1. Preparatory Meeting for Joint December 2014 Workshop
First Meeting, 21 May 2014, Brussels

2. Nature, Water & Marine Directors’ Conclusions, Vilnius, December 2013:
Directors recognised the need to further strengthen the coordination and cooperation between the different policy areas.
Agreed to support coordinated implementation and improve effectiveness of EU environmental policy implementation (Part I of conclusions).
Proposed a workshop to discuss issues of joint interest
Suggested topic: focus on Part 1 of Director’s conclusions (objectives/monitoring/programme of measures)
Tentative dates: 2-3 December 2014

3. Proposals for the workshop Presentation by DG Environment for item 5a
First Preparatory Meeting for Joint December 2014 Workshop
21 May 2014, Brussels

4. EU legislation/policy concerned
Water Framework Directive (WFD)
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
Birds and Habitats Directives (BHD)
EU Biodiversity Strategy (BDS)
The exercise looks at coordinated implementation of these instruments and how, under the existing legal regime, synergies can be created.

5. Scope of Directives WFD: MSFD:
Broad scope, for all water bodies, aquatic ecosystems, and water needs of Protected Areas and terrestrial ecosystems
Framework directive – integration with other policies needed
Requires International Coordination for transboundary basins
MSFD:
Broad geographic scope (WFD coastal waters, EEZs & Continental Shelf areas)
Broad topic scope (all aspects of marine environmental quality, all pressures and impacts, all human activities, ecosystem-based approach)
Requires international cooperation, including with Regional Sea Conventions

6. Scope of Directives BHD:
Broad geographic scope (EU land territory, coastal waters, EEZs & Continental Shelf areas)
Topic scope: all wild birds, over 200 habitat types and 1000 species of European importance (threatened, rare , typical) – limited coverage of marine species/habitats.
Protection of selected sites (Natura 2000 network) and strict protection of species throughout their range.
Aim: FCS (Hab Dir), good population status (Birds Dir).
Biogeographic region approach (Hab Dir).
Provisions for conservation measures.
Integration with other policies needed
Requirements on monitoring/reporting aligned.

7. Scope of Directives and Policies
Biodiversity Strategy (BDS):
Overall goal: halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020
Six targets with 20 associated actions
Broad geographic scope (EU, outermost regions, overseas countries and territories, third-country waters fished by EU)
Broad substantive scope (species and habitats, ecosystems, ecosystem services, pressures and impacts, human activities)
Seeks integration with other EU policies
Aligned with Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and global Strategic Plan for Biodiversity

8. International Conventions
MSFD
WFD
BWD
Habitats
Birds
CFP
EQSD
Nitrates
UWWTD
International Conventions
Integration across policies

9. Issues to target for coordinating policy implementation
Objectives and Assessment
Monitoring and Reporting
Programme of Measures (incl. public participation)
Other Issues?
Need 3 pictures here

10. Common aspects in Objectives - WFD (1)
WFD requires a registry of Protected Areas is included in RBMPs and their water related objectives of the PAs need to be included in the plans. If there are two different objectives (affecting same matter) for a water body:
WFD objective may need to be complemented by additional measures in order to ensure that conservation objectives for protected areas are achieved.
“where more than one of the objectives … relates to a given body of water, the most stringent shall apply”.
WFD objectives for GES/GEP and no status deterioration are ''in line'' with BD objectives of protecting and restoring ecosystems and NNL

11. Possible Relationship between Objectives
Lower limit of quality to be achieved per Directive
High
Good
Moderate
Poor
Bad
Good Ecological Status
WFD
Favourable
Sub FCS
Unfavourable - inadequate
Unfavourable -bad HD
MSFD
Unimpacted state
Unacceptable degree of impact
Destroyed/ irrecoverable
Sub GEnS
Sub GEcS
Favourable Conservation Status
Good Environmental Status
Deviation from unimpacted state
From: Cochran et al. (2010)
Note: boundaries of status classes may not be equivalent 11

12. Common aspects in Objectives - MSFD (2)
MSFD – Review of GES Decision as an opportunity to streamline
Existing legislation applies under MSFD, but what does this mean in practice:
e.g. WFD good ecological and chemical status in coastal (territorial waters): do we need additional objectives for the relevant descriptors in coastal (territorial) waters
e.g. in the EEZ, a relationship of assessment in coastal waters is necessary: how should we apply assessment methods of WFD good ecological and chemical status in the EEZ?
e.g. Habitats Directive assesses FCS for specific marine species and habitats: should we use the same assessment approach for additional (regional) species and habitats not regulated in the Habitats Directive?

