Workshop:Biodiversity and Water

– Links between EU nature and water legislation –

Representation of North Rhine-Westfalia to the EU

Rue Montoyer 47, 1000 Bruxelles

17-18 June 2010

Workshop report

Introduction

The Biodiversity and Water workshop was held on 17-18 June 2010 at the Representation of North Rhine-Westphalia in Brussels and was attended by more than 120 participants from Member States (MSs), Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), industry stakeholder groups and DG Environment.

The workshop was organised under the auspices of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) and supported by the Biodiversity Strategic Coordination Group as the first event of a new activity on Biodiversity and Water that seeks to explore and understand the practical issues involved in the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives (BHD) and the WFD and to foster improved understanding between the water and nature communities.

The specific aims of the workshop were to:

1)Provide an overview of the existing links between the WFD and the Natura Directives; DG Environment has prepared a Frequently Asked Questions document that was used as an input for the workshop.

2)Exchange information and present specific case studies exemplifying synergies and conflicts of objectives of WFD and BHD. Case studies were presented by Member States and stakeholders.

3)Identify areas where further activity is needed and guidance should be developed.

A wide ranging workshop programme was developed to provide an overview of the requirements of the Directives from a European perspective, information on responsibilities and cooperation between the water sector and nature conservation from three Member States (France, Spain and Hungary) (Session I), insight into practical implementation issues through the use of case studies (Sessions II and III) and a broader context for the outcomes of the workshop discussions and conclusions (Session IV).

The presentations stimulated some informative discussions and contributed toa set of overall conclusionsand identified some operational follow-up work needed on the topic of "Biodiversity and Water" (see Session IV of this report).

This report provides an overview of the main outcomes of the discussions during the workshop sessions and the overall conclusions reached.

The workshop programme, delegate list and workshop background documents are available in the ‘Workshop on Biodiversity and Water – Links between EU Nature and Water legislation – 17-18 June 2010’ public folder in CIRCA at the following link:

The workshop presentations are also available in a sub-folder at the following link:

Session I: Introduction and setting the scene

a. Water and biodiversity in the political and legal context

The primary EU legislation governing the protection of biodiversity (BHD) and water (WFD) was introduced by Stefan Leiner[1] (Acting Head of Unit DG ENV B.3 Natura 2000 ) and Peter Gammeltoft[2] (Head of Unit ENV D.1 Water), respectively. Sibylle Grohs[3] (DG ENV A.2 Compliance promotion, governance and legal issues) provided further insight in to some of the legal aspects arising from the implementation of these Directives.

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • It was noted that as only 17% of Natura 2000 sites are currently in a favourable condition, considerable improvement is needed to meet 2020 targets in the Biodiversity Strategy. It is also unlikely that 100% compliance will be achieved due to the impacts of climate change and its effects on designated habitats and species.
  • Connectivity between Natura 2000 sites is important for some water-dependent interest features and the WFD provides the mechanisms to protect these connections. For migratory species, the status of the inter-connecting waterbodies in terms of water quality or physical obstructions may be the determining factor on whether Favourable Conservation Status (FCS) can be achieved for a designated species. Thus the achievement of WFD objectives has the potential to facilitate the achievement of BHD objectives in this context. The increasing use of Green Infrastructure will contribute in this context.
  • The BHD contain no target dates for the achievement of FCS in contrast to the strict timetable laid out in the WFD for the achievement of Good Status (GS). The WFD includes exemption clauses for the 2015 target date in certain circumstances such that attainment of objectives can be delayed until 2027. Some clarity was sought from the Commission on whether the 2020 Biodiversity Strategy target dates or the 2027 WFD target date would be used as a target for achieving FCS in the absence of a timetable in the BHD. The Commission clarified that from a legal perspective the absence of a timetable in the BHD precluded the use of infringement proceedings on that basis. The focus of legal proceedings to date has addressed site designation issues and is now moving towards progress towards the achievement of FCS in the Natura 2000 network. Representations received from NGOs will be considered in the approach adopted going forward.
  • The European Red List of Threatened Species is being updated by IUCN. The Commission is involved in this work which could inform any future revision of the species annexes of the BHD. However, such a revision will not be instigated in the near future because the Natura 2000 network has only recently been established on the basis of the existing annexes. Once the second Article 17 evaluation has been completed, the future direction of the implementation of the BHD will be decided.
  • Interpretations of the definition of ‘overriding public interest’ by river basin, regional and national authorities are being made and some coherence in interpretations is required. The Commission confirmed that this is a legal grey area that may require case law to clarify but indicated that the public interest needs to be ‘overriding’ with Appropriate Assessments to support this.
  • Clarification on the interpretation of overriding public interest in Article 4.7 (WFD) and Articles 6.3/6.4 (HD) was sought as to whether Article 4.7 is as stringent as Articles 6.3/6.4 in this regard. The Commission advised that as a general point Article 4.7 is always applied with reference to Article 4.8 that ensures that the most stringent relevant environmental legislation is applied to a waterbody within, partly within, or associated with a Protected Area.

b. National systems for the implementation of water and nature protection legislation: practical realities in Member States

Three examples of the coordination of water and nature protection at a national level were presented for France (Jean-Claude Vial[4], Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Marine Affairs Dept.), Spain (Rogelio Galvan[5], Planning Bureau of the Ebro River Basin District)and Hungary (Andrea Zagyva[6], Department of River Basin Management and Water Protection).

