Bird Hazard Management Plan

Schiphol Bird Control Version 1.3 [December 2014]

Author Tim Lowijs

With the assistance of

Schiphol’s bird controllers

Jan-Otto Haanstra

Marco Koudijs

Kees van der Leek

Ton Mens

Sanne Patijn

Maryse Schermerhorn

Bart Straver

Desley Toonen

Kelly van Herten

Version management

Version Date Changes Made by

1.0 21 Jan. 2013 First version Tim Lowijs

1.1 11 Feb. 2013 Grammatical changes

New version of culling decision tree added

Glossary of abbreviations added

Tim Lowijs

1.2 7 Aug. 2013 Habitat Management KPIs added

Table of monotone grass cover requirements

added

Habitat Management PDCA cycle (Appendix)

Grass mowing flow chart (Appendix)

Kelly van Herten

1.3 11 Dec. 2014 Changed high risk species and update radar

usage.

Bart Straver

3

Contents

Version management .............................................................................................................................. 2

Glossary of abbreviations ........................................................................................................................ 4

Ch.1 – Summary and background ........................................................................................................... 6

1.1 Summary........................................................................................................................................ 6

1.2 Bird Control vision ......................................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Rationale for the Bird Hazard Management Plan ......................................................................... 9

Ch. 2 – What are the issues facing Amsterdam Airport Schiphol? ........................................................ 10

2.1 Wildlife assessment at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol .................................................................. 10

Risks ............................................................................................................................................... 11

Bowtie risk matrix .......................................................................................................................... 13

2.2 Stakeholders ................................................................................................................................ 13

External stakeholders .................................................................................................................... 14

Internal stakeholders ..................................................................................................................... 15

Consultative bodies ....................................................................................................................... 16

Focus .............................................................................................................................................. 17

Statutory framework ......................................................................................................................... 19

Fauna management ....................................................................................................................... 19

Ch.3 – Habitat management ................................................................................................................. 21

3.1 Habitat management vision for 2013-2016 ................................................................................ 21

Background .................................................................................................................................... 21

3.2 Strategy ....................................................................................................................................... 21

Buildings/engineering works ......................................................................................................... 23

Ch.4 – Bird dispersal and bird control ................................................................................................... 26

4.1 Bird dispersal ............................................................................................................................... 26

Bird dispersal equipment .............................................................................................................. 26

4.2 Catching birds .............................................................................................................................. 27

4.3 Culling birds ................................................................................................................................. 28

Ch.5 – Research and innovation ............................................................................................................ 29

5.1 Working method innovation ....................................................................................................... 29

Bird detection system and bird pad .............................................................................................. 30

Maintaining records of experiments ............................................................................................. 30

5.2 Corporate Responsibility ............................................................................................................. 31

Ch.6 – Reporting and analysis ............................................................................................................... 32

6.1 Aim of reporting .......................................................................................................................... 32

The check phase: action and responsibilities ................................................................................ 32

4

Recording data .............................................................................................................................. 33

6.2 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) .............................................................................................. 33

Internal KPIs ................................................................................................................................... 33

External parties.............................................................................................................................. 35

6.3 Forward-looking KPIs: leading vs lagging .................................................................................... 35

6.4 KPI reporting and analysis ........................................................................................................... 37

6.5 usage of radar within Bird Control KPI monitoring. .................................................................... 37

Ch.7 – Bird Control Department ............................................................................................................ 38

7.1 Operational implementation ....................................................................................................... 38

7.2 Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 39

7.3 Safety at work .............................................................................................................................. 40

Appendix 1: Bowtie risk matrix ............................................................................................................. 42

Appendix 2 – Annual Bird Calendar ....................................................................................................... 43

Appendix 3 – Analysis of external stakeholders .................................................................................... 44

Appendix 4 – Habitat management roles and agreements 2013 - 2016 .............................................. 45

Appendix 5 – Habitat management PDCA cycle .................................................................................... 46

Appendix 6 – Grass mowing flow chart ................................................................................................. 47

Glossary of abbreviations AAO Airport Authority Office

AAS Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

5

ACI Airports Council International

AFS Aircraft Fuel Supply

ALARP As low as reasonably practicable

AMS Airfield Maintenance Services

AOM Airside Operations Manager

AOVO Airside Operations Safety Consultation [Airside Operationeel Veiligheidsoverleg]

ASR Air Safety Report

BHMP Bird Hazard Management Plan

CA Corporate Affairs

CD Corporate Development

CM Company Manual

CR Corporate Responsibility

EASA European Aviation Safety Agency

FBE Fauna Management Unit [Faunabeheereenheid]

Fera Food and Environment Research Agency

Ffwet Flora and Fauna Act [Flora en faunawet]

FOD Foreign Object Debris

I&M Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation

ILT Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate

[Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport]

KPI Key Performance Indicator

LIB Airport Planning Decree [Luchthavenindelingsbesluit]

LTO Dutch Federation of Agriculture and Horticulture [Land- en Tuinbouworganisatie]

LVNL Air Traffic Control the Netherlands [Luchtverkeersleiding Nederland]

NRV Netherlands Birdstrike Control Group [Nederlandse Regiegroep Vogelaanvaringen]

NVLS Dutch Airports Association [Nederlandse Vereniging van Luchthavens]

PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle

PI Performance Indicator

PNH Province of North Holland

RVGLT National Regulations for the Safe Use of Airports and Other Aerodromes

[Regeling veilig gebruik luchthavens en andere terreinen]

SAOC Schiphol Airline Operators Committee

SBC Schiphol Birdstrike Committee

SLA Service Level Agreement

SNBV Schiphol Nederland B.V.

SRE Schiphol Real Estate

SSD Stakeholder Strategy and Development

SSE Safety, Security and Environment

TS Training Syllabus

UGS Vehicle assembly area (for emergency services) [uitgangsstelling]

VDS Bird detection system [vogeldetectiesysteem]

VNV Dutch Airline Pilots Association [Vereniging Nederlandse Verkeersvliegers]

VpS Schiphol Safety Platform [Veiligheidsplatform Schiphol]

WBA World Birdstrike Association

WBE Wildlife Management Unit [Wildbeheereenheid]

WI Work Instructions

6

Ch.1 – Summary and background

1.1 Summary Birds are a significant problem for aviation in general and, due to its geographical location, for

Schiphol in particular. The Bird Control Department at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol aims to mitigate

the risk of bird strikes. Schiphol Bird Control is founded on three pillars – preventive and reactive

control measures or habitat management, 24-hour bird dispersal operations and innovative working

methods and techniques. The department applies the Plan-Do-Check-Act management method

(PDCA cycle) in managing its operations. The cycle entails an annual review of work practices and

incorporates a check to determine whether the work practices are still effective.

While its 24-hour bird dispersal operations have proved to be successful, the challenge facing

Bird Control is to shift its focus to prevention, which means deterring the presence of all birds at the

airport or in the airport environs rather than bird dispersal. A vision for habitat management was

therefore drawn up for the period 2013-2016, which identifies the areas of concern based on the

four categories of habitat management: water, grass, trees and shrubs, and buildings.

The reactive control measures consist of dispersing, catching and culling birds. A range of

bird deterrent devices are available, both static and flexible. It is key to ensure the continuous

innovation of bird deterrent techniques. Because birds rapidly habituate to deterrents, these soon

lose their effectiveness. Research and innovation are therefore one of the department's focus areas.

Reporting and analysis are essential for monitoring the effectiveness of bird dispersal

operations and the department’s operations in general. Various analyses of the Key Performance

Indicators, or KPIs, are performed to determine whether or not and to what extent certain measures

are efficient. Based on the analyses, the department then takes action and determines whether or

not to proceed with the measures.

The final section of the Bird Hazard Management Plan (BHMP) explains the responsibilities of

the Bird Control Department. Bird controllers perform a range of duties in addition to bird dispersal

operations, including escorting the airport’s fleet of snow clearance vehicles and a role in the crisis

management organisation.

1.2 Bird Control vision Bird strikes constitute a flight safety risk. Just how high that risk is depends on numerous factors,

ranging from locations attractive to birds to the bird species in question, and from weather

conditions and seasons to a proper sense of urgency among the stakeholders. Not only do bird

strikes constitute a flight safety risk, but they also involve high costs due to aircraft damage, aircraft

returning to the airport, emergency landings, delays, reputation damage, consequential damage, and

so on. It is laid down by law (ICAO Annex 141) that an airport has a best efforts obligation to prevent

collisions between birds and aircraft. Since the 1960s Schiphol has employed dedicated operational

personnel to disperse birds, popularly referred to at the airport as the Kievit (lapwing).

1 ICAO Annex 14 9.4.1 The bird strike hazard on, or in the vicinity of, an aerodrome shall be assessed through: a)

the establishment of a national procedure for recording and reporting bird strikes to aircraft; and b) the

collection of information from aircraft operators, airport personnel, etc. on the presence of birds on or around

the aerodrome constituting a potential hazard to aircraft operations. 9.4.3 When a bird strike hazard is

identified at an aerodrome, the appropriate authority shall take action to decrease the number of birds

constituting a potential hazard to aircraft operations by adopting measures for discouraging their presence on,

or in the vicinity of, an aerodrome.

7

Bird Control has set itself the goal of making

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol a bird-free zone as

far as practicable. This is immensely challenging

for a 2,787-hectare airport surrounded by

farmland, with two to three bird controllers on

duty each day. Irrespective of the challenge, it is

an enduring goal. In day-to-day practice, a balance

must be sought between ‘effort’ and ‘effect’ – an

analogy deriving from safety management –

meaning that although the presence of 40 bird

controllers may ensure that fewer birds frequent

the airport, for instance, this would be neither

efficient nor economically viable.

