Transcript Slide 1

European Marine Directives:
Concepts, Overlap and Synergy
Jesper H. Andersen
DHI Water • Environment • Health
With contributions from:
Åsa Andersson, Dorothy Furberg, Pirjo Kuuppo, Kari Nygaard,
Johnny Reker & Henrik Skov
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
1
BALANCE – the mother of MARCOS
• BALANCE is a BSR INTERREG IIIB co-funded
project focusing on:
– Marine landscapes in the Baltic Sea, Kattegat and
Skagerrak
– Data harmonisation and availability
– Habitat modelling and mapping in 4 pilot areas
– Blue Corridors, MPA representativity and
optimization of the MPA network in the Baltic Sea
– Stakeholder communication and involvement
– Development of management templates and
guidelines
– Outreach (BALANCE Interim Reports, WP Final
Reports, BALANCE Synthesis Report, web site, etc.)
• The BALANCE End Conference takes place 2526 October 2006 in Copenhagen
• More information is available at
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
www.BALANCE-EU.org
Stockholm
2
Objectives, tasks and
progress made
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
3
Scope of MARCOS
• The overall scope of MARCOS
(European Marine Directives:
Concepts, Overlap and Synergy) is
to carry out a cross-cutting
analysis of the potential synergies
and overlap between three
European Directives, which are
shaping European marine
management.
• These directives are
– the EU Water Framework Directive
(WFD),
– the EC Habitats Directive (HD) and
– the recently proposed EU Marine
Strategy Directive (MSD).
• 18-19
BONUS:
The EC Birds
Directive
June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
4
Supporting management via ’convergence’
• Through cross-cutting analysis MARCOS will
clarify the concepts, overlap and synergies
between the three directives and provide
guidance to environmental managers on how
effort could be coordinated in order to ensure a
coherent and unified approach to coimplementation of these three most important
legislative tools.
• Such convergence is essential for an informed,
ecosystem-based and cost-effective approach
to management of the marine environment and
thus for the continued sustainable
development within the Nordic Region.
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
5
MARCOS tasks
• MARCOS will:
– analyse and describe potential convergence between
typology sensu the EU Water Framework Directive,
marine landscapes/broadscale habitats sensu EC
Habitats Directive and classification based on physical
and chemical features sensu the proposed Marine
Strategy Directive,
– analyse and describe similarities and differences
between “good ecological status” (WFD), “favourable
conservation status” (HD) and “good environmental
status” (MSD),
– analyse similarities and differences between existing
assessment tools and produce recommendations on
how to converge these tools, and
– analyse geographical differentiation and overlap of
the WFD, HD and MSD, because the most stringent
18-19 June
2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal
Slott,
environmental
objectives
overrules
less stringent
Stockholm
ones.
6
Timetable
Activities
2007
1
Signing of contract(s)
Kick-off meeting
Task 1: Geographical
overlap
Task 2: Typology + MLS
Task 3: Objectives
Status meeting (May)
Task 4: Assessment tools
Status meeting (September)
Task 5: Reporting (draft)
Workshop
Final report
18-19 June 2007
2
2008
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
M
M
M
W
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
7
Task 1
• This task focuses on the geographical overlap between
the three directives (WFD, HD and MSD).
• The focus is justified by the fact that there is a
geographical overlap and that the most stringent
objectives have to be applied.
• This important issue has more or less been neglected by
the WFD CIS intercalibration work and the work related
to the Baltic Sea Action Plan.
• The objective is simply to identify overlapping areas,
both directly (physical overlap) and indirectly (e.g. in
neighbouring areas where currents might influence the
status due to pressures in adjacent areas).
• The output will be texts and maps, which are intended to
constitute a chapter in the final report.
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
8
Task 2
• Focus will be on the similarities and differences
between typology (sensu the WFD), marine
landscapes (required indirectly by the HD) and
classification based on physical features
(sensu the MSD). Despite the differences in
terminology, there actually seems to be quite a
lot of overlap.
• The partners will provide national information
and contributions which will be presented,
discussed and synthesised.
• The output is a text on the issues dealt with.
The text is intended to constitute a chapter in
the final report.
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
9
Task 3
• This task focuses on the similarities and
differences between “ecological status” sensu
the WFD, “conservation status” sensu the HD
and “environmental status” sensu the MSD.
• These three terms are all dealing with
ecological quality and should at least in
principle be identical. This will be analysed,
described and discussed in order to establish a
common understanding as well as
recommendation for co-implementation.
• The partners will provide national information
and contributions which will be presented,
discussed and synthesised.
• The output is a text on the issues dealt with.
The text is intended to constitute a chapter in
18-19
June
2007
2, Ulriksdal Slott,
10
the
final
report. MARCOSStockholm
Task 4
• MARCOS will discuss existing tools for
assessment of ‘ecological status’, ‘conservation
status’ and ‘environmental status’ and propose
recommendations on how to - whenever
relevant – ‘converge’ assessment tools.
• The tools available for assessment are
indicator based.
• A prototype MSD assesssment tool will be
outlined and tested.
• The output is a text on the issues dealt with.
The text is intended to constitute a chapter in
the final report.
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
11
MARCOS task 1:
Geographical overlap
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
12
Geographical overlap 1
Data Provider
Data
Danish Environmental Protection Agency (Danish EPA)
Danish:

