Joint Meeting of the Nature, Marine and Water Directors
Meeting of 4 December 2013, Vilnius
Title:
Strengthening integration and cooperation between nature, biodiversity, water and
marine policy - Background document for the orientation debate
Prepared by:
DG Environment in consultation with LT Presidency
Date prepared:
29/10/2013
Background
information:
The first joint meeting of the Nature, Marine and Water Directors will discuss the
following issues.
i) co-ordinated implementation (of water, marine, nature and biodiversity, legislation and
policies);
ii) the assessment of ecosystems, ecosystem services and values, and
iii) financing opportunities.
Following initial presentations by the European Commission, France and Sweden, the
discussion should allow all other delegations to intervene for a maximum of three
minutes. The document is meant to facilitate preparation and structure discussion.
However, it is not intended to go through all questions one-by-one. It is up to delegations
whether they refer to all or some questions or whether they prefer to introduce other
issues into the debate which are not addressed by the questions. After the "tour de
table" (with the three minutes statements), the Presidency will decide, time permitting,
whether to open the floor again on some particular issues. At the end of the session,
draft conclusions (which will be circulated in advance) will be discussed and agreed by
Directors.

Nature, Marine and Water Directors are invited to:
o
take note of the information presented in the paper.
o
discuss the key areas where cooperation can be strengthened and consider in
particular the questions asked under each chapter of this paper.
o
give guidance on how to further strengthen cooperation.
o
endorse the draft conclusions below.
1
Strengthening the integration and cooperation between nature, biodiversity,
water and marine policy
Background document for the orientation debate
Background
EU nature, biodiversity, water, air quality and marine policy are a centrepiece of
environmental protection in the European Union. They include (in chronological order), in
particular:

the Birds and Habitats Directives or Nature directives “BHD”,

The National Emission Ceilings Directive "NECD",

the Water Framework Directive “WFD” (and its related legislation such as floods,
groundwater, chemicals, nitrates and others),

the Marine Strategy Framework Directive “MSFD”,

the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 "EUBDS" and

the Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources.
These policies are closely interrelated and all aim, in one way or the other, to sustainably
manage, protect or restore the terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems. There
are some inter-linkages in scope and application, e.g. in coastal areas where all the abovementioned policies apply.
They have been developed consecutively over time, building on what already existed at the
time of their adoption. However, there are also some differences in the way the policies are
designed and the resulting legislation is sometimes implemented and monitored in a different
way. There are also different “communities” driving the policy development and
implementation, sometimes leading to different concepts and approaches for similar
questions. However, working together across policy areas can be a factor that enables
implementation of cost-effective measures that contribute to all policy areas.
To foster greater synergies and further cooperation, and ultimately better environmental
protection at reduced administrative cost, the Nature Directors and the Water/Marine
Directors discussed separately a discussion document1 in May / June 2012 and identified the
initial focus of further work, namely:


the establishment and management of marine protected areas,
cooperation on an integrated approach in the implementation of the EU legislation on
nature, marine and water, including consistent interpretation of key terms and their
definitions,
1
Biodiversity, Nature, Marine and Water Discussion paper of May 2012
(https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/b003375e-a6fa-4e88-a8f7-f8927d6e6101)
2

joint efforts on EU fisheries issues, including the elaboration of common
methodologies on e.g. assessing the impact of fisheries, involving relevant experts and
national bodies responsible for fisheries,
 streamlining and harmonisation of reporting and monitoring under the directives in
order to avoid duplication.
In addition, the Directors acknowledged that closer cooperation on activities related to
ecosystem services and to the ecosystem-based approach would be useful.
There are significant benefits which can arise from such joint activities, In particular, they
will:





