1. Shellfish Waters Directive (repealed)

2. Shellfish Waters Directive (SWD)
Original SWD 79/923/EC adopted on 30 October 1979
SWD 2006/113/EC (codified version) adopted on 12 December 2006.
SWD repealed 22 December 2013
Protection of shellfish waters subsumed into the
Water Framework Directive (WF

3. Purpose of SWD SWD stated that:
‘The protection and improvement of the environment necessitate concrete measures to protect waters, including shellfish waters, against pollution’.....‘It is necessary to safeguard certain shellfish populations from various harmful consequences, resulting from the discharge of pollutant substances into the sea’.
Article 1 ‘concerns the quality of shellfish water and applies to those coastal and brackish waters designated by Member States as needing protection or improvement to support shellfish (bivalve and gasteropod mollusc) life and growth and thus to contribute to the high quality of shellfish products directly edible by man’.

4. Requirements of SWD Mandatory Standards- ‘imperative’
Applied to coastal and brackish waters up to 3NM from baselines.
Member States were expected to designate Shellfish Waters.
Mandatory Standards- ‘imperative’ pH
Coloration
Suspended solids
Salinity
Dissolved oxygen
Petroleum hydrocarbons
Organo-halogenated substances
Metals
Substances affecting shellfish taste
Guideline Standards- ‘endeavour to achieve’
Temperature
Faecal Coliforms

5. Repeal of SWD Original SWD 79/923/EC adopted on 30 October 1979
SWD 2006/113/EC (codified version) adopted on
12 December 2006
SWD repealed 22 December 2013
Protection of shellfish waters subsumed into the
Water Framework Directive (WFD)

6. SWD to Water Framework Directive (WFD)
WFD is expected to deliver at least the same level of protection as SWD.
Designated shellfish waters are Protected Areas under WFD.
The ‘Register of protected areas’ shall include those areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species.
Indicate p. Nos/sections
Bullet 1- WFD p5 section 51 plus p 11 article 4.8 and 4.9 respectively
Bullet 2&3- “Areas designated for the protection of economically significant aquatic species [Annex IV, 1(ii)] p 32
Bullet 3-Article 9 Recovery of costs for water services. Also paragraph (38) p 4 The use of economic instruments by Member States may be appropriate as part of a programme of measures. The principle of recovery of the costs of water services, including environmental and resource costs associated with damage or negative impact on the aquatic environment should be taken into account in accordance with, in particular, the polluter-pays
principle. An economic analysis of water services based on long-term forecasts of supply and demand for water in the river basin district will be necessary for this purpose. Annex III p 31 Economic analysis.
Bullet 4-
Bullet 5-
Bullet 6- WFD article 11, article 16 strategies against pollution of water

7. SWD to Water Framework Directive (WFD)
WFD does not contain specific numeric physical and chemical standards (in contrast to SWD).
Member States are required to identify specific pollutants and derive standards for them where not specified in other Directives concerning Emission Limit Values and Environmental Quality Standards (Annex IX ) and identified Priority Substances (Annex X)
There is no specified microbiological standards for faecal pollution in WFD (in contrast to SWD) and microbiology is not specifically referred to in WFD Articles and Annexes but does represent a pressure and impact for aquaculture.
Coliform bacteria

8. MSFD and offshore shellfish aquaculture
Majority of shellfish aquaculture occurs inshore (within the 1 NM limits of the WFD), however offshore shellfish aquaculture may increase in the future and therefore protection offshore under the MSFD also needs to be considered.
The MSFD applies to marine waters which fall under Member State jurisdiction (including coastal waters covered by the WFD).
Both MSFD and WFD have broadly similar approaches and objectives to enable healthy, diverse and productive waters, and they both implement key principles of ‘no deterioration’ and ‘polluter pays’.
No numerical microbiological standards have been specified in either WFD/MSFD. Several Member States have chosen not to repeal their national legislation which transposed the SWD, thus retaining microbiological standards.
General objectives of WFD and MSFD of particular relevance to bivalve aquaculture are enabling healthy, diverse and productive waters through:
Protection of aquatic resources and designation of protected areas (including shellfish protected areas)
Management of human activity and encouraging sustainable use of aquatic/marine resources (including shellfish)
Preventing and reducing pollutants to protect water quality (including shellfish waters)
Putting Environmental Quality Standards in place for shellfish protected areas and implementing Monitoring Programmes for the protection of public health
Limiting the spread of disease and non-native species (including those associated with the shellfish aquaculture)