Territorial waters

WFD RBDs and coastal waters

HD areas

Fjords (coastline)
ESRI data & maps
Study area coastline
Finnish Environment Institute
Finnish:

WFD RBD and coastal waters

Baseline

Territorial Waters
The Geological Survey of Greenland and Denmark (GEUS)
Danish EEZ
ICES
MSD ICES ecoregions
2004 HELCOM MARIS Database



Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA)
Norwegian:

Territorial waters

EEZ

MPAs

WFD RBDs and coastal waters
WWF Sweden
Swedish and Finnish HD areas
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)
Swedish:

WFD RBDs and coastal waters

Territorial waters
OSPAR
18-19 June 2007
Finnish EEZ
Swedish EEZ
HELCOM basins
OSPAR region
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
13
Geographical overlap 2
Focus:
• WFD, HD, MSD (regions and sub-regions)
• Territorial water
• EEZ
• OSPAR
• HELCOM basins
Geographical overlap analysis:
• MSD and territorial waters/EEZ
• WFD and territorial waters/EEZ
• HD and territorial waters/EEZ
• WFD and MSD
• HD and MSD
• HD and WFD
June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
14
• 18-19
Outputs:
Maps and
tables
(statistical
analysis)
Stockholm
Geographical overlap 3 – basic layers
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
15
Geographical overlap 4 – basic layers
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
16
Geographical overlap 5 – examples (good)
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
17
Geographical overlap 6 – examples (bad)
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
18
Geographical overlap 7 – example (ugly)
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
19
MARCOS task 2:
Similarities and differences between
typology (sensu WFD),
marine landscapes (required via HD)
and
classification based on physical features
(sensu MSD)
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
20
Typology, MLS and characterisation 1
• Clear types in the WFD
• Not so clear types in HD
• No type setting in the MSD, but an initial
assessment including a characterisation is
required
• Interlinks between HD, WFD and MSD in
typology:
– HD types recognised by WFD and MSD
– Overlapping coastal types in the HD and WFD
– Marine landscapes could support
implementation of the MSD
• Area overlapping
– WFD and MSD overlap with 1 nm outward
from the baseline
18-19
– June
HD2007
is within
2, Ulriksdal
Slott,(sometimes both)
WFDMARCOS
or MSD
areas
Stockholm
21
Typology, MLS and characterisation 2
Natura 2000 area
WFD zone
Baseline
MSD zone
EEZ border
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
22
MARCOS task 3:
Similarities and differences between
“ecological status” sensu the WFD,
“conservation status” sensu the HD
and
“environmental status” sensu the MSD
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
23
Environmental targets 1
WFD
High
Good
Marine Strategy Directive Good Environm. Status
Moderate
Poor
Bad
Polluted water
Habitats Directive
Favourable Cons. Status Un-favourable Conservation Status
OSPAR COMPP
Non-problem Area
Problem Area
HELCOM EUTRO
Non-problem Area
Problem Area
HELCOM BIO
Fulfilled Targets
Impaired Targets
UWWT Directive
Non-sensitive water
Sensitive water
Nitrates Directive
Non-polluted water
Polluted water
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
24
Environmental targets 2
• Favourable conservation status ≥
good ecological status =
good environmental status
• Environmental protection and nature
conservations is about ecological quality and
should not be seen as separate issues
• Consequently, the implementation of the 3
directives in question should be coordinated
as much where possible
• Further, the EC Habitats Directive is likely to