This does not mean to say, however, that nothing can be done. Beginning with the problem rather

than the solution will help provide insight into, and an overall picture of what the actual risks are. For

example, Bird Control performs assessments to identify risks as far as possible. Bird Control

prioritises the most urgent matters on the basis of assessments and subsequently deploys the most

appropriate control measures.

This is difficult for an operational department to do on its own. Assistance is required from

Airfield Maintenance Services (AMS) and Property Management in addition to a long-term plan.

There are external stakeholders too, such as the Province of North Holland, who are able to exert

influence and who do have a mandate to tackle the issue of the attractiveness of the airfield to birds.

Nature is not a logistics process. The airport is accustomed to setting the wheels in motion for the

purpose of optimising processes. It is difficult to do this for flora and fauna due to their unpredictable

nature. External factors furthermore come into play, such as the airport’s geographical location in an

area that is highly attractive to birds. This makes the challenge for Schiphol even more daunting; the

process is affected by factors such as the size of the airfield, the frequency of aircraft movements,

the marine climate, the national flora and fauna policy and the airport's location in the heart of the

Haarlemmermeerpolder.

Figure 2 – Structure of AAS Bird Control of preventive control measures, reactive control measures

and innovative working methods and techniques. While Bird Control’s 24-hour bird dispersal

operations are traditionally of high quality, the department is seeking to shift its focus from reactive

to preventive control measures, and is thus placing emphasis on habitat management. Bird Control is

working on making the airport as unattractive as

possible to birds by means of habitat

management (Chapter 3). Habitat management is

being carried out in a variety of ways and in

association with numerous parties: only then will

it prove to be effective. Farming constitutes a key

factor in this context. In the early days, sections of

the airfield were still used as farmland (1),

whereas only the outskirts of the airport are

farmed today. Ever more focus is being placed on

farming. Agreements made with local farmers to

plough back the land sooner following the

harvest, in association with the Province of North

Holland,

Figure 1 – Bird strikes are nothing new.

Figure 2 – Structure of AAS Bird Control

8

are one such example. Major advancements have thus been made in cementing habitat

management.

This policy plan serves to set out and anchor the policy shift undertaken by Bird Control for the next

three years, based in part on the PDCA cycle, as shown in Figure 3. The Bird Hazard Management

Plan will be updated annually in November/December. The plan will be revised once every three

years (effective 2013). The PDCA cycle serves as a tool for managing the Bird Control Department’s

operations. The process is as follows [the person responsible is shown in blue]:

o Plan (Nov. – Dec.)

The objectives for the year ahead will be planned in the ‘Plan’ phase at the end of the year.

This will be carried out on the basis of the following:

� The bowtie risk matrix: the annual assessment of control measures. [Bird Control Manager]

� The Bird Control long-term plan: concrete objectives. The plan will be

updated and revised each year. [Bird Control Manager]

� The Bird Hazard Management Plan: an overarching vision document. The

BHMP will be updated and revised each year. [Bird Control Manager]

Figure 3 - Bird Control Department PCDA cycle

9

o Do (Jan. – Dec.)

The planned control measures will be organised and implemented during the ‘Do’ phase in

accordance with the Company Manual, the Work Instructions and the Training Syllabus. They

cover two areas:

� Habitat management. [Bird Control Manager/Advisor, Fauna Manager]

� Bird dispersal operations. [Bird controllers]

The KPIs defined will be measured throughout the entire year.

o Check (Jan. – Dec.)

During the ‘Check’ phase, emphasis will be placed on performance monitoring. Quarterly and

annual analyses will be carried out based on KPI reporting and the effectiveness of the

control measures assessed. The assessment performed by Fera2 (Augustus/September) has a

key role in the above. [Bird Control Manager]

o Act (Jan. – Dec.)

Lastly, the improvement areas will be identified during the ‘Act’ phase and a decision taken

on how to address these. This again covers two areas:

� Habitat management � based on the Service Level Agreement with the

Maintenance Department (AMS). [Bird Control Manager/Advisor, Fauna Manager]

� Bird dispersal operations � education and further training by Fera. [Bird controllers]

After having identified the improvement areas, the bowtie risk matrix will be revised and

recommendations arising from audits will implemented as far as possible in the process.

1.3 Rationale for the Bird Hazard Management Plan In recent years a range of documents have been drawn up on managing the Bird Control

Department, including flora and fauna management. Several internal documents relate to the above,

in particular the Company Manual, the Bird Control Work Instructions and the Training Syllabus. The

Bird Hazard Management Plan aims to set out a clear vision for managing Bird Control. The need to

set out preventive as well as reactive control measures in a policy plan stems from the

professionalisation of the department as well as policy. The plan explains how the Bird Control

Department is managed and how this ties in with documents, such as the Company Manual and

Work Instructions.

The Bird Hazard Management Plan is structured as follows. Chapter 2 examines the issues facing the

Bird Control Department, with an analysis of the ambient risks and the stakeholders. Chapters 3-5 go

on to examine how Bird Control addresses these risks based on the three pillars on which the

department is founded: habitat management, bird dispersal and innovation ( Control). Chapter 6

describes the embedment of and reporting procedure for these measures; Chapter 7 concludes with

a description of the Bird Control Department and its duties and responsibilities.

2 The Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera) is an executive agency of the UK Government’s

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Fera has a separate Wildlife Unit, which gathers expertise

on bird and ecology management. One of its services includes performing assessments.

10

Ch. 2 – What are the issues facing Amsterdam Airport Schiphol? When the very first aircraft touched down at Schiphol in 1916, people at the time may not have been

overly concerned about the fact that the geographical location of the airport, which today covers

2,787 hectares, was far from favourable in terms of the combination of wildlife and flight safety. The

heart of the Haarlemmermeer Polder is rich in flora and fauna and hence has necessitated the airport

to undertake active bird dispersal operations, pursue habitat management and innovation to control

the flight safety risks.

Birds are a significant problem for aviation in general and, due to its geographical location,

for Amsterdam Airport Schiphol in particular. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) estimates

that a single bird strike causes EUR 150,000 of material damage on average. The EASA estimates that

the total damage incurred by the aviation industry due to bird collisions totals around EUR 1 billion

each year, not counting the indirect damage described above.3

Several internal and external assessments analysing the airfield and surrounding area have been

conducted to identify the structural issues facing Schiphol. The internal observations of employees in

various departments and the Fera assessment formed major sources of input. The control measures

arising from these assessments (PDCA cycle plan phase) have been incorporated in the bowtie risk

matrix (drawn up internally, see Appendix 1).

2.1 Wildlife assessment at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol The aim of the annual Fera assessment is to analyse the quality of the current processes contributing

to bird hazard management. Fera’s assessment examines the habitat at and in the airport environs

and active bird dispersal operations. The following chapter takes a closer look at habitat

management. Bird Control’s core activity clearly is to make the habitat as unattractive as possible to

birds. To this end, Bird Control works closely with Airfield Maintenance Services (AMS).

Bird Control has distinguished several major bird-attracting factors:

- Grass - Apart from the fact that grass varieties to be sown must be determined jointly with

AMS, decisions must also be taken on the maximum height of the grass, how often and when

it will be mowed and whether or not the grass clippings should be disposed of. The ideal

grass length is 15-22cm. If the grass is any higher, it may topple over (be flattened) and if the

grass is too low, mice will be easier to see, thus attracting more birds of prey.

- Trees and shrubs - Trees and large shrubs in particular, plus any food they contain, offer a

highly attractive bird roosting and nesting area (e.g. starlings).

- Buildings - Buildings can serve as roosting or nesting areas for birds, such as seagulls and

crows. This possibility should be taken into account for existing buildings and when

constructing new buildings. Fera has stressed that it is far easier to take preventive action

rather than being reactive and resorting to the dispersal of birds time and again once they

have established themselves in the interior or on the exterior of buildings.

- Water - Water courses offer highly attractive foraging and breeding opportunities for bird

species, such as blue herons, ducks, geese and coots. Given that drainage ditches fulfil a

critical function in draining the airfield (compensatory water courses), at present it is not an

option to close them up. This means that it is crucial to ensure that water courses are always

meticulously checked and that measures are taken where necessary.

3 I. Margakis (EASA), Bird population trends and their impact on Aviation safety 1999-2008

[http://easa.europa.eu/essi/documents/EASAReportBirdpopulationandimpact.pdf]

11

Risks

An airport entirely free of birds without a single bird strike will always remain a utopia for

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. The attractiveness of the Haarlemmermeer Polder to birds, the

airport’s proximity to the coastline and the high volume of air traffic from different wind directions

and the use of alternating runways will inevitably continue to give rise to bird strikes. For the reasons

outlined above it should be established what the airport in general and Bird Control in particular

deem acceptable. General speaking, the safety risks should be ‘as low as is reasonably practicable’

(the ALARP principle). This objective is no different for bird strikes at Schiphol. Bird Control has

further added three risk categories for the bird species that frequent the airport zone, i.e. the high,

moderate and low-risk species. The Bird Calendar shows the most common bird species at

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol and the period in which they frequent the airport (see Appendix 2).

As shown in

Table 1 – Bird species risk matrix

, the birds have been classified in a safety matrix by risk type. The chance (probability) of a bird strike

occurring has been offset against the potential damage sustained as a result of a bird strike

(consequences). This serves as a basis for assessing to what extent the bird species poses a risk to

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. The format of the matrix was defined in conjunction with Fera.