9. Stakeholder concerns post SWD repeal
EU shellfish aquaculture should benefit from appropriate implementation of the WFD if improved water quality is maintained/improved. However some stakeholder concerns and potential concerns include:
Loss of protection - will WFD provide the same level of protection to shellfish resources and human health?
Microbiology - Uncertainty over future microbiological standards.
Non designated sites - Some polluted sites may remain unimproved or closed as they are not economically significant or designated.
Perception of shellfish aquaculture as a risk to achieving Good Ecological Status, or a water management issue, which may limit existing shellfish aquaculture operations and deter new shellfish aquaculture ventures.
Equivalence of national legislation.
EU shellfish aquaculture should benefit from appropriate implementation of the WFD if improved water quality is maintained/improved. However some stakeholder concerns and potential concerns include:
Loss of protection - will WFD provide the same level of protection to shellfish resources and human health?
Microbiology - Uncertainty over future microbiological standards.
Non designated sites - Some polluted sites may remain unimproved or closed as they are not economically significant or designated.
Perception of shellfish aquaculture as a risk to achieving Good Ecological Status, or a water management issue, which may limit existing shellfish aquaculture operations and deter new shellfish aquaculture ventures.
Equivalence of national legislation.
Bullet 5 – National legislation has implications for trade in shellfish, and is contrary to the spirit of the Directive.
The absence of faecal coliform parameter is a particular concern as without it the industry are concerned that some Member States may not commit to the costly programme of measures often necessary to reduce faecal coliforms in shellfish waters and flesh, if it is not a standard specified to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES).
Comment from Jorge Rodrigez-Romero (DG ENV) There is no reference to microbiology in WFD but in order to maintain the level of protection in the shellfish protected areas, the MS will have to keep the microbiological standards in force. Many Member States have decided not to repeal the legislation transposing the SWD as an easy way of maintaining the same level of protection. The WFD RBMP should then make use of these standards.
EU shellfish aquaculture should benefit from appropriate implementation of the WFD if improved water quality is maintained. Industry is concerned that WFD will not provide the same level of protection:
MICROBIOLOGY: No reference to microbiology in WFD = critical gap.
MS need to set their own legislation and microbiological standards for shellfish flesh in order to maintain the same level of protection to shellfish as under the SWD.
Non ‘ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT’ sites- may not be designated as PA’s therefore not monitored for water quality. Polluted sites prohibited on hygiene grounds may consequently remain unimproved or closed to the industry.
RISK TO ACHIEVING WFD GOOD ECOLOGICAL STATUS- Shellfish aquaculture could be seen as a water management issue, or development as a risk to achieving WFD ‘good ecological status’ deterrant to new shellfish aquaculture, or limitations placed on existing operations depending on their environmental impact.
UNLEVEL PLAYING FIELD- WFD requires MS to draw up national legislation which may lead to an unlevel playing field, with implications for trade in shellfish, and is contrary to the spirit of the Directive.

10. Stakeholder priorities following repeal of SWD
Restore/maintain/improve water quality for shellfish production
Protect shellfish consumer safety
Maintain and improve shellfish aquaculture business and employment
Protect bivalve shellfish resources and biodiversity
Achieve WFD and MSFD objectives and comply with legislative requirements
Restore/maintain water quality for shellfish production (all stakeholders)
Protect shellfish consumer safety (Govts and Industry)
Maintain and improve shellfish aquaculture business and employment (all stakeholders)
Protect bivalve shellfish resources and biodiversity (all stakeholders)
Achieve WFD and MSFD objectives and comply with legislative requirements

11. End