13. Aspects to address in integrating objectives
Timing:
No date mentioned in BHD, but requirement for improving status over time – quantitative targets for 2020 under EU Biodiv. Strat.
WFD, standards and objectives, including those linked to the achievement of FCS in water-dependent Natura 2000 sites by 2015
MSFD, achieve GES by 2020 (review of Decision?)
BDS (+ CBD Strategic Plan): 2020 for most targets; some earlier target dates (e.g., MSY + coral reefs/VMEs: 2015)
Equivalence / Relationship of Quality Parameters (elements and scope may differ)
Differences in geographical scope (including delineation / characterization aspects) and Management Units
Thresholds and Baselines
Here it would make sense if we listed objectives of all directives

14. Issues to target for coordinating policy implementation
Objectives and Assessment
Monitoring and Reporting
Programme of Measures (incl. public participation)
Other Issues?
Need 3 pictures here

15. Potential for Integration of Monitoring
There are some differences, e.g. :
the biological quality elements or organism groups that need to be monitored under WFD and BHD will differ as the scope of the directives also differs.
MSFD covers new topics such as noise and litter
Geographical scope varies
But there are cases where integration of monitoring could be beneficial e.g.:
There may be some biological quality elements/organism groups for joint monitoring under WFD, BHD & MSFD (e.g. fish).
Joint monitoring for coastal waters for WFD , MSFD and BHD
Similar requirements for nutrients and contaminants (WFD, MSFD, RSCs)

16. Potential for Integrating Monitoring
Suggested Approach:
Wherever possible a joint monitoring should be arranged in order to save resources and to allow an assessment based on a common data set. (particularly relevant in a trans-boundary context.)
Possible Issues:
Joint monitoring methods / stations
Expanding list of monitoring parameters in exiting stations
Shared vessels between organisations and across countries
Integration of monitoring across disciplines (physical, chemical, biological)
Time-frames

17. Benefits of Integrating Reporting
Providing coherent answer to same questions:
What is the state of the environment? What are the trends?
Are the measures in place working?
Efficiency, avoid duplications for the same areas or aspects
Enables coordination and coherence in other parts of implementation cycle
Facilitates accessibility and availability of Information to Stakeholders and Public
Facilitates Dynamic Data availability

18. Challenges of Integrating Reporting
Coherence in
Timing of Reporting
Duration of Reporting Cycle
Topic scope – from fine (single species) to broader (species group)
Assessment scales – from fine (WFD water body, Pas, MS) to broad (MSFD areas/subregions, biogeographical regions)
Compatibility in Information systems
Report once, use many times
Single source (copy) of data sets (not multiple versions)
Improved access and data flows

19. Issues to target for coordinating policy implementation
Objectives and Assessment
Monitoring and Reporting
Programme of Measures (incl. public participation)
Other Issues?
Need 3 pictures here

20. Links in Programme of Measures and ''Plans''
WFD and MSFD focus on managing pressures and impacts and Plans need to integrate all relevant aspects including other legislation (BHD, ….)
Impacts on N2000 and species need to be managed. Positive conservation measures foreseen.
Many protected habitats are also aquatic areas or water-dependent systems, the measures proposed under BHD and WFD may be partly the same. These measures need to be coordinated. Dialogue needed at early stage.
Measures needed under BHD (for water), are considered to be basic measures for WFD and must be included in the PoM. Such measures may also apply to species and habitats outside SCIs.

21. Links in Programme of Measures and ''Plans''
There are many measures contributing both to WFD and MSFD
BHD conservation measures /management plans contribute both to WFD (e.g. RBMPs) and MSFD (e.g. bycatch, fisheries, MPAs). Can be integrated in other plans/programmes.