Ensure that policies are better integrated, complement each other, delivering enhanced
outcomes and avoiding conflict and duplication;
Lead to more effective protection and restoration of the terrestrial, freshwater, coastal
and marine environment and achievement of each policy’s goals;
Lead to more efficient implementation processes within Member States, e.g. where
monitoring and assessments can serve multiple purposes through the ‘do once, use
many times’ principle;
Allow for tapping more effectively into the available funding opportunities by
coordinating priority action which benefits all objectives and avoids competition
between environmental sectors for the same funding resources,
Reduce administrative burden of implementation through more effective and
streamlined information management and reporting.
Since the initiation of this joint agenda, significant progress has been made, starting by the
development of Frequently Asked Questions papers on the links between the WFD or the
MSFD and the Habitats and Birds Directives. The recently agreed WFD/MSFD Common
Implementation Strategy (CIS) work programmes are models for integration and
streamlining. Also the cooperation on marine protected areas (between Habitat and Marine
Directives) under the Marine Expert Group has born first fruits by joining up on the
establishment of an inventory of MPAs. These are just some examples at EU level to date
(see overview list in the Annex).
Furthermore, the work on the assessment of ecosystems, ecosystem services and values has
now gained momentum and strong collaboration with the implementation of the Water
Framework Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive has been established.
Also the assessment of ecosystems from an air quality perspective is likely to be addressed in
the upcoming air policy package due for the end of 2013.
Moreover, the Multiannual Financial Framework which is currently under preparation offers
a unique opportunity for Member States to invest in such integrated solutions, supporting the
implementation of the different EU laws and policies. It is now for the Member States, in the
preparation of their Operational Programmes, to ensure that these opportunities are translated
into funding priorities.
3
Based on this experience, some principles have emerged which could guide successful
cooperation in future, in particular:





We need to ensure that we share a common understanding supporting the need for
integrated management, protection and restoration of the terrestrial, freshwater,
coastal and marine environment.
In most cases, the objectives pursued by the different policies are complementary and
reinforce each other, even if they may be worded somewhat differently.
In cases where complementarity of objectives is not evident, there is a strong need to
work together to find satisfactory solutions that respect the overall common policy
objectives, i.e. the preservation and improvement of the environment.
Where different objectives apply to the same area and/or the same species, the most
stringent provision applies and all policies should assist in enforcing this objective.
However, because the identification of the most stringent objective may not always be
straightforward and trade-offs may be inevitable there is a need for cooperation
between responsible authorities and stakeholders in setting and making operational
these objectives.
Effective solutions can only be found if we bring together the best expert(s)(ise) from
the different policy sectors and thereby break down "silos" which may still exist in
European and national administrations. There is a great potential for win-win
solutions which provide benefits across the different policies. Considered in isolation,
individual measures may not always appear to be cost-effective, but when a more
holistic view is taken across all policy areas, the cost-benefit ratio will begin to stack
up. This should also help MS prioritise their interventions.
In May 2013, the Nature, Water and Marine Directors asked the Commission to report back
on the progress at the next meeting. They supported the idea of the (then) future Lithuanian
Presidency to consider organising a joint session between the Nature, Water and Marine
Directors in December 2013 which would allow discussing these issues. In the preparation of
these discussions, three aspects were identified, namely i) co-ordinated implementation (of
water, marine, nature and biodiversity, legislation and policies); ii) the assessment of
ecosystems, ecosystem services and values, and iii) financing opportunities. In the text that
follows, the questions (and related information) are aimed at structuring and inspiring the
discussion. Continuation of the cooperation is envisaged with the aim to discuss the results
and take stock in a subsequent joint meeting under Luxembourg Presidency (in the second
half of 2015).
4
Questions for the orientation debate
Headline questions: What do the Directors expect from this agenda? What works well, what does not?
What are the bottlenecks and obstacles for integration and streamlining and how can we overcome
them? And which is the best level for action, EU, regional, national or sub-national?
The environment and ecosystems that we are aiming to manage, protect and restore are largely the
same, independent of the policy areas. However, sometimes we look at them only as regards the
aspects regulated through a particular piece of legislation. EU environment legislation has been built
up over time in a complementary way and allows now for a more holistic, integrated and coherent
approach for protection. This means that the overall objectives for maintaining and restoring a “good”
and “favourable status” can only be achieved when all pieces of legislation are applied together in a
coordinated and strategic way. One example is the marine environment. With the adoption of the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in 2008, an overarching framework was introduced
which brings together and builds on the previously existing protection regime for the marine under
other Directives, namely the Water Framework Directive, the Birds and Habitats Directives, the
Nitrates Directive and others. Another is the NECD, which is currently being revised with a view to
establish new national emission ceilings for 2020 and beyond, which will have profound impacts on
nitrogen deposition on terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems.
The challenge is now to implement the relevant environment legislation in such a way that it uses the
other pieces of legislation and complements them, where they do not ensure the achievement of the
defined environmental objectives on their own. To allow all these efforts to go effectively in the right
direction, we may need to discuss first a joint and common understanding of the way we need to
manage the ecosystems in an integrated way.
Part 1. Coordinated implementation (of water, marine, nature, air, and biodiversity
legislation and policies)
Question 1: How can we further strengthen cooperation, avoid duplication of efforts and break down
“expert silos”?
The aim of this exercise is to improve the cooperation between nature/biodiversity, air-quality, water
and marine policy, to avoid compartmentalisation of the different implementation processes. Experts
(both at EU and at national level) are often focussing on the enforcement and implementation of
“their” piece of legislation and different solutions are found for similar and related questions (e.g.
reporting, monitoring, …). In the meantime, significant efforts have been made to bring the policy
implementation processes closer together (e.g. 'frequently asked questions' documents, joined-up CIS
work programmes, joint expert groups) but still more efforts can and should be made in this respect.
Emphasis should be given to additional operational actions to facilitate cooperation between the
different constituencies to improve overall efficiency and coherence. Working together is also
responding effectively to the ever increasing complexity of environmental problems and the reduced
(public) resources to tackle them.
Question 2: How can we make the application of the various objectives (i.e. good environmental
status, good ecological status, favourable conservation status and EUBDS targets) more coherent and
effectively guiding the solutions?
Good environmental status, good ecological status and favourable conservation status are the core
objectives in the overarching pieces of legislation for marine, water and nature protection.
Furthermore, the biodiversity strategy sets out six targets, most of which are more or less explicitly
linked to objectives in existing legislation, and the NECD includes specific interim environmental
objectives for ecosystems. The expression of these objectives in the legislation is complex and the
application challenging. Efforts have already been made to define and better understand the individual
objectives and how we may apply them to the same ecosystem (e.g. a marine protected area in coastal