be the most stringent directive since this
does not allow for any exemption (as the
WFD does)
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
25
MARCOS task 4:
Indicators and
assessment tools
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
26
Objectives
• Our objectives are:
– To analyze similarities and differences between
existing assessment tools and set up recommendation
on how to ’converge’ these
• Existing assessment principles and tools are
very few and include:
– OSPAR Comprehensive Procedure
– HELCOM EUTRO
– HEAT
• These tools ’run’ on indicators!
• Consequently, our task grows:
– We need to look at indicators
– We need to look at national environmental objectives
– We will provide guidance on how to ’converge’ and
develop assessment
tools
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
27
Stockholm
A few word about indicators
• There is a
lot going on
in relation
to
indicators:
– HELCOM
indicator
fact sheets
– OSPAR
EcoQOs
– EEA CSI
– SEBI 2010
18-19 June 2007
Name
1. Long-term changes in emissions and inputs (air- and waterborne) nutrients
2. Source apportionment of inputs
3. Water exchange between the Baltic Sea and the North Sea
4. Long term changes in salinity
5. Long-term changes in stratification
6. Long-term changes in oxygen depletion
7. Wave climate in the northern Baltic Sea
8. Sedimentation of particulate organic matter in the central Baltic basin
9. Long-term changes in water clarity
Name
10. Long-term changes in sea (surface) temperature
1. Long-term
EcoQO forchange
threatened
declining habitats in the North Sea (under development)
11.
in iceand
cover
2. Long-term
EcoQO onchanges
Spawning
of commercial
fish DIP,
species
in theratio
North Sea
12.
in stock
winterbiomass
concentrations
of DIN and
DIN:DIP
3. Long-term
EcoQO forchanges
the North
on fish(and
communities
(underofdevelopment)
13.
inSea
emissions
their sources)
nitrogen
Name
4. Long-term
EcoQO onchanges
seal population
trends innitrogen
the North
Sea
14.
in atmospheric
depositions
1.
North
Atlantic
Oscillation
5.
EcoQO
on
bycatch
of
Harbour
Porpoise
in
the
North
Sea
15. Long-term changes in chlorophyll-a (spring bloom)
and
summer periods
2.
Marine
grasses)
inbiomass
coastaldevelopment)
waters
6. Long-term
EcoQOangiosperms
onchanges
seabird population
trends
(under
16.
in(sea
phytoplankton
3.
(Transitional
and) Coastal
watersand
habitats
7. Long-term
EcoQO onchanges
eutrophication
status
related eutrophication
17.
in phytoplankton
species
composition EcoQOs
4.
Chlorophyll
in
transitional
coastal
and
marine
8.
Hazardous
Substances
in
Marine
Biota
and
Sediment
(CEMP)
18. Long-term changes in emissions and inputs ofwaters
heavy metals
and toxic organic compounds
5.
Status
of
marine
fish
stocks/stocks
outside
safe
biological
limits
9.
EcoQOs
on
mercury
and
organohalogens
in
seabirds'
eggs
(under development)
19. Heavy metal emissions to air
6.
Catches
byimposex
major
species
areas
10. Atmospheric
EcoQO on
in dogwhelks
or otheron
selected
gastropods
20.
depositions
ofand
heavy
metals
the Baltic
Sea
7.
Fisheries
impact
onand
habitats
and ecosystems
11. Atmospheric
Dumped chemical
conventional
munitions
21.
emissions
of PCDD/Fs
in
the Baltic Sea region
8.
Accidental
by-catch:
(birds)
mammalson
(and
12. Atmospheric
Wastes dumped
at sea
22.
depositions
of PCDD/Fs
theturtles)
Baltic Sea
9.
Aquaculture
production
13.
Windfarms
in
the
OSPAR
maritime
Area
23. Heavy metals in water
10.
Fishing
fleet
capacity
14. Habitat
Sand and
gravel
extraction
activities
24.
layer
extension
and the
occurrence of dominant calanoid copepods in the Baltic Sea
11.
Introduced
species
marine
and coastal
waters contaminants
