pelagic habitats
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Adequate (3)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
|
D6 - Sea-floor integrity/D1 Biodiversity - benthic habitats
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Partially adequate/Adequate (2.5)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
|
D4 - Food webs/D1 Biodiversity - ecosystems
|
Inadequate (1)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Partially adequate (2)
|
Assessments of progress in MSFD implementation (Art. 12, 16) / 2018
Title | Implementation of marine strategies (Art. 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18) |
Second cycle | 2018-2023 |
Access reports | View Art12 (8-9-10) report |
NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea
Descriptor | Article 9 - GES Determination | Article 8 - Initial Assessment | Article 10 - Environmental Targets | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Pressure-based descriptors |
D2 - Non-indigenous species
|
Poor (2)
|
Very good (4)
|
Poor (2)
|
D5 - Eutrophication
|
Good (3)
|
Very good (4)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
D7 - Hydrographical changes
|
Poor (2)
|
Poor (2)
|
Very poor (1)
|
|
D8 - Contaminants
|
Good (3)
|
Good (3)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
D9 - Contaminants in seafood
|
Very good (4)
|
Very good (4)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
D10 - Marine litter
|
Poor (2)
|
Poor (2)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
D11 - Energy, incl. underwater noise
|
Poor (2)
|
Poor (2)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
State-based descriptors |
D1 - Biodiversity – birds
|
Poor (2)
|
Good (3)
|
Poor (2)
|
D1 - Biodiversity – mammals
|
Good (3)
|
Good (3)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – reptiles
|
Very poor (1)
|
Poor (2)
|
Good (3)
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – fish
|
Poor (2)
|
Good (3)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – cephalopods
|
Very poor (1)
|
Poor (2)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
D3 - Commercial fish and shellfish
|
Very good (4)
|
Good (3)
|
Very good (4)
|
|
D1 - Biodiversity – pelagic habitats
|
Poor (2)
|
Good (3)
|
Not reported (0)
|
|
D6 - Sea-floor integrity/D1 Biodiversity - benthic habitats
|
Poor (2)
|
Good (3)
|
Poor (2)
|
|
D4 - Food webs/D1 Biodiversity - ecosystems
|
Poor (2)
|
Very poor (1)
|
Very poor (1)
|