Working Group on estuaries and coastal zones Conservation objectives

Global approach

Rationale BHD article 2 Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall be designed to maintain or restore, at favourable conservation status, natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora of Community interest. Measures taken pursuant to this Directive shall take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local characteristics. Article 3 A coherent European ecological network …shall enable the natural habitat types and the species' habitats concerned to be maintained or, where appropriate, restored at a favourable conservation status

Rationale: interpretation guidance art.6 Guidance document on art.6 published by the EC Page 20:The conservation measures have to correspond to the ecological requirements of the habitat types and of the species present on the site. They can only be defined on a case-by-case basis and on the basis of scientific knowledge. Article 6.2 avoid deterioration (defensive approach) Page 28: reduction of the area = deterioration Page 28: Any impairment of the factors necessary for the long-term maintenance of the habitats can be regarded as deterioration. Typical species in FCS but to be chosen by MS Page 19: There is therefore a result obligation Page 29: Disturbance of the species (+ article 12)

Rationale: interpretation guidance art.6 6.3: New plan and project and their potential significant effects on the site’s conservation objectives (e.g. at least avoid deterioration and disturbance of habitat and species as this is mandatory with article 6.2) 6.3: Ascertain it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site . Definition? “Guidance 6-4” (P.15): Biological integrity can be defined as all those factors that contribute to the maintenance of the ecosystem including structural and functional assets. In the framework of the Habitats Directive, the biological integrity of a site is linked to the conservation objectives for which the site was designated as part of the Natura 2000 network.

Synthesis 1 Conservation objectives at site level may, or in certain cases must, go beyond the simple avoidance of deterioration and disturbance (art.3: where appropriate, restoration). Ports authorities may participate to this on a voluntary basis (CSR) especially when they are Natura 2000 site managers (e.g. in France with the new law) Conservation objectives need “a minima” to contribute to the maintenance of the ecosystem including structural and functional assets and determine how to avoid deterioration and disturbance Restoration: mandatory at global level (MS/b), to reach FCS  Priorities for sites restoration Site conservation objectives Restoration: where appropriate at site level Maintenance: mandatory at site level

Synthesis 2 How to take art.2.3 into consideration (economic requirements)? No guidance up to now on this but probably by avoiding contradictory pro-active measures at site level. If current activities, in or around the site, are not in line with conservation objectives (to be identified) some proposals to eliminate/reduce their negative effects should be proposed In case of renewal of the authorization they are subject to art.6.3 (Waddensee cockle case)

Synthesis 2 For both maintenance and restoration: what are the reference values to take into account: minimum/maximum areas, minimum/maximum size of populations, maintenance of (dynamic) ecological processes ? No clear guidance up to now on this, key words: gradient, thresholds, coherence, limits of acceptable fluctuations. ESPO: conservation objectives should preferably be as clear and straight forward as possible. Conservation objectives which are functional in practice would be appreciated. Therefore, where possible, clear conservation objectives in concrete terms such as numbers and/or size are desirable. ESPO: Some conservation objectives prescribe that “the habitat should enable the functioning of the habitat for which it has been designated” but this obviously does not solve the problem of the lack of clear target.

Estuary and adjacent coastal areas: systemic approach

Prospective scheme (afterAESN 2004) Natural “engine”: features creating natural dynamics of the estuary: geomorphology, tide, sediment and biological cycles… This natural “engine” delivers ecosystem services and environmental functions for human well-being and other living being as well as for socio-economical activities. Some local decisions such as infrastructure development, protected areas and other land plan policies will constitute internal factors influencing environmental functions and will modify the natural “engine” External factors such as climate change or societal choices (evolution of the international trade of containers, wetland reclamation in the last centuries…) will drive the evolution of internal factors and may modify the natural “engine”

Prospective scheme (afterAESN 2004) Environmental and socio-economical functions of the estuary Core Geomorphologic engine (space, tide, sediments, biological cycles…) Internal factors External factors

Result: Heavily modified areas “Wild” estuary Navigation channel Heavily modified estuary

Heavily modified areas In the WFD, the concept of HMWB permit a less stringent objective, the GEP. There is no such Heavily Modified “Natural Body” in nature directives. However, the habitats are defined as natural or semi-natural (art.1). How to consider potential deterioration within an anthropogenic system ?. Does the favourable conservation status imply to restore the “natural body” (defined ?) ? Is there a reference for estuaries ? Some other “HMNB” hold biodiversity of EU interest, e.g. alluvial meadows with dedicated funds (feader)

Synthesis 3 Restoration is an option or an obligation ? Large restoration project may find some funds (MS level, ERDF …) but sometime it could need a disproportionate cost (see WFD) in term of expenses + impacts on societal and economical sectors + cost/benefit analysis  A limit has to be agreed through site conservation objectives Furthermore, conservation measures implementation can not rely only on large project compensation measures Because of the dynamic nature of the environment, it could be needed to have moving targets, e.g. revise the site conservation objectives every 6 years after evaluation of the impact of the measures on the conservation status (see art.17) Long term dynamic evolution leads to moving targets

Synthesis 4 No further degradation (WWF-Naturpuunt) versus pro-active restoration: to be determined at local level Quite often, avoidance of deterioration will constitute the main conservation objective The “no deterioration” concept could be detailed at local level (as it is proposed by NL for WFD with classes, time periods, compartments or sections…) Current figures to be known : existing average numbers (species), quantities (sediments) or size (habitats) Future numbers (species), quantities (sediments) or size (habitats): to be debated with stakeholders for the conservation objectives with limits of acceptable fluctuation Ecological processes: to be monitored