15. Trends
Riverine
andindirect
discharges
of synthetic
(lindane)
(already
25.
in Inputs
soft
sediment
macrozoobenthic
communities
in the open
sea areas
of theincluded)
Baltic Sea
2005)
12.
Source
and loads(under
(riverine
and direct) of nutrients to coastal waters
16. (1965
Inputstoofapportionment
lindane in precipitation
CAMP)
26.
concentrations
in fishcoastal
liver and marine
13.
Nutrients
in (transitional),
17. Lead
Riverine
Inputs
and direct
discharges
of heavywaters
metals (already included)
27.
concentrations
fish liver
14.
Frequency
of low
oxygen
in coastal
andCAMP)
marine waters
18. Cadmium
Concentrations
ofbottom
heavy in
metals
inconcentrations
air and precipitation
(under
28.
concentrations
in fish
muscle
15.
Phytoplankton
in coastal
and
marine
19. PCB
Discharges,
spills
and
emissions
fromwaters
offshore installations
29.
in fish
muscle
16.
Hazardous
substances
marine
organisms
20. Mercury
Aerial surveillance
of oilinslicks
(under
BONN agreement)
30.
TBT
in
biota
(proposed)
17.
substances
in (transitional),
coastal
and marine
waters
21. Hazardous
EcoQO on the
Oiled guillemots
found dead
or dying
on beaches
31.
in sediments
(proposed)
18.
Loads
of losses
hazardous
substances
to coastal
waters
22. TBT
Mercury
from
the chlor- alkali
industry
32.
andoffurans
in fish
(proposed)
19.
Discharge
oil from
refineries
and from
offshore
installations
23. Dioxins
Liquid Discharges
of
radionuclides
nuclear
installations
33.
health oil
(proposed)
20.
Accidental
from marine
24. Seal
Discharges
ofspills
radionuclides
fromshipping
non-nuclear sectors
34.
amounts
the
artificial
radionuclide
caesium (RID)
-137 in Baltic Sea sediments
21.
Illegal
discharges
of Direct
oil
at sea
25. Total
Riverine
Inputsofand
Discharges
of Slott,
nutrients
MARCOS
2,
Ulriksdal
35.
Concentrations
of
the
artificial
radionuclide
caesium-137
in Baltic
Sea fish and surface waters
22.
WaterStockholm
Treatment
26. Urban
Inputs Waste
of atmospheric
nitrogen in air and precipitation (under
CAMP)
36.
Long-term
changes
in
amounts
and
incidents
of
illegal
discharges
of oil
23.
quality
27. Bathing
Nutrient water
Losses
and discharges at source
Code
Code
Code
EEA CC6b
EEA WEC2c
EEA WEC3
EEA CSI23
EEA CSI32
EEA FISH11
EEA FISH4
EEA FISH5
EEA CSI33
EEA CSI34
EEA WEC7
EEA WEU7
EEA CSI21
EEA WEU15
EEA WEU19
EEA WHS6
EEA WHS4
EEA WHS7
EEA EN14
EEA EN15
EEA28
WSH12
EEA CSI24
EEA CSI22
Improving exixting tools = HEAT
•
18-19 June 2007
HEAT = the draft HELCOM
Eutrophication Assessment Tool
• Cat I, Cat II and Cat III are
changed to Quality Elements sensu
the WFD
• Based on RefCon and definition of
acceptable deviation (AcDev)
sensu the WFD
• Is split into 5 classes (high, good,
moderate, poor and bad) sensu
the WFD
• Results are expressed as a
Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR =
the ratio between RefCon and
observed status), [where 1,00
equals RefCon (high) and 0,00 is
very bad]
• The “One out, all out” principle is
used correctly sensu the WFD
• Different AcDev‘s can be used, e.g.
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal
Slott,
50%,
25%, 20%, and 15% 29
Stockholm
deviation from RefCon
HEAT example, north of Fyn
HEAT+, the HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool
QE
Indicator
Plankton
Chlorophyll a (0-5 m)
Phytoplankton, biomass (5m)
Primary production
HAB freguency / cell number
Phytoplankton, avr. bloom magnitude ("area")
Phytoplankton, diversity
Phytoplankton, bloom freq. (except spring)
Meso-zooplankton, biomass (5m)
Extra
Extra
Submerged aquatic vegetation
Eelgrass, depth limit
Macroalgae, depth limit
Eelgrass, biomass
Annual macroalgae biomass (1-5 m)
Macroalgae species richness
