EEA - EMMA Workshop November 20-21, 2006 EEA, Copenhagen Requirements and data needs to develop assessments of marine ecological processes and biological elements EEA - EMMA Workshop November 20-21, 2006 EEA, Copenhagen Can marine/coastal biological and ecological monitoring and assessments be combined within EU context? Jens Brøgger Jensen Danish EPA

What is the background for a combined monitoring and assessment Environmental monitoring and assessment has turned its focus from physico-chemical elements to biological elements NSC 1995 took more focus on the ecological issue by putting species and habitats and fisheries issues as the first chapters in the Esbjerg declaration IMM 1997 focused on impact from fisheries on marine ecosystems and introduced the ecosystem approach as a guiding principle NSC 2002 developed further by including Ecological Quality Objectives In parallel OSPAR developed and adopted its strategies including the one on “Biological Diversity and Ecosystems”

What is the background for a combined monitoring and assessment - continued The precursor to the WFD was a proposal for an Ecological Quality Directive however it lacked the sufficient provisions for control of pressures and link to other relevant legislation The WFD provides the means for integration of control of land-based pressures with impact on the basic ecological conditions (eutrophication, chemical pollution, physical pressure and other human activities that cause impact) The Habitats and Birds Directives have their focus on habitats and species but they were developed before or in the early days of the “ecological thinking” in the European legislation The proposal for a Marine Strategy Directive has taken up the lessons

What makes a combined monitoring and assessment possible Water Framework Directive includes the provision Article 4 1(c) for protected areas Member States shall achieve compliance with any standards and objectives at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive, unless otherwise specified in the Community legislation under which the individual protected areas have been established. 2. Where more than one of the objectives under paragraph 1 relates to a given body of water, the most stringent shall apply. That implies inter alia objectives set by the Habitats and Birds Directives The proposal for a Marine Strategy Directive includes the same provision Overlap in scope and in areas of interest and in management purposes make it necessary to combine efforts

Overlap in geographical coverage Overlap between designated Natura 2000 areas and coastal water bodies makes a combination compulsory

Overlap between HD and WFD management targets? What are the similarities between the Habitats Directive’s principles for achieving favourable conservation status and The Water Framework Directive’s normative definitions of good status with emphasis on good ecological status.

What could be included in the analysis An analysis of the overlap between: Definitions with a different point of departure HD: Conditions in 1994 (impacted or not) WFD: Deviations from reference conditions Both focusing on the ecological structure, functioning and stability with a parallelism between management goals; and parallelism to OSPAR and HELCOM and to Urban Waste Water Directive and Nitrates Directive WFD HD High Favourable conservation status Good Management goal Moderate Un-favourable conservation status Poor Bad

What could be included as basic indicators The biological elements of the WFD definition of ecological status with the values for good status provides common basic indicators for the management targets Fytoplankton general correlation between biomass and the eutrophication level may not be relevant for HD in protection of species, but it is an important factor determining composition and biomass of benthic fauna HD protected areas are mostly benthic with focus on benthic communities Macroalgae and angiosperms Area coverage, depth distribution and species distribution reflect a habitat’s specific ecological structure and function including the substrate (dynamics) Indicator for eutrophication, physical pressure, however, mostly in coastal waters Benthic invertebrates Area density, presence of sensitive species, species composition, biological effects Indicator for eutrophication (secondary), physical pressure, ecotox.

Distribution of sea grass (Zostera marina) Tool 1: Relation for Zostera (linear depiction) Nitrogen concentration (summer)

Some indicators needed in MSD and HD are in less focus under the WFD Fish (except in estuaries) Existing indicators for biological pressure so far mostly focusing on commercial target species for fishery WFD indicator under development Indicator for biological pressure (fisheries) Birds Existing indicators regarding protected species Indicators for ???? pressure Mammals Indicators for biological pressure (i.e. whaling, by catch) Additional biological elements and specific indicators to express the protection needs under Natura 2000 and MSD

What to do in practise? Existing knowledge and information available. Look into projects and activities under both (all) directives for a basis which can Strengthen the scientific basis for implementation of the two (three) directives Strengthen the coordination between the two (three) directives Look into the WFD intercalibration exercise (present and future) and marine conventions work with the development of monitoring and assessment systems Extent to other needed indicators

Conclusion and outlook In the EU legislation there is and probably there will be more provisions that require combination of ecological objectives set by different directives. There are similarities between the expression of the directives management goals which implies a common basic set of indicators There is need for further development of indicators emphasising their response to controllable pressures. Scientific information and knowledge for the first steps is existing, however, it needs to be brought into the context of the directives provisions for management of pressures