22. Joining up PoMs in 2015
Preparation of coordination PoMs between WFD, MSFD and FRMD (see Blueprint)
Joint public participation in 2015?
Joining up reporting between WFD, MSFD and FRMD?
inclusion of BHD conservation measures into WFD or MSFD PoMs?

23. Issues to target for coordinating policy implementation
Objectives and Assessment
Monitoring and Reporting
Programme of Measures (incl. public participation)
Other Issues?
Need 3 pictures here

24. Other issues to consider
Link to Air Policy (atmos. deposition of pollutants and link to ecosystems)
Link to MAES – how coordinated implementation can inform the ecosystem (and their services) assessment?
coordination with other Directives (FRMD, NiD, UWWD, others?)
integrated nutrient management, is this a good subject to work on as an example?

25. Way ahead?
Coordination following DPSIR (or similar framework)? Do we need to develop this conceptual framework together?
Do we need to develop additional principles for objectives/monitoring and PoMs beyond those in the FAQ?
Can we identify win-win examples?
Can we use the workshop to develop some aspects in more detail (e.g. common assessment methods)?
Preparation of background document as a means to develop these ideas further

26. Thank you for
your attention

27. ANNEX – overview of different provisions

28. Objectives (1)
HD: Maintain or restore at favourable conservation status selected species and habitats of Community importance. Strict species protection - ensure a coherent N2000 network) BDS: Maintain or adapt bird populations at good status. WFD: reach good ecological status/potential and good chemical status in all surface waters, and to prevent the deterioration of any status. Protects aquatic ecosystems, and with regards to their water needs Protected Areas, and other terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands.

29. Objectives (2)
MSFD: to achieve or maintain Good Environmental Status by 2020, expressed through 11 'descriptors' and associated criteria
BDS (+ CBD): various quantified targets, e.g.:
BDS T1 (conservation status terrestrial/freshwater species and habitats)
BDS T4 (sustainable use of fisheries resources and GES)
Strategic Plan T11 (protected areas), 14, 15 (restoration)

30. Exemptions & Deadlines
The WFD objectives, including additional objectives of PAs, need to be reached by 2015.
Art. 4.4 WFD allows extending the deadlines where the improvements cannot be achieved in time because they technically are not feasible, disproportionately expensive or not possible due to natural conditions and certain conditions are met.
When applying for an extension of deadlines under WFD, due account must be taken of possible consequences for achieving the objective under the Habitats Directive. ….

31. Monitoring Requirements
WFD: detailed monitoring requirements for surface waters and for groundwater in terms of types of monitoring, quality elements, and frequency, addressing chemical, ecological and quantitative status and including provisions for Protected Areas.
Hab. Dir: contains the obligation for MS “to undertake surveillance of the conservation status of the natural habitats and species” – Detailed format/guidelines for reporting and assessment of conservation status, with EEA
Birds Dir: Similar arrangements in place.

32. Monitoring Requirements
MSFD: obligations to monitor progress towards achieving GES and with environmental targets – needs to address physical, chemical and biological quality elements across 11 Descriptors.
BDS:
EU baseline delivered through Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES)
Valuation of services and incorporation into accounting and reporting procedures by 2020
Will use data from the monitoring under WFD, MSFD and BHD
Basis for monitoring progress on implementation

33. REPORTING
BHD: MSs report every 6 years about the progress made with the implementation of the HD (conservation status of habitats and species) and BD (status of birds). Last period , EU report (state of nature) in Next MS reports due in 2019 (for the period ); reporting format and guidance
BDS: June 2015 mid-term review, 2020 final report

34. Programme of Measures and Plans
WFD: River Basin Management Plans for each RBD and Programme of Measures integrating all relevant aspects of water management, incl. every 6 years. 2nd cycle in 2015.
BHD: integrated approach: ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network is essential. MS must prevent site deterioration and establish the necessary conservation objectives and measures (man plans, timeframe for SAC designation). Process for plan/project assessment/ authorisation. Species protection throughout their range, species conservation plans.
MSFD: Programmes of measures by 2015, taking account of WFD and other existing measures
BDS: various target-specific actions/strategies, incl. MAES, Restoration Framework, GI Strategy