WFD – MSFD interface from the OSPAR monitoring and assessment perspective

1. WFD – MSFD interface from the OSPAR monitoring and assessment perspective Gert Verreet, Deputy Secretary OSPAR Commission Paris – 18 June 2012

2. Part 1 - Generalities • Geographical coverage • OSPAR overall monitoring and assessment approach • OSPAR strategies in relation to MSFD • OSPAR intensely involved in MSFD regional coordination

3. Illustration from Martin Pratt, 2010 @ Le Cercle Polaire

4. Pre-MSFD, OSPAR already advocated synergy with WFD and other Directives. • OSPAR 2005, Synergies in Assessment and Monitoring between OSPAR and the European Union – Publication No. 230. • OSPAR 2005, Synergies between the OSPAR Comprehensive Procedure, the integrated set of OSPAR Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs) for eutrophication and the EC Water Framework Directive – Publication No. 231. • OSPAR 2006, Synergies in Assessment and Monitoring between OSPAR and the European Union: Biodiversity – Publication No. 294. • OSPAR, 2008, Marine Biodiversity Monitoring and Assessment: Activities to improve synergies between EU directives and international conventions – Publication No. 357.

5. Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme (JAMP) (OSPAR Agreement 2010-4) SECTION I – STRATEGY A. Objectives B. Guiding principles SECTION II – THEMES AND TARGET OUTPUT Per Theme: Objectives and Products in 2010–2014 • Theme A: General (Ecosystem Approach) • Theme B: Biodiversity and Ecosystems • Theme E: Eutrophication • Theme H: Hazardous Substances • Theme R: Radioactive substances • Theme O: Offshore oil and gas industry

6. Effective monitoring and assessment supports clear policy objectives. Ecosystem approach: explicit objectives

7. OSPAR regional coordination role MSFD builds on existing OSPAR strategies.

8. OSPAR report on MSFD regional coordination

9. Part 2 – Example of OSPAR monitoring and assessment • Hazardous substances: annual assessment of trends and levels • Eutrophication: periodic assessment (approx. every 5 years)

10. Coordinated Environmental Monitoring Programme (CEMP) – hazardous substances • Long-standing development of marine environmental contaminant (& some effects) monitoring • Focus on contaminants in biota and sediments • Pre-conditions for inclusion in main programme: • Existing methodologies (guidelines) • Existing QA arrangements • Existing assessment tools

11. CEMP results

12. Example: Cadmium in biota http://dome.ices.dk/osparmime/main.html

13. Inputs have decreased… but shouldn’t be off the radar yet. Quantification of aquatic inputs is eminently suited for WFD-MSFD synergy. Figure source: EEA, 2007

14. Part 3 – Managing and improving

15. Hazardous substances • Monitoring density – OSPAR CEMP and Guidelines: quantitative trend detection objectives in relation to sampling strategy, to be ascertained whether that matches well with the operational interpretation of renewed Art. 8a of EQS Directive on sampling frequencies. • Assessment criteria – OSPAR using ‘Background Assessment Concentrations’ (BAC) and ‘Environmental Assessment Concentrations’ (EAC) – synergy with EQS possible – however, some new proposed EQS are too low to be used operationally.

16. Spatial coverage • “Data on concentrations and impacts of hazardous substances on the marine environment are scarce and fragmented.” (EEA, 2007) • Linking with WFD monitoring could provide significant support for targeting marine monitoring effort for the ever broadening range of contaminants / possible effects. • OSPAR interest to make assessments of substances from source to effects – i.e. from discharge inventories, concentrations in rivers and transitional waters to marine concentrations and effects.

17. Tuning assessment methods and criteria ‘and thereby contributes to’ …

18. Eutrophication 2008 results of application of the OSPAR Common Procedure for the Identification of the Eutrophication Status of the Maritime Area

19. From: EC JRC, Giovanni Bidoglio, Water Conference May 2012

20. Eutrophication • MSFD builds further on WFD… • Hope that ‘ecosystem approach’ also means that WFD can take account of eutrophication problems further offshore than the 1 nm. • “Many countries are working mainly from a WFD implementation perspective for the attainment of good ecological status in coastal waters, where there are problem areas. The HASEC Chairman recalled that the OSPAR COMP should be taken into account by countries with larger PAs that extend beyond the coastal waters, and that consideration may be appropriate as to whether measures may be most effectively be taken up in the WFD RBMP.” • Conventions platform for work across river basin management districts on the marine side.

21. Information sharing and data flows • National level • Regional level • OSPAR intends to modernise its existing information management through Information System that can easily work in conjunction with EU (WISE, WISE-Marine) • OSPAR interest in ensuring data handling capabilities at EU level (EMODnet, …) can also be harnessed for regional sea convention purposes. Welcome opportunities to deepen our work here.

22. Conclusions • ‘Ecosystem approach’ in single continuous marine environment big driver for coordination and cooperation. • Multiple relationship between regional sea monitoring and assessment and WFD and MSFD. • Member State interest to maximise synergy. Well placed to indicate any emerging discrepancies. • OSPAR experience continues to contribute and adapts to evolving needs.