12

Table 1 – Bird species risk matrix

The colour categories are defined as follows:

Green (low risk) – No further measures required.

Yellow (moderate risk) – The current measures should be reviewed and possible

improvements identified.

Red (high risk) – Further measures are required.

The following criteria were used to define the categories based on data relating to the number of

bird strikes and the damage incurred as a result of a bird strike. The criteria below were defined for

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol:

Probability

Number of bird strikes a

year (AAS data)

>10 3 – 10 1 – 2.9 0.3 – 0.9 0.2 – 0

Probability category Very High High Moderate Low Very Low

Consequences

Bird strikes causing damage

(%) (AAS data)

>20% 10% - 20% 6% - 9.9% 2% - 5.9% 0% - 1.9%

Consequences category Very High High Moderate Low Very Low

13

Bird Control focuses primarily on the high-risk species. The department’s focus lies on making the

airport unattractive to the species shown in the red section of the risk matrix. Specific risk measures

can be designed for each high-risk species and made visible by means of the bowtie risk matrix. This

risk matrix is redefined each year and annual control measures can be linked to it. Alongside this risk

matrix, Bird Control has defined a fixed set of high, moderate or low-risk types for the long term,

which are not linked to the annual risk figures. These risks have been classified on the basis of size

and weight and are also used for reporting purposes.

Bowtie risk matrix

The Bowtie methodology is used to identify and analyse the possible causes of bird strikes, obtain

insight into preventive and repressive control measures, and their effectiveness, and to facilitate

communication on this topic (see Appendix 1). The basic principle underlying the bowtie risk matrix is

that birds are unwelcome in the vicinity of an active runway. Bird-attracting situations have caused

birds to frequent the vicinity of runways, such as the presence of ‘grassland in the airport environs’

or ‘waste at the airport’. The measures taken to control such situations, such as ‘Bird Control patrols’

or ‘culling birds’ fall into the following three categories:

1. Control - The Bird Control Department is responsible for the measure.

2. Guide - Bird Control shares responsibility for the measure jointly with other departments

and/or sector parties. Bird Control provides advice and direction.

3. Influence - External parties, including the government, are responsible for the measure. Bird

Control exerts influence and will provide advice, if so requested by the parties.

Aside from classifying the types of control measures, a major advantage of the bowtie risk matrix is

that an opinion can be given on the current status of the measure based on the colours (green –

yellow – red). This provides immediate clarity on the areas where the control measures have not yet

reached the desired level and helps to determine in what areas action must be taken.

2.2 Stakeholders Bird Control has a special role both inside and outside the airport zone. The department’s activities

relate directly to raising the level of flight safety not only by carrying out 24-hour bird dispersal

operations (a repressive measure) but also preventive measures. Bird Control has many different

internal and external stakeholders.

There also are several important consultative bodies. All of these stakeholders are shown in the

stakeholder matrix in Figure 4 – Stakeholder matrix. Stakeholders have been classified on the basis of

power and level of interest in the matrix, creating four specific areas. The matrix reflects to what

extent the stakeholders are involved in the decision-making process. This methodology derives from

Strategic Environmental Management. Appendix 3 shows what the Bird Control stakeholder matrix

looks like.

14

External stakeholders

The external stakeholders have been classified into national and international parties. The analysis

and interests of these stakeholders are set out in Appendix 3.

o Firstly, at national level there is the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (I&M).

As part of the government, the Ministry of I&M is responsible for flight safety in Dutch

airspace. The Ministry implements the above responsibility by drafting and enforcing laws

and regulations for the aviation sector.

o At regional level, the Province of North Holland and the Municipality of Haarlemmermeer

carry responsibility for external risk. The Province is responsible for implementing flora and

fauna policy. In that capacity it has a role in reducing the goose population in the Schiphol

environs. At local level, the Municipality of Haarlemmermeer plays a key role in spatial

planning policy, such as determining the zone unattractive to birds in the Airport Planning

Decree (LIB).

o Air Traffic Control the Netherlands (LVNL) is a stakeholder on account of its responsibility for

controlling air traffic. The bird controllers are authorised to have air traffic brought to a halt,

while LVNL aims to optimise air traffic flows according to air traffic control capacity. Bird

controllers (Kievits) and assistant air traffic controller in the ATC Tower are in constant

contact to coordinate the use of take-off and landing runways.

o Logically, airlines such KLM (Schiphol’s home carrier), are involved given that their aircraft

and pilots may experience a bird strike. In this capacity it is therefore essential to coordinate

and share knowledge with the airlines. Schiphol bird strike data are compared with the

relevant KLM data on a monthly basis.

Figure 4 – Stakeholder matrix

15

o The Dutch Airports Association (NVL) is the sector organisation for airports in the

Netherlands. The NVL’s membership comprises the regional airports in the Netherlands as

well as Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Bird Control knowledge is shared with the NVL.

o The Dutch Airline Pilots Association (VNV) is the sector organisation for pilots in the

Netherlands. The VNV represents pilots in the Netherlands in the Dutch Birdstrike Control

Group (NRV).

o Nature conservation and animal protection societies are organisations whose interests

serve to protect flora and fauna. Their role is to ensure that a balance is maintained between

the ongoing issue of flight safety and flora and fauna management.

o The Fauna Control Units (FBE) and Wildlife Control Units (WBE) are the stakeholders

responsible for implementing flora and fauna management on behalf of the government and

the province. Section 2.3 examines their exact roles.

o Firstly, at international level there is the World Birdstrike Association (WBA). The WBA is an

umbrella organisation for the national and regional bird strike consultative bodies, such as

the NRV and the Schiphol Birdstrike Committee (SBC) in the Netherlands. The WBA serves as

a worldwide forum for members of the above committees.

o The Airport Councils International (ACI) is the global trade representative of the world’s

airports. The organisation serves as a forum and a facilitator for benchmarking and sharing

experiences on safety measures for the purpose of wildlife hazard management.

Internal stakeholders

o The Airside Operations Manager (AOM) supervises bird controllers engaged in bird dispersal

operations. The AOM has ultimate responsibility for all airside operations and in that capacity

supervises bird controllers operating in the airfield.

o Airfield Maintenance Services (AMS) is another key internal stakeholder. As the party

responsible for green space management in the airfield, AMS fulfils a key role, particularly in

habitat management. This means that Bird Control and AMS must closely coordinate their

activities. They do so by, for instance, regularly patrolling airfield hotspots and coordinating

with each other which hotspots require urgent attention.

o Like AMS, Schiphol Real Estate (SRE) has a role in the ‘preventive’ area of the bowtie risk

matrix. As stated earlier, buildings may be attractive bird roosting or nesting sites. This

should be taken into account in the construction and property management of buildings. It is

therefore vital for SRE and Bird Control to maintain dialogue on this topic. SRE is the land

owner of Schiphol’s freehold land located beyond the airfield.

o Corporate Development (CD) maintains strong ties and engages closely with regional parties

for the purpose of garnering wide support for the development of Amsterdam Airport

Schiphol. The department advises Bird Control on Strategic Environmental Management

issues and involves the various stakeholders at the right moment based on the topic

concerned.

o Corporate Affairs (CA) is the department responsible for communication and public affairs

and acts as Schiphol’s spokesperson. For Bird Control, CA has a public affairs role in lobbying

for Schiphol. Bird Control communicates regularly with Press Relations to coordinate external

communications.

16

Figure 5 – NRV four-track policy

o Safety, Security and Environment (SSE) completes the list of internal stakeholders. SSE fulfils

an important role in monitoring safety risks at the airport, conducting incident investigations,

and takes a wider perspective on safety management. SSE is a key stakeholder in respect of

Bird Control’s role in raising the level of flight safety.

The stakeholder matrix shown in Figure 6 – Bird Control stakeholder matrix illustrates the

relationship of these stakeholders with Bird Control. A subsequent analysis of external stakeholders

details the interests of each stakeholder – see Appendix 3.

Consultative bodies

o In addition to external and internal

stakeholders, there are also four main

consultative bodies. First, the Dutch

Birdstrike Control Group (NRV). This

consultative body represents the Ministry of

I&M, the Ministry of Defence, the Province

of North Holland, the Municipality of

Haarlemmermeer, the Society for the

Preservation of Nature in the Netherlands

[Natuurmonumenten], the Netherlands

Society for the Protection of Birds

[Vogelbescherming Nederland], the Dutch

Federation of Horticulture and Agriculture

(LTO), KLM, LVNL, Amsterdam Airport

Schiphol and the VNV. The NRV was

established for the purpose of reducing the

risk of bird strikes in the Netherlands. To this end, the members conduct consultations and

issue advice. The NRV promotes collaboration among the authorities and other stakeholders

whose activities relate to bird strikes and/or to reducing their occurrence. As chair of the

NRV, the Ministry of I&M is responsible for the 'four-track' approach, which primarily

addresses the issue of the presence of geese in the Schiphol environs. This is set out in the

covenant on ‘Reducing Bird Strikes' dated 16 April 2010. All NRV members have made a

commitment towards the four tracks, which are:

� Population management � treating nests and catching and culling geese.

� Crop adjustment � expediting the ploughing back of land, growing alternative grass

varieties such as elephant grass.

� Adaptation of the natural environment/wetlands � Adapting the zone unattractive

to birds and amendment of the Airport Planning Decree (LIB) policy.

� Technology deployment � bird detection system (VDS) research project.

o The Schiphol Birdstrike Committee (SBC) aims to keep all stakeholders at Schiphol regularly

informed of Bird Control policy and its implementation. The SBC's membership comprises

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, the Ministry of I&M, KLM, Transavia, Martinair, LVNL and VNV.

