BALANCE – the mother of MARCOS

1. European Marine Directives: Concepts, Overlap and SynergyJesper H. AndersenDHI Water • Environment • HealthWith contributions from:Åsa Andersson, Dorothy Furberg, Pirjo Kuuppo, Kari Nygaard,Johnny Reker & Henrik Skov MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

2. 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 25-26 October 2006 in Copenhagen • More information is available at www.BALANCE-EU.org MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

3. Objectives, tasks and progress made MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

4. 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). • BONUS: The EC Birds Directive MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

5. 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 co-implementation 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. MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

6. 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 environmental objectives overrules less stringent ones. MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

7. Timetable MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

8. 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. MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

9. 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. MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

10. 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 the final report. MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

11. 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. MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

12. MARCOS task 1:Geographical overlap MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

13. Geographical overlap 1 MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

14. 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 • Outputs: Maps and tables (statistical analysis) MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

15. Geographical overlap 3 – basic layers MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

16. Geographical overlap 4 – basic layers MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

17. Geographical overlap 5 – examples (good) MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

18. Geographical overlap 6 – examples (bad) MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

19. Geographical overlap 7 – example (ugly) MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

20. MARCOS task 2:Similarities and differences between typology (sensu WFD),marine landscapes (required via HD)andclassification based on physical features (sensu MSD) MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

21. 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 • HD is within WFD or MSD areas (sometimes both) MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

22. Natura 2000 area WFD zone Baseline MSD zone EEZ border Typology, MLS and characterisation 2 MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

23. MARCOS task 3:Similarities and differences between “ecological status” sensu the WFD, “conservation status” sensu the HDand“environmental status” sensu the MSD MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

24. Environmental targets 1 MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

25. 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) MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

26. MARCOS task 4:Indicators and assessment tools MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

27. 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 MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

28. 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 MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

29. Improving exixting tools = HEAT • HEAT = the draft HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool • Cat I, Cat II and Cat III are changed to Quality Elementssensu 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. 50%, 25%, 20%, and 15% deviation from RefCon MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

30. HEAT example, north of Fyn MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

31. 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?) • Develop guidance for further development MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

32. Next steps:MARCOS meeting, finalisation of draft report& workshop MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

33. Next steps MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

34. A few words about the report • Pages: • 1 • 4 • 15 • 50 • 10 • 8 • 10 • 10 • 6 • 2 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 A complete draft MARCOS report will be available by the end of September MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

35. Environmental targets 3 MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

36. Geographical overlap 7 • x • x MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

37. 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 MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm

38. Thank you for your attention Any tricky questions? MARCOS 2, Ulriksdal Slott, Stockholm