The Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive Natura 2000 Thematic Networking Event Towards a shared ecological rationale for more integrated implementation of the Nature and Water Directives The Habitats Directive and the Water Framework Directive Similarities and differences

Before we start…. Highlighting critical points Focused on issues of particular interest to the workshop Strategic approach Technical comparison Intention is to provoke discussion

Broad objectives WFD Habitats Directive For different waterbody types (Rivers, lakes, coastal, transitional) For listed habitat/species (e.g. woodlands, heaths, bogs, fens, rivers, lakes) Maintain (not restore) Relevant habitats/species SACs Conservation objectives High ecological status Good ecological status Wider natural range Wider natural range Good ecological potential All WFD waterbodies to meet their objective Achieve favourable conservation status SACs meet their objectives Plus Protected Area objectives (including Natura 2000)

Technical detail around objectives WFD Habitats Directive For each waterbody type (Rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters) For each habitat (e.g. woodland, heath, bog, fen, river, lake) and species SAC objectives based on ‘ecological requirements’ HES (No/v. minor disturbance) Assessed by water chemistry, ‘hydromorphology’, non-native species, and biological indicators Environmental threshold values - according to environmental characteristics (e.g. river type) Can be based on optimal requirements (e.g. for species) Reference condition (Nearly undisturbed) Can be based on acceptable level of human impact (e.g. for river or lake habitat) Potential reads-across between directives GES (Slight distortion) Assessed by biological indicators Environmental Quality Ratios (Internal reference condition) Intercalibrated between MSs Can be assessed by biological (e.g. population size) or environmental indicators Threshold values - according to environmental characteristics (e.g. river type) Some intercalibration? Supporting environmental standards (water quality, ‘hydromorphology’ No intercalibration Good Ecological Potential (Site-specific, as close to HES/GES as possible depending on constraints) FCS based on Favourable Reference Values for range, extent, population, plus assessment of habitat structure and function Assessments made according to EC rules

Management and delivery Habitats Directive – focuses on SAC management, which should include off-site impacts where needed WFD – focused on whole landscapes (catchments) through River Basin Management Plans, which should include measures for Protected Areas (including Natura sites) Not a clear-cut difference between ‘sites’ and landscapes (catchments) – SACs can be large RBMPs can provide a joint framework for implementing measures for water-related Natura habitats and species Greatest harmony between the dirctives in places where objectives naturally align: areas with high remaining levels of naturalness – SAC objectives ~ HES very modified landscapes with no hope of restoring any natural ecosystem function – SAC objectives ~GEP In other places protection/restoration ambitions under the directives can differ considerably The principle of applying the most stringent objective is intended to resolve these differences

Other differences and similarities Monitoring/assessment processes not directly related (but information sharing occurs in MSs) Information-sharing is facilitated if nature/water objectives are agreed Reporting cycles are both 6-yearly but out of phase (is that a problem?) Timescales for achieving objectives are fixed in WFD, but not in the Habitats Directive WFD decision-making relating to restoration subject to structured socioeconomic tests HD decision-making relating to restoration of SACs needs to ‘take account of’ socioeconomics Overall: WFD is very structured and quantitative to ensure consistency, requiring considerable technical collaboration between Member States HD is more flexible, partly due to the complexity of biodiversity needs, and there is therefore less focus on technical collaboration

Is this a fair summary of key points Is this a fair summary of key points? Anything else that needs to be said?