In addition to sharing knowledge and experience, the members collaborate in other areas

such as sharing data and assessing studies on the effects of fauna.

17

o The Schiphol Safety Platform (VpS) was established for the purpose of supervising

collaboration among the wide range of parties that make up the airport operations chain.

The VpS therefore aims to ensure the continuous improvement of safety at the airport as

well as joint communications on safety improvements to stakeholders. This covers all of the

aviation processes at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. VpS members are the LVNL, Amsterdam

Airport Schiphol, KLM, Transavia, Martinair, Aircraft Fuel Supply (AFS), the Schiphol Ground

Handling Committee, the Schiphol Airline Operators Committee (SAOC) and the Human

Environment and Transport Inspectorate (ILT).

o The fourth consultative body is the Airside Operations Safety Consultation (AOVO).

Managers of all Airside Operations (AO)4 departments participate in the monthly

consultation, together with the manager of the Airport Fire Service, the AO safety advisors,

the incident investigators and the senior advisor for Safety, Security and Environment (SSE).

The objective of the AOVO is to ensure and improve airside safety. Among other things, this

involves a six-monthly evaluation of control and improvement measures relating to the

highest risks.

Focus

Bird Control annually updates the stakeholder analysis in conjunction with the Stakeholder Strategy

& Development (CD/SSD) Department to ensure that the internal strategic departments are aware of

the long-term interests – both internal and external – involved in Bird Control’s policy.

4 The Airport Operations Department comprises Bird Control, the Airside Authority Office, Apron Planning and

Control, Airside Support, Construction and Maintenance Control and Airside Process Management.

18

Level of interest

Power

Low

Low

High

High

(Low) Level of involvement (High)

Key Players

Keep Informed Minimal Effort

Keep Satisfied

CD AOM

CA

ATC

PNH

NRV

SBC

VPS

I&M

Airline

Mun.

H’meer AMS

SSE

VNV ACI

NVL

Nature

conservation and

animal protection

societies FBE

WBE

SRE WBA

Internal

External

Consultative

body

Figure 6 – Bird Control stakeholder matrix

AOVO

19

Statutory framework Airside Operations, and hence Bird Control, are highly dependent on relevant existing and new

legislation formulated at international as well as national/regional level. At the international level,

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol complies with the international standards laid down by the European

Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

The EASA is a European Union agency to which the majority of EU member states have assigned

regulatory powers. This means that airport-specific EASA legislation will enter into force on 1 January

2014. The underlying principle is to ensure that clear aviation laws and regulations are laid down at

the right level within the European Union.

At national level, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment (I&M) is the main policymaker

for aviation. Laws and regulations for aviation in the Netherlands are set out in the Aviation Act

(1992) [Wet luchtvaart (1992)]. The Ministry of I&M is responsible for transposing the international

regulations into the national Aviation Act, in the form of the Regulations for the Safe Use of Airports

and Other Aerodromes (RVGLT). An agenda for implementing the Aviation Action has been

established in the Aviation Policy Agenda [Beleidsagenda Luchtvaartveiligheid] and the Airport

Planning Decree (LIB).

Lastly, the use of signal pistols/pistol-launched pyrotechnics as a bird deterrent, and

shotguns/shotgun ammunition to cull birds, means that Bird Control is required to comply with the

Weapons and Ammunition Act [Wet Wapens en Munitie]. This Act regulates the use and possession

of weapons and ammunition.

Fauna management

For Bird Control, one particular feature of the regulatory framework to bear in mind is the need to

apply for exemptions to the Flora and Fauna Act [Flora- en faunawet], which regulates the protection

of flora and fauna in the Netherlands. One part of the Act relates to exemptions and licences. Under

this Act, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (Bird Control) has been granted exemption to cull protected

and unprotected species in the interests of flight safety.5 The exemptions are substantiated by

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol in its Fauna Management Plan, which sets out the risk per species.6 It is

important to note that the national Flora and Fauna Act serves as a regulatory framework, and that

5 Flora and Fauna Act, Chapter V, Part III (1998), specifically Articles 67 and 68.

6 Schiphol Fauna Management Plan 2011-2016, Bird Control, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.

Figure 7 – Aviation legislation

EASA

20

the province is charged with implementation. The Province of North Holland’s policy is defined in the

Policy Document on the Flora and Fauna Act (2007) [Beleidsnota Flora- en faunawet (2007)]. The

provincial Fauna Management Unit (FBE) is responsible for fauna management, acting in accordance

with the Fauna Management Plan for North Holland [Faunabeheerplan Noord-Holland]. Such fauna

management units are often umbrella associations for various Wildlife Management Units (WME),

each with responsibility for their own region.

Figure 7 – Fauna management

21

Ch.3 – Habitat management Bird Control, and particularly habitat management at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol have the overall

ambition of being:

EUROPE’S UNPREFERRED AIRPORT…FOR BIRDS!

3.1 Habitat management vision for 2013-2016 The long-term objective of habit management is avoid creating an attractive habitat for high-risk bird

species at Schiphol. The species posing a high-risk in the airfield are:

o Herons

o Water fowl (geese, ducks and swans)

o Birds of prey (buzzards, hawks, etc.)

o Seagulls

o Lapwings

The high-risk species were defined on the basis of recent Fera assessments and internal data on bird

strikes and bird counts. The objective is to make the habitat in the airfield and the surrounding area

as unattractive as possible for high-risk bird species at the least.

Background

Due in part to the results of the Habitat Management Wave Project in 2011 (an improvement

programme), it was found that there was a need to anchor and set out in writing agreements and

activities relating to habitat management. These are being performed in conjunction with Airfield

Maintenance Services. The aim for the period 2013-2016 is to shift the focus of Bird Control policy

from reactive to preventive. Bird activity can be reduced by making the airfield as unattractive as

possible to birds and other fauna. Birds and other animals feel at home if there is an adequate

amount of three specific factors: food, safety and cover. The aim of habitat management is to

minimise primarily the factors of ‘food’ and ‘cover’ in the airfield and the surrounding area. The 24-

hour bird dispersal operations disrupt the ‘safety’ factor.

Habitat management in an area as vast as the airfield, Schiphol (SNBV) freehold land and the

land owned by Schiphol Real Estate (SRE) is an expensive and time-consuming affair, the effects of

which can sometimes only be seen in the medium to long term. Habitat management will only

produce the most effective results for airports if deployed over the longer term. Dissuading birds

from frequenting a bird-attracting environment is like fighting a losing battle. For this reason, Bird

Control advocates substantially increasing the level of investment in habitat management jointly with

AMS and SRE.

3.2 Strategy AMS and Heijmans (the main contractor charged with green space management) are very much

aware of the immediate impact of green space management on bird activity and hence flight safety.

In the first quarter (Q1) of each year, AMS organises a meeting to discuss planned measures with the

parties concerned. The table in Appendix 4 shows the responsibilities of each party in respect of the

below objectives for the period 2013-2016.

A number of general objectives for habitat management have been formulated for the period 2013-

2016, as follows:

I. In 2013 a full description of all attractive habitat elements will be available for high-risk bird

species.

22

II. In 2013 a map will be available showing all locations containing attractive habitat elements in

the airport zone. The elements are permanent, such as water courses, boscages, etc.

III. In 2013 a priority list will be available of attractive habitat elements that must be removed.

IV. In 2013 a planning schedule and accompanying budget for the period through 2018 will be

available describing which habitat elements should be removed. This should cohere with the

priorities under item III.

V. The Scarecrow Ultima System (Birdpath) is operative and continuously detects bird-attracting

locations requiring additional action (hotspots).

Annual assessments will be performed to assess and determine the level of embedment of these

ambitions and objectives, with a specific focus on habit management.

Figure 8 – The four categories of habitat management

As explained earlier and shown in Figure 8, there are four categories of habitat management: water,

grass, trees and shrubs, and buildings. An outlook has been formulated for each of these habitat

categories and coupled to fixed objectives, as follows:

Grass

1. Every effort will be made to ensure that grass in the airfield is maintained at an optimum

height of 15-22cm. This height in any event applies at the beginning of November, in view of

the dormant period after that month.

2. Where there is no monotone grass cover, preventive action will be taken by adding fertiliser

or eradicating weeds, or carrying out another round of mowing at these locations. This

depends on the size of the area. Figure 10 defines monotone grass cover.

3. In 2013 a survey will be initiated to determine the ideal grass variety.

4. In the same vein, a survey will be initiated in 2013 on grass innovations at airports and

options for increasing the frequency of grass cuttings disposal. The survey results will provide

23

input for a long-term sowing plan scheduled for rollout in 2014-2016 with an appropriate

budget and at an appropriate pace.

5. The current logistics plan for disposing of grass cuttings will be maintained. Grass cuttings will

be disposed of after the second mowing round. In 2013 the logistics plan will be incorporated

in the SLA between AMS and Bird Control.

6. In 2013 the long-term sowing plan will be drawn up in accordance with the interests of AMS

and Bird Control.

7. A maintenance plan defining frequent mowing rounds will be drawn up for grassland located

beyond the airfield. AMS and SRE will regularly coordinate preventive measures for

dissuading bird activity beyond the airfield.

8. Birdpath will serve to support the continuous detection of grass locations requiring further

attention.

9. The status of the drainage system will be assessed each year and improved, where necessary,

to avoid puddles forming in the airfield as much as possible.

10. The mouse population will be closely monitored, as a barometer for the expected numbers of

bird species that feed on mice. The mouse population must be minimised.