5
water). Furthermore, we want to quantify successful restoration efforts and describe ecosystem
services. In order to do so more effectively and working together to address the main pressures on the
ecosystems (rather than discussing between each other whose objective is more important...), we need
a consolidated effort to develop a consistent understanding of “good status” capturing the different
legal objectives, as well as of their underlying drivers. Where such efforts have been made, e.g. in
relation to the assessment of eutrophication (see WFD Guidance No 23), it still has not been translated
into regulatory practice and a common methodology across legislation. We may still come to different
conclusions when asking the question, is a part of the coastal water “eutrophic or not”.
Question 3: How can we increase our efforts to streamline reporting and improve information
availability whilst reducing the administrative efforts? How can we better use the available data from
legislation for the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services?
Reporting and data provision under nature, biodiversity, water and marine policy are essential tools to
ensure that we are making the necessary progress and to point our efforts in the right direction.
However, this also implies a considerable burden for both Member States and the Commission.
Significant progress has been made over the last 10 years within the different sectors to streamline
and improve the practices, including by using modern technologies. The Water and Biodiversity
Information Systems for Europe (WISE and BISE) have been inspired by each other and are examples
for integrated data and information management within the respective sectors. Now the time has come
to streamline and integrate across the major policy sectors. There is huge potential for further
streamlining which will also improve the "regulatory fitness" of our policies. However, such progress
requires a common conceptual understanding, a joint strategy and a willingness to amend past
practices for the benefit of future results.
Question 4: Do we work together efficiently to increase the share of marine protected areas (MPAs)?
What potential does the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) have for delivering on the water,
marine, nature and biodiversity policy goals and how can we harvest this potential together?
MPAs are identified as a key instrument under the MSFD for delivering its objectives. At the same
time the N2000 network is expanding at sea and it is likely to make a significant contribution to the
development of coherent MPA networks. Sound management of these areas is crucial for protecting
coastal and marine ecosystems. In that context priority is given to sustainability of fisheries. The
Marine Expert Group, through its enhanced mandate, provides a forum for addressing these issues
jointly (e.g. approaches for MPA reporting and assessment building on N2000 process, preparation of
common methodology for assessing fisheries impact). Furthermore, the CFP reform offers significant
opportunities for supporting marine biodiversity (e.g. through specific provisions on MPAs/Natura
2000, maximum sustainable yield (MSY), by-catch, improved gears etc) and its implementation will
require joined-up efforts. The same applies to the implementation of the EU Action Plan for reducing
incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears2 and of the proposed Regulation on invasive alien
species3, once it is in force, in the marine.
Part 2. Ecosystem services and values
Question 5: How can the Mapping and Assessment work be closely linked to the water and marine
policy implementation?
The recent initiative on mapping and assessment of the state of terrestrial, freshwater and marine
ecosystems in Europe (MAES) (under Target 2 of EUBDS) requires to investigate how the
application of the ecosystem approach, through the implementation of the Nature, Water and Marine
Directives, could support the implementation of EU environmental policy and sectoral policies in a
2
COM(2012) 665, 16 November 2012
3
COM(2013) 620, 9 September 2013
6
more consistent way. It thus addresses the assessment of ecosystem condition in an integrated way,
and methodological guidance is being developed in this context.4 The results of MAES should help
not only in prioritising work on restoration and on green infrastructure (see below), but also in
designing EU agricultural, fisheries and cohesion policies so as to reconcile socio-economic
development with the maintenance, protection and restoration of the environment and the delivery of
the ecosystem services necessary to support long-term human well-being. Taking on board the
framework developed in MAES and the initial experiences made in its on-going application to six
different pilot areas, the role of the implementation, by MS, of EU environmental legislation and
policy in the delivery of ecosystem services should be evaluated. This applies, e.g., to the contribution
of the Natura 2000 network to the delivery of services and to the integration of ecosystem services in
the future design of river basin management plans under the Water Framework Directive, in Flood
Risk Management Plans under the Floods Directive, and in the marine strategies under the Marine
Strategy Framework Directives. Understanding of how MAES could facilitate implementation of
these directives and what operational actions are needed to improve integration in this area is
important.
Question 6: How do we best integrate our work on Restoration / Green infrastructure / Natural Water
Retention Measures? Are the existing instruments sufficient to deliver the 15% restoration target in
relation to the ecosystems, habitats and species covered by these pieces of legislation?
Target 2 of the EUBDS foresees the deployment of Green Infrastructure and the restoration of 15% of
the degraded ecosystems in the EU by 2020. In May 2013, the European Commission adopted a
Communication on Green Infrastructure (GI)5 which includes the following definition:
Green Infrastructure: a strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other
environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services. It
incorporates green spaces (or blue if aquatic ecosystems are concerned) and other physical features
in terrestrial (including coastal) and marine areas. On land, GI is present in rural and urban settings.
GI is about working with nature to deliver a desired mix of ecosystem services and emphasis is placed
on the multi-functional character of landscapes and seascapes. A guiding principle of GI is that
healthy, resilient ecosystems are a pre-condition for sustainable development. On land and in coastal
