Jorge Rodríguez Romero
Angelika Rubin
David Connor
European Commission
DG Environment
Water Unit
Workshop on coordinated implementation of nature, biodiversity, marine and water policies
Parallel session on Objectives and Assessment
Introduction
Objectives of this presentation
• The objective of this presentation is to explain how the various
directives and policies work as regards objectives and assessment
• Not everyone will know all relevant directives and policies
• In order to have a fruitful discussion, it is important to have a
basic understanding on how the various directives and policies set
objectives and assess the progress towards them
• In addition, some common understanding of the interactions
between the various policies that have been discussed already in
previous joint processes will be recalled
2
Key questions
• What are the objectives of the different directives and policies?
• What is the subject of protection?
• What are the general and specific objectives?
• Timelines?
• How are objectives set for specific areas under the directives?
• At what scale are the objectives set?
• How is the progress towards these objectives assessed?
• What are the assessment elements (what is measured)?
• What are the protection standards/targets that make operational the
specific objectives and who sets them?
3
Comparison of objectives
4
WFD MSFD BHD BDS
Subject of protection
Aquatic environment Marine environment
Listed habitats and species; all wild birds
Biodiversity in general and ecosystem services
General objectives
Protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater
- protect and preserve the marine environment - prevent its deterioration - restore marine ecosystems
- Contribute towards ensuring bio-diversity through the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Conservation of all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state
Headline target: halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU, and restoring them in so far as feasible
Specific objectives
- Non deterioration - Good ecological and chemical status of surface waters -Good quantitative and chemical status of groundwater - Additional objectives for protected areas
Maintain or achieve good environmental status of marine environment
- Maintain or restore Favourable Conservation Status (FCS) of listed habitats and species - Maintain or adapt bird populations at/to a level which corresponds to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements (similar to FCS concept)
Six specific targets and corresponding actions to enable the achievement of the headline target
Timelines 2015 2020 No specific timelines in Directives to reach specific objectives but quantified targets under BDS for 2020
2020 headline target plus timelines for six specific targets
Comparison of assessment
5
WFD MSFD BHD BDS
Assessment elements
Detailed in Annex V: - Biological: aquatic flora, macroinvertebrates, fish, etc - Physico-chemical: nutrients, oxygenation, acidification, salinity, etc - Hydromorphological: hydrological conditions, continuity, bed substrate, etc - Priority substances and chemicals relevant for groundwater
11 descriptors in Annex I plus details in Annex III and GES Decision criteria: 1: Biodiversity 2: Non-indigenous species 3: Commercial fish and shellfish 4: Food webs 5: Eutrophication 6: Sea-floor integrity 7: Hydrographical conditions 8: Contaminants 9: Contaminants in seafood 10: Marine litter 11: Energy incl. underwater noise
Natural habitat types: - Range - Areas covered - Specific structure and functions - Future prospects Species (non-bird): - Range - Population - Habitat for the species - Future prospects Birds: No detailed definition - but similar logic used as for species
Set of indicators for each target (total of 37 indicators)
Scales for objectives and assessment
6
WFD MSFD BHD
Scale for defining objectives
- EU via Annex V (normative definitions) - EU via intercalibration Decision (making operational the normative definitions, worked out on a regional basis through Geographical Intercalibration Groups) - National for supporting elements (physico-chemical and hydromorphological)
- EU via Annex I (descriptors) - EU via GES Decision on criteria & methodological standards (Art. 9.3) - Regional/Sub-regional via MS 'determinations of GES' (Art. 9.1)
The directives frame the definition of FCS and guidance exists. However MS need to specifiy these for every single feature on the national part of the biogeographical region the MS covers. For birds, there are objectives specified in any detail. Site level: conservation objectives must be established for SACs
Scale for assessing objectives
Water body For 2012 reporting, variable scales per topic – generally national or sub-national part of marine (sub)region. Potentially more consistency for 2018 reporting
• MS assess every single feature (habitats / species) on the level of the national part of the biogeographical region the MS covers. Most MS cover parts of several biogeographic regions; On EU level EU-biogeographical assessments are made.