Macroalgae species diversity
Extra
Extra
Benthic invertebrates
Species richness (below pycnocline)
Species diversity (below pycnocline)
Biomass
Abundance
Deposit-feed biom/Filter-feed biom (above pycnocline)
Biomass, molluscs
Biomass, echinoderms
Physio-chemical
Secchi depth
tot-N (annual)
DIN (winter)
tot-P (annual)
PO4 (winter)
tN:tP (summer)
DIN:PO4 (winter)
O2 area < 4 mg
O2 area < 2 mg
Extra
Extra
18-19 June 2007
Root
Degra.
RefCon
Status
WFD
WFD
HELCOM
optional
optional
optional
optional
optional
optional
optional
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
1,9
3,3
0,576
0,5 MODERATE
84
248
0,339
0,5 BAD
WFD
WFD
optional
optional
optional
optional
optional
optional
WFD
WFD
HELCOM
optional
optional
optional
optional
WFD
HELCOM
HELCOM
HELCOM
HELCOM
optional
optional
optional
optional
optional
optional
+
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
+
+
10,4
4,8
EQR_I
0,462
G/M boundary Interim status
369
1861
0,328
0,210
0,5 BAD
0,5 BAD
73
35
353
3
0,207
0,086
0,5 BAD
0,5 POOR
18,5
9,9
0,7
0,7
0,368
0,212
0,571
0,714
QE status
0,457
POOR
0,462
BAD
0,208
BAD
0,466
POOR
Final status
0,25 BAD
121
391
6,8
2,1
0,4
0,5
EQR_QE
0,5
0,5
0,5
0,5
BAD
BAD
MODERATE
GOOD
+
+
+
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
30
BAD
A prototype tool for the MSD…
• Outline of a draft tool:
– Should be based on MSD Annex 2
– Suggested structure:
• Physical-chemical features
• Habitats types
• Biological elements
• Other features
– Use HEAT & BEAT prototypes as a skeleton:
• Outline a MSD prototype (ESAT?)
• Present a few examples (data?)
• 2007
Develop guidance
for further
development
18-19 June
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal
Slott,
31
Stockholm
Next steps:
MARCOS meeting,
finalisation of draft report
& workshop
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
32
Next steps
Activities
2007
1
Signing of contract(s)
Kick-off meeting
Task 1: Geographical
overlap
Task 2: Typology + MLS
Task 3: Objectives
Status meeting (May)
Task 4: Assessment tools
Status meeting (September)
Task 5: Reporting (draft)
Workshop
Final report
18-19 June 2007
2
2008
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
M
M
M
W
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
33
A few words about the report
List of content:
• Preface
• Introduction
• Marine Directives
• Task 1: Geographical overlap
• Task 2: Typology, MLS, etc.
• Task 3: Environmental targets
• Task 4: Indicators & tools
• Presentation of case studies
• Cross-cutting discussion
• Conclusions & recommendations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pages:
1
4
15
50
10
8
10
10
6
2
A complete draft MARCOS report will be available
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
34
Stockholm
by the end of September
Environmental targets 3
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
35
Geographical overlap 7
• x
• x
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
36
A few words about the workshop
• MARCOS will organise a workshop in 2008
• It should take place in Copenhagen
• DHI and Danish EPA hold the budget
for the workshop
• When? (April 2008)
• Key note speakers?
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
DG ENV?
EEA (EMMA and ’convergence’ processes)?
HELCOM?
OSPAR?
Germany (Uni. Bremen)?
Other projects?
Other institutions?
• The workshop will be announced once the 2008 budget is known
• A draft programme should be discussed at the MARCOS meeting
in Oslo, 18 September 2007
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
37
Thank you for your attention
18-19 June 2007
MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott,
Stockholm
38
Any tricky questions?