1. 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

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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

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