Trees and shrubs

1. In 2013 bird-attracting trees and shrubs will be identified in various areas and on freehold

land beyond the airfield. In consultation with Bird Control it will be decided whether

measures should be taken to reduce bird-attracting effects.

2. In 2013 a plan and accompanying budget estimate will be drawn up for the removal or

modification of trees and boscages that attract high-risk bird species.

3. In 2016 trees and boscages that attract medium and high-risk bird species to the whole

airport zone will be removed or modified.

Water

1. In 2013 a list of water management priorities will be available. In respect of the water

management priorities, it will be clearly set out which measures should be taken to remove

or modify them.

2. In 2014 agreement will be reached between AMS/Bird Control and the Rijnland Water Board

on changing the water management priorities stated under item 1.

3. In 2013 a working group will be set up to research possible bird deterrents for the attractive

habitat elements in the water system located in and around the airfield. Examples of

deterrents to be tested are nets, balls and stationary bird scare laser beam technology. The

required budget must be coordinated with Bird Control and AMS.

4. In 2015 an implementation plan and budget estimate will be available for the measures to be

taken until 2018 and agreed by AMS and Bird Control. These measures will be incorporated

into the updated SLA between AMS and Bird Control.

Buildings/engineering works

1. In 2013 action plans will be drawn up for the prevention of breeding and roosting sites in

existing buildings. The objective is to detect and identify these locations.

2. In 2014 nesting and roosting sites used by high-risk bird species located in the interior or on

the exterior of buildings will be actively removed or disturbed. Control measures will be

defined and deployed in association with SRE and the building users/occupants.

3. In 2014 a plan accompanied by a budget estimate will be available for modifying buildings

based on the priority list referred to under objective III.

4. In 2013/2014 an awareness-raising programme will be carried out among building occupants

and users for the purpose of observing and communicating increased bird activity.

5. From 2013 new guidelines will be set out concerning the bird-attracting features of new

buildings.

24

6. From 2013 Bird Control and SRE will proactively assess new buildings for possible bird nesting

sites. This should result in structural input for the SRE guidelines.

Monotone Grass Cover Requirements

CROW scale bar

Quality level

Description

Standard

Mowing around

obstacles B The length of the grass may not

obstruct the VDS/ILS signs. Overall length of long grass 15-

22cm

Height of grass within a distance

of 0.3m from the obstacle

compared with neighbouring

grass vegetation may be ≤ twice

as high. Damage A The grass has little damage. ≤0.25m2 per 100m2.

Grass clippings on

grass A+ - C The grass clippings should be at

level A+ after the second round.

Level A-C is satisfactory for the

other mowing rounds.

Density A The grassland must comprise

high-density grass. ≤5m2 per 100 m2 of visible

substrate.

Weeds (fields +

paving) A

intervene if C Hardly any weeds. Fields:

≤5 cm per 100m2 area covered by

weeds.

Paving:

Maximum 10 areas exceeding a

length of 10 cm per 100 m2.

Mole hills B

intervene if C Few mole hills. ≤ 5 mole hills per 100m2.

Flatness of

substrate B The flatness of the substrate

should not impede mowing. The

substrate is uneven here and

there.

≤ 5cm per 100m2.

Figure 10 - Monotone grass cover

3.3 Habitat Management SLA

As a result of policy changes at Bird Control, the Habitat Management SLA required updating. In 2013

AMS revised the SLA jointly with Bird Control and Heijmans, which included defining habitat

management KPIs. The Voice of the Customer diagram below shows the Performance Indicators (PIs)

and KPIs identified. The KPIs are detailed in Chapter 6.3.

25

Figure 11 – Voice of the Customer – Bird Control

The KPIs are measured on a monthly basis while patrolling hotspots. These measurements form the

basis for the annual SLA report and evaluation.

= KPI

26

Ch.4 – Bird dispersal and bird control In addition to habitat management – the preventive side of Bird Control – 24-hour bird dispersal

operations form one of the department’s pillars. The objective of 24-hour bird dispersal operations is

to ensure the least possible bird activity in the vicinity of an active runway. An important point is to

focus on controlling birds rather than dispersing birds given that situations do arise in which it is safer

to allow birds to remain where they are in the vicinity of an active runway, rather than chasing them

away and running the risk that they will fly in the direction of departing or landing aircraft. In

weighing up whether to disperse birds or allow them to remain where they are, it is vital for bird

controllers to have extensive knowledge of the area, the habitat and the bird species in question.

4.1 Bird dispersal Bird dispersal can be carried out many different ways. However, the bird controller fulfils a pivotal

and most effective role in bird dispersal operations. A bird controller must be well trained in

recognising and identifying birds and bird behaviour, have the ability to make swift decisions on the

correct dispersal method and perform the activities during normal and peak airport operations. Bird

controllers must have a continuous presence in the airfield. Only the permanent presence of bird

controllers and continuous bird dispersal operations will clearly signify to birds that they are

unwelcome around the airport.

Bird dispersal equipment

Bird dispersal equipment can be divided into static and portable equipment. A requirement for both

categories of equipment is that their use should be varied and unpredictable. Static bird deterrent

devices (Figure 12) are fixed devices installed in the airfield for short or longer periods of time.

Examples are gas canons (which emit a loud bang through an exhaust pipe connected to a gas

cylinder), a scarecrow (inflatable), Irri-Tape (iridescent tape alongside water courses), spikes (metal

pins on top of signs) or skippy balls (in water courses).

Portable bird deterrents are deterrents operated by bird controllers which they permanently carry on

board their vehicle. The vehicle (call name Kietvit) is vital for the activities performed by a bird

controller. Besides being the bird controller’s permanent mode of transport, which is also used to

disperse birds, the presence of the yellow vehicle alone often spurs birds to fly away. Birds know

from experience that they will be chased away the instant they recognise the vehicle. The roof of the

vehicle is fitted with loudspeakers that broadcast bird distress calls. The distress calls give birds the

impression that one of their kind is in danger, causing them to take flight.

Pyrotechnics are a frequently used (portable) bird deterrent (Figure 13). The ammunition,

which is fired from signal pistols, is available in a range of types and sizes, with a focus on the visual

effects (light and/or smoke) or noise effects (one or several bangs). The effectiveness of the

ammunition depends on the bird species. When using the ammunition it is important to ensure that

it is fired between the risk area and the birds present, to ensure that the birds fly away from the area

where they could pose a risk (such as a take-off or landing runway).

Figure 12 – Examples of static bird deterrents. From left to right: spikes, a gas canon and a scarecrow.

27

Another common technique at Amsterdam Airport

Schiphol which was only recently put into use is the

handheld green laser (Figure 14). The laser (pocket torch

size) has proved to be effective particularly for water fowl.

Research has revealed that birds are highly sensitive to the

colour green. If a laser beam is shone in the direction of

birds, it gives them the impression that they are about to

be attacked by a long green stick, causing them to fly

away. A major advantage of the green laser is its precision in chasing away birds and that it does not

emit a loud bang, for example, which would disturb birds in the environs. The green laser is durable

as well as environmentally friendly.

4.2 Catching birds In addition to continuous bird dispersal operations, birds are caught in traps (Figure 15) placed in the

airfield. The traps are designed for birds of prey – mainly buzzards and kestrels – because they form a

substantial problem for flight operations. The birds caught are taken out of the cage by the fauna

manager and temporarily placed in one of the cages outside the airfield boundary. The birds are

tagged, measured, weighed, their age is estimated, and they are then released 50km from

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. Experience has shown that only around 1% of the birds previously

caught and tagged return to the airfield.

There has been discussion regarding whether the removal of the birds of prey caught in the habitat

of Amsterdam Airport Schiphol opens up a vacuum that can filled by new birds of prey or new bird

species. Birds of prey are known to be territorial, which means that when they are caught their

territory will be vacated or ‘freed up’ as it were. For Bird Control, however, its best efforts obligation

and the focus on high-volume dispersal carry more weight than this potential objection. The Fauna

Manager moreover actively monitors the mouse population (the favourite food of birds of prey)

which helps to predict an increase or decrease in buzzard and kestrel numbers.

Figure 15 – Buzzard (left) and kestral (right) traps in the airfield

Figure 13 – Pistol-launched pyrotechnics

Figure 14 – Green laser in use

28

4.3 Culling birds If bird controllers and/or the Fauna Manager are unsuccessful in dispersing birds or other fauna with

the current deterrents, they may decide to cull the birds in the interests of flight safety. The actual

decision to cull birds must be taken in accordance with the procedure shown in the ‘culling decision

tree’ (Figure 16). It is vital and mandatory to follow the decision tree procedure in that it ensures that

bird controller’s never lose sight of the fact that the emphasis lies on culling as a last resort.

The Province of North Holland has granted Amsterdam Airport Schiphol an exemption for

culling birds. The exemption entails that in the interests of flight safety and having obtained consent

from the AOM, designated persons (bird controllers holding a hunting licence) have permission to

cull birds at the airfield.

Figure 4 – Culling decision tree

29

Ch.5 – Research and innovation Birds usually quickly habituate to dispersal techniques. For this reason, research into and the

innovation of working methods – the third pillar of the Bird Control Department – is a key factor in

the success of the department’s operations.

5.1 Working method innovation The relentless pursuit of improved working methods, new dispersal techniques or developments

such as a bird detection system play a major part in the effectiveness of bird dispersal operations.