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • The experiences of FR, ES and HU highlighted some important barriers to the coordinated implementation of these Directives including responsibilities split between regional and national government and between different departments with government structures. Experiences to overcome these barriers in new administrative structures were informative but practical operational barriers sometimes persist.
  • There was discussion on the need for a EU paper on giving guidance for setting priorities among conflicting points of interest in the implementation of WFD and BHD. It was pointed out that, while there is a need for discussion of these issues, solutions must be sought at the national level in cooperation with stakeholders. A EU paper could not cover all possible cases and solutions.
  • Solutions are more difficult to find where there are multiple uses involved, particularly in large rivers. Often secondary habitats have developed and it is unclear what role they should play in restoration. Are they needed for sustaining populations of protected species? What role do they play in species action plans?
  • The WFD might have a positive effect on the biological continuity of rivers (a priority for migrating fish). It might be of benefit to take some topics of biological continuity to promote understanding between the WFD and the BHD.
  • A strategy for invasive alien species is under development at EU level that may lead to a Directive.
  • Green infrastructure will feature as part of the Biodiversity Strategy and will form part of discussions on how to allow more innovative and flexible approaches to adapt to climate change.
  • Topics not covered in the current version of the FAQ paper are the protection of species under Art. 12 and 13 as well as the topic of climate change.
  • There is a potential for conflicts of interest in the context of water scarcity and flood protection, whilst aiming to protect ecosystems. There is a need to communicate on this from an early stage in order to achieve a balance.
  • This work should not be limited to the water and nature sectors. Agriculture, for example, has a big role to play in achieving the aims of the BHD and the WFD. Changes in agriculture will be necessary due to climate change, e.g. with respect to the choice of crops that can be cultivated. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is up for revision by the end of 2013. It will be important to ensure that there are incentives within the CAP to provide ecosystem services.

Session II: Integrated Planning and Management

a. Differences and commonalities in objectives and scope of WFD and BHD

Ursula Schmedtje[7] (Unit ENV D.1 Water)introduced the FAQs regarding objectives and differences in scope of the WFD and BHD. Rafael Hidalgo (Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs) and Antonio Camacho[8](University of Valencia)then presented a case study on the ‘ecological basis for the conservation of the aquatic epicontinental habitat types of community interest in Spain: the case of standing waters’ illustrating a practical example of how the objectives of these Directives can be reconciled.

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • EEA Topic Centre on Biodiversity has undertaken some similar work to that in Spain in defining habitat typologies and suggested that a cross-reference with WFD typologies be undertaken.
  • The combination of objectives used in the ES case study requires any species within a waterbody containing a Protected Area or part of a Protected Area to be in FCS before the waterbody can be classified as being at Good Ecological Status (GES).
  • The Commission noted this case study as good example of the combined use of the objectives of both the WFD and BHD,

b. Coordinated monitoring to achieve the monitoring requirements of WFD and BHD

Ursula Schmedtje[9](Unit ENV D.1 Water) introduced the FAQ on the coordination of monitoring under the WFD and BHD. This was followed by a case study presentation from Fernando Magdaleno[10](Ministry of Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs) about the derivation and implementation of environmental flows in Spain. Short case study bulletins were provided by Franck Bruchon[11](France) and Susanna D’Antoni[12] about intertidal fauna and flora inventories in Normandy, France and the Pan Mediterranean Wetland Inventoryrespectively.

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • The work to derive environmental flows in ES was commended. The role of appropriately derived environmental flows in the achievement of WFD objectives was acknowledged particularly in water scarce parts of Europe. In ES, the newly derived flows are integral to the RBMPs and will form part of the WFD consultation process for implementation from January 2011. Future management of water resources should preclude the use of the necessary flow identified as the environmental flow for any other useas far as possible.
  • The public authorities have been included in the development of the Pan Mediterranean Wetland Inventory and it is hoped that the information will be used in BHD and WFD implementation.

c. Coordination of measures in the context of integrated planning to achieve WFD and BHD objectives

Ursula Schmedtje[13](Unit ENV D.1 Water) introduced the FAQ on coordination of measures under the WFD and BHD.Two contrasting case study presentations illustrating coordinated approaches to the implementation of measures were provided by Elizabeth Sides[14] (Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government) on sub-basin plans for the freshwater pearl mussel in Ireland and by Joachim Drüke[15](Bezirksregierung Arnsberg) on the restoration of the Lippe floodplains in Germany. Case study bulletins11 from Stéphane Weil (CATER de Basse Normandie) on the implementation of both the WFD and BHD river programmes in Basse Normandie, France, Ralf Köhler (Landesumweltamt Brandenburg ) on the re-connection of oxbow lakes to recent river courses of Krumme Spree, Germany and Karl Schwaiger (BMLFUW (Lebensministerium, AT) on conserving and restoring natural sturgeon stocks in Europe provided further examples of the issues arising from attempts to coordinate measures under these Directives.

