1. WFD “case study” Gert Verreet – DG Environment, Unit D.2 marine team
Introduction
The European Union is highly dependent on maritime transport. Around 90% of its external trade and 40% of its internal trade goes by sea. For most inter continental trade, shipping is of course the only feasible option. World trade is growing and as a result so is EU shipping. Trade has consistently grown at a faster rate than the world economy for the last six decades. In view of the scale of current and predicted activity, it is inevitable that concerns arise about its impact on the environment.
The development of short sea shipping is seen as a central element of the strategy for a European transport system set out in the Commission’s 2001 transport White Paper which seeks to encourage use of more environmentally benign modes of transport. The view is often stated that in order to reduce pollution and ease congestion on the roads, shipping should be encouraged. This may well be true, with a number of caveats. Firstly that using the sea should not lead to further growth in demand to distribute the goods by road, secondly that shipping actually should result in lower pollutant emissions. On the positive side it should be noted that where shipping substitutes for road transport, its low energy use per tonne-km helps to reduce fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions.
As with all modes of transport the external effects from shipping vary. The Commission has a long standing policy of seeking to ensure that all modes of transport pay their external costs, and there is of course every reason why this should also be implemented in the maritime sector.
So we can see that shipping does offer potential for satisfying a proportion of transport demand in a way that offers some environmental benefits. However, in doing so, there are environmental concerns that need to be addressed. In addition if capacity is to be expanded it will give rise to additional environmental pressures.
Gert Verreet – DG Environment, Unit D.2 marine team
EEA-led EMMA workshop 3, 17 April 2007

2. (supposed) Format of this talk
Why have xxx in selected organisms been chosen as an indicator? What is the indicator supposed to measure/predict (e.g. what metrics/parameters are being considered) ?
What is the current stage of development/application of the indicator ?
What are the data needs ?
What have been the problems in the process and have they been (or not) overcome ?
In addition to the use in WFD coastal waters, can the indicator be used for the EMS/MSD implementation process? Is it applicable to offshore waters (beyond the WFD territorial water limit (in general 12 nm)?

3. WFD Objectives and Control of Dangerous Substances
Priority Substances (PS) and other substances previously regulated (see Annex IX WFD)
→ Progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses to comply with the EQS
Priority Hazardous Substances (PHS)
→ Cessation or phasing out of discharges, emissions and losses to achieve close to background concentration but at least to comply with the EQS

4. Article 16 WFD (2) Establish list of priority substances
(3) Identify priority hazardous substances
= implemented through Decision 2455/2001/EC
(7) Establish EQS
(6+8) Establish pollution control measures
(10) Review existing directives
(4) review list regarding PHS
= scope of recent Commission proposal

5. List of 33 Priority Substances (Decision 2455/2001/EC or Annex X WFD)

6. Key components of new proposal
Definitions (Inventory of emissions, transitional area of exceedance)
Environmental Quality Standards
Priority hazardous substance identification (update/review of Annex X)
Repeal existing daughter Directives
Combination of emission controls left to the Member States (using existing EU legislation – eg IPPC)
More details on the new proposal:

7. Current stage
First reading, aiming for political agreement in June Environment Council
Parliament Committee voted its amendments on 3 April, plenary expected end of May

8. Data needs
Arrangements being developed under WISE (cf. document EEA-led EMMA WS2/8 and the draft reporting arrangements being discussed by WFD / WISE experts as in the annex)