Innovation therefore is one of the three pillars on which Bird Control is founded, as shown in Figure 2

– Structure of Bird Control at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol. The main sources of potential innovation

at Bird Control often derive from the following:

o exchanging knowledge with other airports (particularly benchmarking);

o conferences relating to the field of practice;

o trials offered by manufacturers;

o internal ideas generated by the department or improvements to existing techniques;

o relations with knowledge institutes (such as Delft University of Technology and Wageningen

University) and relations with external parties (such as hobbyists).

Every habitat is essentially different, which means that not every dispersal technique will be effective

at every location. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol therefore tests the most practicable innovations

presented to Schiphol. It is important to bear in mind that innovations must always be modified or

assessed against the background of flight safety. There are countless examples of bird deterrents

that are unsuitable for an airport. One such example are the white ribbons sometimes used around

refuse dumps in other parts of the Netherlands which keep birds at distance by flapping in the wind.

White ribbons are unsuitable for an airport because when letting loose they become foreign object

debris (FOD or objects that can potentially damage an aircraft). For this reason, the airport uses Irri-

Tape (see Figure 17), a similar method, which breaks off into smaller pieces.

Figure 5 – ‘Irri-Tape’ around puddles

30

Bird detection system and bird pad

The bird detection system is an innovative radar based method of detecting birds in the vicinity of

the airport in real time. The primary usage of the radar system is in the determination of the

remaining risk of a bird strike after all control measures have been taken. The remain risk index is

based on 3 parameters.

1. Near miss event index. (A divider based on the mass of all birds that get within 50 meters of

an aircraft per hour).

2. Nr. of runway crossings. (Mass of all birds that cross an active runway per hour).

3. Density grids. ( The mass of all birds within 3 risk areas (airside, the first 200 meters from the

airport boundary, 200 to 700 meters from the airside boundary)).

Figure 6 US Airways airliner crash in the Hudson River (left) and a damaged Royal Air Marc aircraft following a bird strike

at Schiphol (right)

Birdpad clearly exemplifies working method innovation. Birdpad is a tablet produced by the

manufacturer of Scarecrow which is built into bird control vehicles. Activities can be logged into the

tablet digitally, specifics concerning runway inspections entered and bird counts updated, etc. The

tablet links all of this information to the bird controller's GPS location and enables outline maps or

data lists of hotspots or other key locations to be

incorporated in reports. Until recently, this

information was recorded and updated, with

specifics later collated in a digital file. A subsequent

investigation into why a specific area is a bird

hotspot, based on the habitat management carried

out in the area, for instance, enables measures to

be taken to reduce the bird attractiveness of

hotspots.

Lastly, innovation means continuously testing new

dispersal techniques. In practice, a range of

dispersal techniques have proved to be more

effective at some airports but less so at others,

given the differences in bird activity. The Bird Control Department at Schiphol maintains regular

contact with its suppliers and is favourably disposed towards testing and/or assessing new bird

dispersal devices or technical modifications to existing methods. One such example is the use of a

handheld green laser, a highly effective device for scaring away birds such as geese, wild ducks and

starlings.

Maintaining records of experiments

The results of the numerous investigations and experiments conducted to determine whether or not

an innovation is effective at the airport must be kept on record so as to prevent knowledge from

being lost due to staff attrition. An innovation database will therefore be developed in 2013. This

Figure 7 – Operative Birdpath

31

database will be a digital document for recording test results, user product experiences and the

reasons for putting a product into use or not. When implementing similar systems in the future, past

experiences can be retrieved from the database and, where applicable, considered in a new

assessment.

5.2 Corporate Responsibility Corporate Responsibility (CR) is becoming an ever more important theme at Amsterdam Airport

Schiphol. The growth of the airport largely depends on a number of CR themes, classed by the airport

under the headings of ‘People’, ‘Planet’ and ‘Profit’. ‘People’ covers aspects such as the health and

well-being of employees and passengers, employment, safety, etc. ‘Planet’ relates primarily to the

quality of life and the environment, such as the quality of water, waste processing, hazardous

substances, etc. ‘Profit’ entails that these CR themes are implemented as efficiently as possible. CR

seeks to strike a balance between People, Planet and Profit.

Several themes are particularly important to Bird Control. Aviation safety is a key theme under

‘People’. The objective is to reduce the number collisions between birds and aircraft’.7 This is

obviously Bird Control’s core activity, and is therefore an important link between the department

and CR. Bird Control has another role in ‘Planet’, under the theme of ‘Nature and Landscape’. Aside

from the fact that Bird Control has a prominent voice in the performance of habitat management,

measures relating to the goose problem, such as the four-track approach embraced by the NRV, play

a key role. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol in general and Bird Control in particular must be mindful to

ensure that the four-track approach is implemented in a manner that strikes a balance between

People, Planet and Profit.

CR is also important for Bird Control in respect of shifts in the composition of flora and fauna

resulting from factors such as climate change. It is realistic to assume that, over prolonged periods,

certain bird species may grow or decline in number compared with current numbers. It is essential to

bear this in mind when considering to the long term. Long-term changes in flora and fauna should be

examined to ensure that management of the habitat can be adapted on a timely basis.

Another activity arising from CR at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol is ‘theGrounds’, an innovation

platform established at the airport’s initiative. theGrounds is a proving ground where businesses

(such as the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), Imtech, Amsterdam

Airport Schiphol and knowledge institutes (among them Delft University of Technology and

Wageningen University) jointly develop applications for a sustainable airport. Examples are the use of

biofuel and the reduction of CO2 emissions.

7 ‘Aviation Safety’ is a Schiphol CR strategy theme (16 February 2012)

[http://intranet.intra.schiphol.nl/web/file?uuid=42529ae9-1036-4b4c-becc-27133b2434d5&owner=19bb94f8-

f36a-47c5-814d-1d41c29f42d5].

32

Ch.6 – Reporting and analysis

6.1 Aim of reporting Reporting and analysis are essential elements of bird strike reduction efforts at the airport. Reporting

and analysis are based on logging information, an intrinsic part of the Bird Control Department. Only

by keeping a precise record of what is happening and at which locations can reliable data be

accumulated. The data is subsequently analysed to identify any correlations. This enables Bird

Control to determine the need for control measures and assess the effectiveness of those measures,

and in turn to improve them.

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol acquires data through its ASIS reporting system, among other

things. Bird controllers enter ASIS incidents involving fauna in the reporting system. Overviews can

then be created of the data recorded, all with different variables. For the Bird Control Department,

ASIS data are the most important source of information for its weekly, monthly and annual reports,

for example.

The check phase: action and responsibilities

One of the main tools for the Bird Control Department overall and for analysis purposes in particular

is the Plan-Do-Check-Act, or PDCA, cycle. As discussed in Chapter 1, the PDCA cycle forms a basis for

the department's annual plan. The 'Check' phase relates primarily to reporting and analysis, in which

the emphasis lies on performance monitoring. Quarterly and annual analyses are carried out based

on KPI reporting and the effectiveness of the control measures is assessed. The external assessment

of Bird Control’s performance conducted by Fera (August/September) plays a key role in this process.

Figure 8 – ‘Check’ phase in the PDCA cycle

33

In turn, the recommendations formulated in the assessment serve as input for the ‘Act’ and ‘Plan’

phases.

It is essential to define roles and responsibilities in the Check phase. The Bird Control Manager

carries ultimate responsibility for performance monitoring. To this end, various reports are compiled

and analyses performed to chart developments, as shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2 – Bird Control reporting tools

Recording data

Bird controllers fulfil a pivotal role in reporting. It is vital for all bird controllers to keep a precise

record of their individual activities and relevant events while on duty. Information is logged on the

basis of the ‘paper activity list or in the ‘Birdpath’, a tablet produced by the manufacturer of

Scarecrow. Activities can be logged into the tablet digitally, specifics concerning runway inspections

entered and bird counts updated, etc. The tablet links all of this information to the bird controller's

GPS location, enabling outline maps or data lists of hotspots or other key locations to be

incorporated in reports. In the future, these data will be used to analyse the main KPIs, such as bird

counts and the number of bird-attracting locations.

6.2 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) KPIs are used to measure the work performed by the Bird Control Department. This helps Bird

Control to determine any changes in the risks and situations associated with bird strikes. Bird Control

measures a number of KPIs, distinguishing between internal and external indicators.

Internal KPIs

A number of indicators are measured for internal purposes, such as performance improvements and

control measures. These indicators are then incorporated into various types of reports.

o Fauna incidents

The number of fauna incidents is measured first. A fauna incident is an incident in which a

dead bird is removed from the take-off or landing runway but no bird strike has been

reported by a pilot. A fauna incident is reported as such in ASIS. Fauna incidents are recorded

Tool Frequency Description Responsibility Objective

Weekly

report Weekly Summary of bird strikes and fauna incidents for

the relevant week (included in the department's

weekly Info Leaflet).

Bird Control Advisor

and incident

investigator (AAO)

To inform bird controllers

and the Airside Operations

Manager (AOM). Monthly

report Monthly Summary of bird strikes and fauna incidents for

the relevant month compared with other

months. This includes aircraft movements (per

runway), migrating geese and fauna counts.

Bird Control Advisor - To inform sector parties,

and the Airside Operations

Managers (AO) and AOVO.

- Own data analysis. Quarterly

analysis Quarterly Analysis of bird strikes per species, risk category

and runway compared with other quarters. Bird Control Advisor

and incident

investigator (AAO)

- To inform sector parties,

and the Airside Operations

Managers (AO) and AOVO.

- Own data analysis. Annual

analysis Annually Analysis of bird strikes per species, risk category

and runway compared with other years. Bird Control Advisor

and incident

investigator (AAO)

- To inform sector parties,

and the Airside Operations

Managers (AO) and AOVO.