The main outcomes of the sharing experiences discussion were:

  • In relation to the Krumme Spree case study, the Commission clarified that protected species and habitats should be at FCS on the biogeographical scale and not necessarily at the Natura 2000 site scale. In addition, FCS should not be viewed as being static but rather as a dynamic state.
  • In the Lippe case study, areas of land were purchased for floodplain restoration, totalling 1000ha over 20 years, with each hectare costing around 20,000 €. The process is long term and the inclusion of such measures in the RBMP requires the 2027 timeframe for a chance of success.
  • Floodplain restoration is a win-win measure, although difficult and expensive. Funding may be an issue, however it could be possible to use EU structural funds or agricultural funds to assist with this type of activity. Sustainable floodplain management should allow integration of all uses including navigation, flood protection, agricultural land use and species and habitat protection. It should be possible to create ‘win-win-win-win’ situations.
  • Successful management of protected aquatic species is often only possible at the catchment scale. This was illustrated for the Freshwater Pearl Mussel as well as the Danube sturgeon. Joint action is particularly important in transboundary river basins. Attention needs to be given to improving river continuity and the hydromorphological conditions needed during the different life stages. Further research is needed on downstream migration of fish.
  • A positive example on transboundary cooperation on WFD and BHD implementation is the SalzachRiver project which was coordinated between Germany and Austria.
  • The Renewable Energies Directive could pose problems in terms of biodiversity, for example a new small hydropower plant could cause more damage than value of energy created and carbon saved. Such new developments will need to be assessed under the requirements of the BHD (Art. 6.3/6.4) and WFD (Art. 4.7).
  • A discussion was held on cases where a deterioration is actually not a deterioration, e.g. in the UK a river was reconnected to the coast thereby allowing the intrusion of saline water. The water category changed from a river type to a transitional water but this was part of the intended restoration.

The strategic questions to be addressed in wider discussions were presented by François Kremer and Heide Jekel[16].

The main outcomes of this discussion were:

  • Experience from recent contact with the river restoration community suggests that knowledge of WFD objectives is low highlighting a need to engage with the river restoration community. Experience within this group of video communication could be exploited to facilitate this.
  • A checklist of issues for best practice relating to WFD and BHD objectives in addition to the FAQs paper was proposed.
  • More synergies between the WFD and BHD have been identified than differences raising opportunities to achieve the objectives of the Directives. Other sectors, particularly the agricultural sector, need to be engaged in biodiversity and water issues showing them how they can win. Farmers should not just be seen as “the problem”, they are part of the solution.
  • It is necessary to have tripartite dialogues: water + nature + sector concerned. Examples of this are the cooperation in the “rivers exercise” between DG ENV and DG MOVE on inland navigation.
  • Water management should be included in the CAP. There is also a role for the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) to protect migratory fish.
  • What is missing is an approach for protecting endemic species such as the Freshwater Pearl Mussel, e.g. through Green/Blue infrastructure. There is also a need to link biodiversity more with the Floods Directive. Art. 12 and 13 HD should be linked in as well.
  • It would be of interest to know where the hotspots of extinction and decline are in Europe.
  • Adaptation to climate change needs to be included in the debate. It is important to look at the role of wetlands for carbon capture and storage in the context of climate change. Also, fish migration may stop because of increased temperatures.
  • More guidance is needed on what is the more stringent objective and on how to calculate benefits – it is easy to calculate the costs but not the benefits.
  • The FAQs should highlight the structural importance of the WFD, which sets the framework for river basin management, compared with the BHD, which has no catchment-level protection.
  • A FAQ on monitoring could be developed, which underlines that WFD monitoring of biological quality elements could be used to a much larger extent for the purposes of the HD, as they are indicators for ecosystem structure and function.
  • Position papers are not particularly useful but sharing experiences at the EU level is good.
  • Translated versions of the FAQs paper would be really useful but this is up to the MS as the Commission has no budget for this.

Session III: New developments triggering the use of Art. 6.3/6.4 HD or Art. 4.7 WFD – reconciling environmental and socio-economic objectives

Michael O’Briain[17] (Unit B.3 Natura 2000) introduced the FAQ on the use of exemptions and derogations in water-dependent Natura 2000 sites. This was followed by presentations on four related case studies. Jan Brooke[18] (WFD Navigation Task Group/PIANC)described a draft guidance framework for marine navigation dredging and disposal in the UK, Boris Hochfeld[19] (Hamburg Port Authority) gave an overview of the integrated management plan for the tidal Elbe (DE), Erika van den Berg[20] (Research Institute forNature and Forest) presented the updated Sigmaplan for the Schelde estuary (BE) and finally, André van den Berg[21] (Province of Flevoland) described the development of IJmeer and Markermeer (NL).