Towards integrated environmental policy for the marine environment David Connor European Commission DG Environment Unit C.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry MSCG 12-13 November 2013, Brussels

Nature, Water & Marine Directors’ mandate Copenhagen, June 2012: Future joint work to focus, inter alia, on: cooperation on an integrated approach in the implementation of the EU legislation on nature and water, including coherent interpretation of definitions, streamlining and harmonisation of reporting and monitoring under the directives in order to avoid duplication.

Why integrate? Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Newest Directive (cf WFD, Nature Directives) Broad geographic scope WFD Coastal Waters EEZs (or similar) Continental Shelf areas (seabed and subsoil only) Broad topic scope All aspects of marine environmental quality All pressures and impacts All human activities Ecosystem-based approach

MSFD and policy integration MSFD Art. 1(4): “This Directive shall contribute to coherence between, and aim to ensure the integration of environmental concerns into, the different policies, agreements and legislative measures which have an impact on the marine environment.” MSFD explicitly mentions the following: Water Framework Directive Habitats Directive Birds Directive Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Bathing Water Directive Environmental Information Directive INSPIRE Directive Regional Sea Conventions & other international agreements

International Conventions MSFD WFD BWD Habitats Birds CFP EQSD Nitrates UWWTD International Conventions Policy integration

Policies Policy application State Air Water Species Seabed Pressures CO2 Quality Nutrients Oceanography Plankton Birds Mammals Reptiles Fish Physical seabed Hydrology Communities Birds Habitats WFD Policy application Policies MSFD EQSD UWWTD CFP EIA/SEA Nitrates CAP BWD Pressures Other Chemical Biological Physical Radionuclides Litter Energy, noise pH Hazardous substances Nutrient enrichment Species extraction Non-indigenous Microbial pathogens Loss Damage Hydrological change

Benefits of integration Policies complement each other, delivering enhanced outcomes and avoiding conflict and duplication; More efficient implementation processes within Member States, e.g. where monitoring and assessments can serve multiple purposes through the ‘do once, use many times’ principle; Reduced burden on implementation through more effective and streamlined information management and reporting; More effective protection of the marine environment and achievement each policy’s goals.

Integration in practice Through: Objective setting and assessment methods Monitoring programmes Assessments Targets and measures to reduce pressures and impacts Governance systems Information systems

Overall quality objectives to be achieved 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 9

Achieving equivalent quality standards (good status) Equivalent quality elements Geographic scales of assessment Quality thresholds per criterion/parameter Assessment methods, e.g. aggregation rules Baselines Timing of assessments and reporting

International Conventions MSFD WFD BWD Habitats Birds CFP EQSD Nitrates UWWTD Eutrophication International Conventions Policy integration

One assessment per area? One assessment per area? MSFD WFD Policies assessing same/overlapping waters RSC Need for consistent outcomes for eutrophication assessments Nitrates Directive UWWT Directive

Eutrophication status of the Baltic Sea 2007-2011 Coastal = WFD Offshore=HELCOM

Similarities in eutrophication reporting Topic MSFD WFD Nitrates UWWTD HELCOM OSPAR BarCon BucCon EIONET Objective GEnS D5 GEcS No eutro Pressure input N/P Pressure output Impacts Water column Seabed Status Targets Measures Scope for streamlining & consistency (with regional specificities) Common parameters/topics for assessment Based on MRAG/UNEP-WCMC/URS 2013

What do we want for the future? Separate assessments for each policy? Different data, indicators, assessment methods? Different timing? Can we integrate and streamline to get: Better results for less effort?

Are we all in the same race? FR ES SE MSFD WFD RSC Biscay West Med Baltic

Thank you for your attention http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine Thank you for your attention