- Data analysis conducted

with assistance from the

incident investigator and

the controller. AOVO

incident

report

Monthly Analysis of safety risks for airport operations,

including bird strikes per species, risk category

and runway for the relevant month.

Incident investigation

team (AAO) AOVO

34

Figure 9 – Blood streaks on an aircraft damaged by a bird strike

as an indicator due to the fact that not all bird strikes are reported. If the remains of a dead

bird are removed from a runway, this almost always means that a bird strike occurred.

o Bird strikes at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

A bird strike has occurred if the pilot reports a collision with a bird and/or if evidence to this

effect is found, such as the remains of a dead bird at or around the location of a bird strike or

the aircraft shows traces of blood (see Figure 20). Like fauna incidents, bird strikes are

entered in ASIS.

o Goose migration

Monthly goose migration is a third key indicator used internally. Flocks of migrating geese

are recorded in the bird controllers’ reports based on sightings. These reports are

subsequently visualised in a chart and graph by the Bird Control Advisor (see Figure 21). It is

essential to maintain records of goose migration in view of the high-risk of possible bird

strikes with geese: more movements increase the probability of bird strikes and, in turn, the

risk. If the bird detection system proves to be successful it will be used to help monitor goose

migration above Runway 18R-36L.

Figure 10 – Charts visualising goose migration

35

o Fauna counts

The fourth and final internal KPI recorded is fauna counts. Bird controllers are scheduled to

perform fauna counts in the airfield every other week. The fauna spotted are counted. The

Bird Control Advisor incorporates the fauna counts in a digital file containing all counts.

These data are charted in a graph in the monthly report, as shown in Figure 22. This helps to

identify any trends in fauna counts.

External parties

In addition to these internal KPIs, Bird Control has one KPI that is coordinated with KLM. KLM records

worldwide bird strikes with KLM aircraft using its own system, called the Air-Safety Report (ASR).

Amsterdam Airport Schiphol Bird Control and KLM compare the two databases and mark matching

incidents at Schiphol. A separate figure is then defined on the basis of the data: the AAS-KLM bird

strike rate. The reason for recording this external KPI is that, in the past, KLM pilots demonstrated

they were more diligent in reporting bird strikes than pilots of other airlines operating at Schiphol.

Consequently, KLM’s data set of bird strikes at Schiphol is a very reliable random sample for

determining the bird strike rate – that is, the number of KLM bird strikes at Schiphol divided by the

number of KLM air transport movements at Schiphol.

6.3 Forward-looking KPIs: leading vs lagging KPIs are a useful tool for measuring the Bird Control Department’s performance. Defining a number

of indicators helps to make this process measurable. At present, the majority of KPIs applicable to

Bird Control are lagging, in other words they are defined retrospectively (such as bird strikes and

fauna incidents, which occurred before being transposed into a KPI). The aim is to seek more leading

KPIs from 2013/2014; thus, indicators associated with events that could lead to bird strikes such as

depressions over the sea (which cause seagull numbers to rise in the area around Schiphol).

However, the challenge in defining leading KPIs for this area is to make them quantifiable. The aim in

2013-2014 is to actively seek and find KPIs with a predictive value. The launch of Birdpath may help

towards formulating leading KPIs as the use of this tablet generates more data on bird activity paired

with locations.

A first step was taken by revising the Habitat Management SLA (see Chapter 3). Almost all of

the habitat management KPIs are linked to CROW quality standards, making the performance of

habitat maintenance measurable. The KPIs are measured on a monthly basis while patrolling

hotspots. These measurements form the basis for the annual SLA report and evaluation. CROW is a

Figure 11 – Sample graph of fauna counts

36

national technology platform for transport, infrastructure and public space. The quality scale bars are

applied nationwide and are used in different areas. The selected quality scale bars have been added

to the Appendix on the Habitat Management SLA.

Key Performance Indicator (KPI)

Standard

Measurement

1. Grass length Desired length of long grass: 15-22cm.

Four mowing rounds take place each

year (the length of the grass can vary as

a result), on the basis of which the

ultimate length of the grass will be

determined.

Height of grass within a distance of 0.3m

from the obstacle compared with grass

vegetation in the surrounding area is

permitted to be around twice as high,

except for the area surrounding

instruments such as the VDS and ILS.

Measurement based on the

CROW image and standard.

2. Visibility of signs and lighting A maximum of one report each year. Record reports every month.

3. Weeds Fields: In total ≤5% per 100m2 area covered by

weeds.

Paving:

Maximum 10 areas exceeding a length

of 10 cm per 100 m2.

Measurement based on the

CROW image while patrolling

hotspots.

4. Puddle formation on unpaved

areas. Action should be taken no more than two days later.

Bird Control identifies puddles

during surveillance. 5. Aquatic vegetation In total ≤20% cover per 100m2. Measurement based on the

CROW image while patrolling

hotspots. 6. Report status of mowing

process Failure to communicate status on no

more than three occasions. Discuss mowing process while

patrolling hotspots and provide

mowing map during mowing

rounds. 7. Number of complaints

concerning tree and shrub

maintenance, e.g. from pilots,

AOM and BC

No more than three complaints each

year.

Reporting while patrolling

hotspots.

Performance Indicator (PI)

Standard

Measurement

8. Grass damage in the period

from 1 April to 1 November

(except winter period)

In total ≤1% damage per 100m2. Measurement based on the

CROW image and standard (if in

doubt).

9. Additional mowing around

obstacles Height of grass within a distance of

0.3m from the obstacle compared with

the surrounding grass vegetation is

allowed to be twice as high. Grass

vegetation surrounding water courses

may not serve as a bird breeding site.

Measurement based on the

CROW image and standard (if in

doubt).

10. Grass clippings on grass No piles of grass clippings permitted. Note possible piles of grass

clippings while patrolling

hotspots. 11. Density In total ≤ 5% open patches in grass

cover. Measurement based on the

CROW image and standard (if in

doubt).

37

12. Mole hills ≤ 5 mole hills per 100m2. Measurement based on the

CROW standard (record

number). 13. Flatness of substrate Height difference of any uneven areas

in the grass cover ≤ 2cm per 100 m2. Measurement based on the

CROW image and standard (if in

doubt). 14. Technical condition of

revetment Damage ≤5% per 100m

Non-alignment ≤10% per 100m

Flush holes ≤5 holes per 100m

Subsidence ≤5mm per 100m

Measurement based on the

CROW image and standard (if in

doubt).

15. If the mowing process is

interrupted by operations, this

should be reported.

Failure to report interruptions on no

more than two occasions. Reporting while patrolling

hotspots.

6.4 KPI reporting and analysis It is essential to clearly define responsibilities for the purpose of reporting and analysing the KPIs

defined.

KPI Who measures? Who reports? Who analyses? Who takes

action?

Fauna incidents/bird

strikes Bird controller Bird Control Advisor Bird Control Advisor and incident

investigator (AAO) Bird Control

Manager Goose migration Bird controller Bird Control Advisor Bird Control Advisor Bird Control

Manager Fauna counts Bird controller

(counts) Bird Control Advisor Bird Control Advisor Bird Control

Advisor AAS-KLM bird strike

rate Bird controller/

KLM pilot Bird Control Advisor /

KLM Advisor Bird Control Advisor / KLM

Advisor Bird Control

Manager Table 3 – Responsibilities for KPI analysis and reporting

As shown in the above table, the bird controller carries overall responsibility for actually measuring

KPIs. As ‘the man in the field’ the bird controller is the primary observer and logs his or her activities

on the activity list, or in Birdpath and/or in ASIS. The Bird Control Advisor, in turn, reports on these

logs, and may do so in collaboration with a KLM advisor. These reports (shown in Table 2) are

subsequently analysed by the Bird Control Advisor and, if bird strikes and fauna incidents have

occurred, by the incident investigator in the AAO Department as well. Ultimately, the Bird Control

Manager determines the action to be taken on the basis of this analysis.

6.5 usage of radar within Bird Control KPI monitoring. The radar system situated at the halfway point of the 18R/36L runway is capable of collecting

information on the actual bird strike risk 24 hours per day 7 days a week. The actual bird strike risk is

based on 3 components.

1. Near miss events. High risk. These are events in which a bird is within a 50 meter radius of

an aircraft without actually hitting it. The risk number is corrected for the nr of birds and the

mass. The reference mass is 1 kg is one “risk point” So a 3 kg bird is considered to be 3 times

riskier than a 1 kg bird.

2. Runway crossings. Medium risk. Every bird that crosses an active runway without an aircraft

in the direct vicinity. These are corrected for mass in a similar manner as the near miss event

index. A bird crossing a runway will be considered to have a lower risk than a near miss and a

runway crossing bird of one kg will generate a 0.25 “risk points”.

3. Birds that are active near an active runway. All birds that are active near the runway without

crossing it or getting close to aircrafts. These birds are also corrected for mass. There are

three zones of receding risk. Zone A - airside, Zone B – 200 meters from the airport

38

boundary, Zone C – between 200 and 700 meters from airside. The risk level drops by a

factor of 4 for each zone. A 1 kg bird within zone A will generate 0.06 “risk points”, a 1 kg

bird in zone B will generate 0.015 “risk points” etc.

Ch.7 – Bird Control Department The Bird Control Department employs a range of methods, structures and responsibilities.

Procedures have also been set out in documents such as the Work Instructions (WI), the Training

Syllabus (TS) and the Company Manual (CM).

