European Marine Directives: Concepts, Overlap and Synergy Jesper H. Andersen DHI Water - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – European Marine Directives: Concepts, Overlap and Synergy Jesper H. Andersen DHI Water PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 4f8be9-NDRkM



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

European Marine Directives: Concepts, Overlap and Synergy Jesper H. Andersen DHI Water

Description:

European Marine Directives: Concepts, Overlap and Synergy Jesper H. Andersen DHI Water Environment Health With contributions from: sa Andersson, Dorothy ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:27
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 39
Provided by: Kenne92
Learn more at: http://nmr.mallverkstan.net
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: European Marine Directives: Concepts, Overlap and Synergy Jesper H. Andersen DHI Water


1
European Marine Directives Concepts, Overlap and
SynergyJesper H. AndersenDHI Water
Environment HealthWith contributions
fromÅsa Andersson, Dorothy Furberg, Pirjo
Kuuppo, Kari Nygaard,Johnny Reker Henrik Skov
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

3
Objectives, tasks and progress made
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

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.

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.

7
Timetable
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.

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.

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.

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.

12
MARCOS task 1Geographical overlap
13
Geographical overlap 1
Data Provider Data
Danish Environmental Protection Agency (Danish EPA) Danish Territorial waters WFD RBDs and coastal waters HD areas Fjords (coastline)
ESRI data maps Study area coastline
Finnish Environment Institute Finnish WFD RBD and coastal waters Baseline Territorial Waters
The Geological Survey of Greenland and Denmark (GEUS) Danish EEZ
ICES MSD ICES ecoregions
2004 HELCOM MARIS Database Finnish EEZ Swedish EEZ HELCOM basins
Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA) Norwegian Territorial waters EEZ MPAs WFD RBDs and coastal waters
WWF Sweden Swedish and Finnish HD areas
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) Swedish WFD RBDs and coastal waters Territorial waters
OSPAR OSPAR region
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)

15
Geographical overlap 3 basic layers
16
Geographical overlap 4 basic layers
17
Geographical overlap 5 examples (good)
18
Geographical overlap 6 examples (bad)
19
Geographical overlap 7 example (ugly)
20
MARCOS task 2Similarities and differences
between typology (sensu WFD),marine landscapes
(required via HD)andclassification based on
physical features (sensu MSD)
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)

22
Typology, MLS and characterisation 2
23
MARCOS task 3Similarities and differences
between ecological status sensu the WFD,
conservation status sensu the
HDandenvironmental status sensu the MSD
24
Environmental targets 1
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)

26
MARCOS task 4Indicators and assessment tools
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

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

29
Improving exixting tools HEAT
  • HEAT the draft HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment
    Tool
  • Cat I, Cat II and Cat III are changed to Quality
    Elements sensu 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 AcDevs can be used, e.g. 50, 25,
    20, and 15 deviation from RefCon

30
HEAT example, north of Fyn
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

32
Next stepsMARCOS meeting, finalisation of draft
report workshop
33
Next steps
34
A few words about the report
  • 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
  • Pages
  • 1
  • 4
  • 15
  • 50
  • 10
  • 8
  • 10
  • 10
  • 6
  • 2

A complete draft MARCOS report will be
available by the end of September
35
Environmental targets 3
36
Geographical overlap 7
  • x
  • x

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

38
Thank you for your attention
  • Any tricky questions?
About PowerShow.com