• For birds, only EU-wide assessments are made
• No obligatory assessments exist for the site level
Strong links
• Generally speaking, action taken under one of the instruments will
be beneficial for the others
• WFD incorporates the objectives of water dependent habitats and
species in protected areas as additional objectives on top of good
ecological status
• MSFD includes the creation of a network of Marine Protected Areas
building on those designated under BHD
• BDS includes a number of targets and actions directly related with
the implementation of BHD, WFD and MSFD
7
8
WFD BHD
MSFD
groundwater
protected fish
BDS
posidonia
coastal macroinv
noise
litter
terrestrial habitats
terrestrial species
Water-dependent species
Marine mammals
chemicals birds
fish
Assessment elements - pressures
MSFD element WFD BHD
Physical loss/damage Yes
Indirectly via threat assessments for species
and habitats
Hydrological changes Yes
Energy, incl. noise
Only thermal condition. The rest indirectly, to the
extent it may affect ecological status
Nutrient enrichment Yes
Contaminants Yes
Litter Only indirectly, to the extent it may affect
ecological status Fishing/by-catch
Non-indigenous species
Microbial pathogens Yes, via shellfish and
bathing waters
9
Assessment elements - state
MSFD element WFD BHD
Birds Yes
Mammals Selected
Reptiles Selected
Fish Only in inland and transitional waters
Selected
Water column Phytoplankton, physico-chemical, contaminants
Seabed Macroalgae, angiosperms,
macroinvertebrates, hydromorphology
Selected
DG ENV 10
MSFD - WFD
1. Biodiversity
2. Non-indigenous species
3. Commercial fish and shellfish
4. Food webs
5. Eutrophication
6. Sea-floor integrity
7. Hydrographical conditions
8. Contaminants
9. Contaminants in seafood
10.Marine litter
11.Energy incl underwater noise 11
} WFD
WFD WFD
WFD
WFD
WFD
Building on previous work... FAQ MSFD - BHD
• “MSFD GES and FCS are not necessarily equivalent but can be mutually supportive”
• “The measures implemented under the HBD can make an important contribution to
achieving the wider objectives of the MSFD and vice versa”
• “The HD objective of achieving FCS for listed habitats and species could be a relevant
environmental target under MSFD. Achieving FCS will therefore cover at least a
proportion of MSFD needs; however, additional biodiversity elements beyond those
covered by HBD might have to be considered to fulfil MSFD requirements”
• “The MSFD exceptions cannot take precedence over Article 6 of the HD as the Treaty
requires that stricter provisions take precedence when more than one applies to the
same issue”
• http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/index_en.htm
12
Building on previous work... FAQ WFD - BHD
• “In general, GES/GEP of a water body will contribute to the FCS of species and
habitats. Nonetheless, there are cases in which GES/GEP may not be sufficient to
meet the specific objectives of BHD.”
• In order to allow for integration in WFD implementation “there is a need to identify
the water related requirements to achieve favourable conservation status of habitats
and species dependent on water”
• “Where habitats or species are not characteristic of a water body type, their
protection should not prevail over the restoration of the water body, unless they are
important for the conservation status of a habitat or species of Community interest in
the national biogeographical region”
• “Such exceptional cases surely deserve a case by case judgement”
• “The WFD in itself does not allow derogating from the requirements set under the
BHD, and vice-versa”
• http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm
13
Experience 1st RBMP
DG ENV 14
DG ENV 15
2010 WFD-BHD workshop
WFD - BHD conflicts?
• Conflicts arise when human intervention has modified a water body and, as a result
of the modification, some valuable protected habitats and/or species have developed
in the modified environment
• Often the modification has been done for a completely different purpose
• By default the WFD requires restoration so that GES can be achieved
• Restoration would impact the protected habitats and/or species, even make them
disappear in that water body
• However, the WFD article 4.3 allows designation of a water body as heavily modified
if the restoration to good status would have significant adverse effects on legitimate
uses such as the wider environment
• This can be used in such cases where the protected habitats and/or species at stake
in the affected water body are very important to achieve FCS in the biogeographical
region
• Requires a case by case assessment but is legitimate and in line with WFD
16
Further input for discussion Seeking synergies between the policies can be addressed at
three stages:
• When setting up EU-level policies and guidance (e.g. via a possible revision of
the MSFD GES Decision, making use of relevant objectives/standards of other
policies)
• When establishing policy implementation at national level (e.g. via dialogue
between policy areas)
• At operationalisation phase (e.g. joint monitoring programmes)
Opportunities in the first stage need to focus on:
• Alignment of 'quality elements'
• Consistency in quality threshold boundaries (e.g. EQS values, biodiversity quality
boundaries)
• Greater harmonisation of assessment scales (e.g. consistency in assessment
areas, ability to aggregate up from small to larger areas)
17