7.1 Operational implementation The Bird Control Department consists of 16 bird controllers, a fauna manager, a policy advisor and a

Bird Control manager.

o The Bird Controllers work in continuous shifts; three bird controllers are on duty during the

early shift, two during the late shift and two during the night shift. One or several bird

controllers have a 24/7 presence in the airfield. During normal operations a bird controller

performs a range of duties (see Figure 23), as detailed in the Work Instructions for Bird

Controllers, which include:8

- Dispersing birds and ensuring that active take-off and landing runways are kept as

free of birds as possible.

- Locating and removing bird remains and making a record of these, where applicable.

- Conducting inspections of the take-off and landing runways to determine bird

activity, the presence of FOD and the status of the runway.

- Checking the condition of the paving and lighting (signs, markings, runway lighting

etc.).

- Checking standing water in the event of rainfall.

- Detecting bird-attracting locations at and around the airfield and reporting these to

the responsible person.

- Etc.

In addition to these standard bird controller duties, bird controllers have special

responsibilities in exceptional circumstances or in the event of an emergency. In the event of

snow and icy weather, bird controllers escort the airport’s fleet of snow clearance vehicles

and assume the role of (primary) escort for emergency services (UGS-A/B/C) in the event of

8 All duties and instructions are set out in detail in the Bird Control Work Instructions (A/OPS/AO/B Work

Instructions, Part 3, Chapter 3.2.1).

Figure 23 – Bird controller duties

39

an emergency.

o The Fauna Manager is responsible for the operational management of flora and fauna within

the airfield. Among other things, this involves culling birds, catching birds (using traps, for

instance) and monitoring the habitat. The Fauna Manager is also responsible for installing

and managing static control measures, such as skippy balls in the water courses, bankside

blinkers and gas cannons in the airfield.

o The Bird Control Advisor supports the manager of the Bird Control Department in many

different areas. In addition to the role of advisor for reporting and analysis described in

Chapter 6, which includes compiling the weekly report for the information leaflet, the advisor

fulfils a key role in flora and fauna management. The advisor patrols the airfield every month

together with AMS and/or the main contractor to identify habitat management hotspots and

is responsible for testing new devices and dispersal techniques. Lastly, the advisor performs

multiple minor and ad hoc duties based on his or her expertise, such as taking part in Airside

Operations briefing sessions, visualising goose migration in charts or coordinating hare

management days.

o The Bird Control Manager is the face of the department and responsible for overall

management. Alongside management duties such as monitoring departmental employee

evaluations and progress, the manager is responsible for setting out the policy direction,

agreeing and managing the budget, representing Bird Control/AAS within various

organisations and consultative structures and making a final assessment on commencing or

continuing new projects, including innovations. As the contracting party for major innovation

projects such as the VDS and Birdpath, the Bird Control Manager fulfils a key role in respect

of departmental innovation and working methods.

In addition to these positions, the AMS also fulfils a key role in the Bird Control Department. AMS is

responsible for maintaining the entire habitat, which includes mowing grass, felling trees, drainage

system upkeep, etc.

7.2 Quality To ensure that all parties involved continue to deliver high quality, Bird Control places a strong

emphasis on knowledge and skills. Education and training are essential for ensuring the effectiveness

of Bird Control. As stated earlier, new techniques and methods are continuously tested and used by

Bird Control for the purpose of minimising bird activity in the proximity of active runways. Bird

controllers must also have a thorough knowledge of flora and fauna to enable them to assess the

risks posed by situations they encounter. Education and training in the field of flora and fauna is

provided by means of annual training programmes held by Fera, training on the use of shotguns and

signal pistol safety training. The theory component of the compulsory hunting course provides a solid

basis for acquiring knowledge of flora and fauna.

The Work Instructions (WI) and Training Syllabus (TS) form the basis for quality assurance in the Bird

Control Department. The WI9 sets out in detail how a bird controller should act in a certain situation

while on duty. This may range from using the various dispersal techniques to observing the area

around Runway 18R-36L if the West ATC Tower is unmanned. The WI sets out how to perform the

procedures described in the Company Manual, which explains Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

operations – in short, who does what.

The TS is a standard document that is particularly useful during the bird controller’s training

period. The TS contains the bird controller job description and sets out all of the relevant duties and

9 Bird Control Work Instructions: WI A/OPS/AO/B: Part 3, Chapters 3.2.0 - 3.2.3.

40

responsibilities, the training process, the course objectives and the areas in which the trainee bird

controller will be assessed.

The Bird Control Manager ‘owns’ the Work Instructions and the Training Syllabus. The Manager is

also responsible for assuring the quality of and updating the two documents. The WI and OS form

part of the ‘Plan’ and ‘Do’ phases of the PDCA cycle (see Figure 24 – Work Instructions and Training

Syllabus in the PDCA cycle

) and will be revised once a year starting from 2013. It is essential to revise the documents annually

due to regularly changing circumstances such as the use of varying work methods. Bird controllers

must be able to rely on the WI and TS for accurate and detailed descriptions of the work methods to

be employed, thus ensuring they know how to act.

Figure 24 – Work Instructions and Training Syllabus in the PDCA cycle

7.3 Safety at work Safety at work should not be underestimated for bird controllers. Considering the bird controller’s

duties and responsibilities (conducting runway inspections and dispersing and culling birds) and the

strong link to aviation safety, safety at work must be taken seriously for bird controllers. The bird

controller is a key asset in the Bird Control process and hence in aviation safety. In this context,

runway incursions are a relevant and current issue. If a bird controller is in the process of performing

a runway inspection, Air Traffic Control must ensure that that runway is kept free of air traffic. Failure

to do so could result in a runway incursion, resulting in negative effects on both safety at work for

41

the bird controller and the safety of air traffic. Runway incursions involving/caused by bird

controllers must be avoided at all times by all parties involved. Personal safety furthermore has high

priority in the Bird Control Department, which includes the use of hearing protection and safety belts

when driving in the airfield.

42

Appendix 1: Bowtie risk matrix

43

Appendix 2 – Annual Bird Calendar

44

Appendix 3 – Analysis of external stakeholders

Stakeholder Level of

Involvement Position Interests Strategy Sub-message

Ministry of Infrastructure and the

Environment (I&M) Key player Neutral

• Final responsibility (supervisor).

• Financial interests (including in the future).

• Reputation (success or failure of approach).

• Provide input for policy agenda.

• Bird strike rate � coordinate and revise jointly.

Focus on high-risk species.

• From neutral to ally.

Focus on high-risk bird species, particularly geese.

Municipality of Haarlemmermeer Key player Neutral

• Disparate internal interests.

• External risk (responsibility for municipal population).

• PR value: innovation in the Haarlemmermeer.

• Create a win-win situation: emphasise mutual

interests.

• Keep issues on the agenda: obtain insight into

future projects and provide input.

Disparate internal interests: for instance, Spatial Planning does not always

conform to the External Risk requirements.

Province of North Holland (PNH) Key player Neutral

• Flora and fauna policymaker (incl. influencing public

opinion).

• Spatial planning interests.

• Compromise is beneficial to PNH.

• Support PNH’s role. Seek compromise.

• Emphasis on reducing the goose population. Spatial planning interests as well.

Air Traffic Control the Netherlands

(LVNL) Key player Critical

• Operational: seeks to balance capacity and safety.

• Tactical: implementation of bird detection system

(VDS).

• Create awareness: garner support.

• Emphasis on win-win situation: minimising bird

numbers is a mutual interest.

• Bird detection system is a separate issue.

• Communications between the ATC Tower and bird controller are not

always conducted in a satisfactory manner.

• Sharing information (Kievit film) in Q1 2013.

The airlines Key player Ally

• Safety: bird strikes pose safety risks.

• Costs: bird strikes have direct and indirect financial

consequences (material damage and returning aircraft

respectively).

• Bolster alliance: act in concert, provide

information and involve.

Airport Councils International (ACI) Keep informed Ally • Safety at and around the airport: Amsterdam Airport

Schiphol meets ICAO standards.

• Offer the opportunity to share knowledge.

• Provide substantive input for APEX programme.

Dutch Airports Association (NVL) Keep informed Ally • Safety at and around the airport. • Inform through SBC.

Dutch Airline Pilots Association (VNV) Keep informed Ally • Safety: bird strikes pose safety risks. • Inform (incl. through NRV and SBC).

Nature conservation and animal

protection societies Keep informed Neutral • Serve to protect flora and fauna interests. • Provision of information (ad-hoc basis).

World Birdstrike Association (WBA) Minimal effort Ally

• Worldwide forum for wildlife hazard management.

• Become an authority – at international level – on bird

hazard management.

• Facilitates the sharing of knowledge.

• Offer the opportunity to share knowledge.

Fauna Management Unit (FBE) Minimal effort Neutral

• Carries out fauna management policy on the basis of

the Fauna Management Plan.

• Obtains the requisite exemptions from PNH.

• PR: seeks to improve the negative reputation of

hunting and culling.

• Inform.

• Where necessary support arguments (for example

when applying for exemptions).

Wildlife Management Unit (WBE) Minimal effort Neutral

• Obtains further exemptions for wildlife not included on

the wildlife list.

• Continuous culling and dispersal of birds on farmland

surrounding Schiphol.

• PR: seeks to improve the negative reputation of

hunting and culling.

• Inform.

• Foster goodwill.

The WBE Haarlemmermeer – immediately – notifies the chair of the WBE of

any goose traps not located on AAS freehold land so as to inform the

relevant hunter.

45

Appendix 4 – Habitat management roles and agreements 2013 - 2016

46

Appendix 5 – Habitat management PDCA cycle

47

Appendix 6 – Grass mowing flow chart