areas, GI deployment has strong synergies with a variety of related policies -- regional development,
urban development, climate change adaptation, disaster preparedness and response, rural development
and agriculture. In the marine environment synergies between GI and other policy areas clearly exist
but would benefit from more precise definition.
The GI agenda provides a persuasive narrative for the integration of biodiversity concerns in related
policy areas. The communities responsible for the implementation of water, marine and nature
legislation across the EU have a mutual interest in promoting a coherent and consistent strategy in
order to exploit the opportunities provided by this new initiative.
Under the current CIS program in line with the Blueprint proposals and GI Communication, focus is
placed in promoting multifunctional measures that deliver multiple ecosystem services and contribute
to water management and reduction of flood and drought Tools for increasing the uptake of Natural
Water Retention Measures6 (NWRM) in the next RBMPs and FRMPs will be developed. These
4
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_assessment/pdf/MAESWorkingPaper2013.pdf
5
See COM(2013) 249 at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ecosystems/
6
Measures that aim to safeguard and enhance the water storage potential of landscape, soil, and aquifers, by restoring
ecosystems, natural features, and characteristics of water courses and by using natural processes to regulate the flow and
water quality. They include forestry measures (e.g. CCF, riparian forest restoration), sustainable agriculture practices (e.g.
buffer strips, crop practices), sustainable drainage systems, increasing storage along rivers by restoring and reconnecting
wetlands and floodplains and renaturating rivers.
7
measures aim at improving water status, increasing water availability and decreasing flood risks by
restoring ecosystems and natural processes. They are adaptation measures that reduce vulnerability of
water resources and they support Green Infrastructure by contributing to integrated goals for nature
and biodiversity conservation and restoration, and landscaping. They are land based measures that
contribute to MFSD objectives by tackling point and diffuse pollution, drainage, and litter. In addition
the current WFD CIS work program promotes practice and knowledge exchange on
hydromorphological measures (including restoration, and mitigation measures for improvement of
freshwater habitats) and envisages the development of Guidance or other tools on NWRMs.
Moreover, a Guidance on ecological and hydrological (e-flows) for assessing quantitative aspects (the
volume and level or rate of flow) and links to the Good Ecological Potential will also developed.
These WFD implementation aspects are closely linked with Target 2 of Biodiversity.
Many of the aquatic ecosystems (freshwater and marine) in the EU are degraded and the achievement
of the 15% restoration target would bring many benefits - economic and social as well as
environmental. It would be extremely helpful to get the views of the nature/water/marine directors
concerning the relationship between the 15% restoration target and the obligations (targets and
procedures) contained in the BHD, WFD and the MSFD. Put in another way, are these existing
instruments sufficient to deliver the 15% restoration target in relation to the ecosystems, habitats and
species covered by these pieces of legislation and, if not, what additional measures could/should be
taken.
Part 3. Financing opportunities
Question 7: How can we ensure together that sufficient financing is secured and that the (increasingly
limited) financial resources are used in the most efficient and synergetic way to deliver on the
objectives of nature, biodiversity, water and marine policy together?
The Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) has been largely agreed and the implementation of the
EU budget under the various financial instruments is about to start. Environment policy is competing
with other priorities. In any case, nature, biodiversity, water, air quality and marine together represent
a significant share of the overall spending. There are also legal requirements in relation to cofinancing at EU level (Art. 8 of Habitats Directive and Article 22 of MSFD), and biodiversity
financing and tracking will be an important task in the context of water, marine and nature policies.
At the same time, there is a risk of bidding against each other within the environmental domain,
duplicating efforts or not harvesting potential synergies. The effective and efficient use of
increasingly limited public financial resources will be a constant challenge, and coordination and
cooperation (rather than competition) will be absolutely necessary to maximise the benefits for the
terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems.
The Commission has been raising awareness on this subject and is now preparing supporting tools to
facilitate the use of the various financing instruments (e.g. Financing Natura IT-tool7, Cohesion Policy
investments in Nature and Green Infrastructure8, MSFD financing guide, work under current WFDCIS WGs Agriculture and programme of measures). However, it is for the Member States to decide
on priority areas and projects and to introduce them into the national and regional operational
programmes over the next year.
Also discussions on implementing the CAP is happening now in MS. There are opportunities to
identify and implement measures under cross compliance, greening and rural development that should
be seized upon now; if not the opportunity is lost for another 7 years. With a longer term perspective,
more integrated working across policy silos could provide a more compelling evidence base on how
7
http://financing-natura2000.moccu.com/pub/index.html
8
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/guide_multi_benefit_nature.pdf
8
the CAP should be reformed across the environmental acquis to minimise the negative impacts of
intensive agriculture on ecosystems and the services they provide and at the same time to allow for
food production. The MAES work may be a significant opportunity in this regard.
Overall, this is a unique opportunity to design efficient and synergetic ways of delivering on the
different policy objectives in a joined-up way. E.g. the financing of integrated monitoring
programmes can be done in such a way that these programmes include all the necessary elements to
assess the different status requirements under WFD, MSFD and BHD (i.e. good ecological status,
good environmental status and favourable conservation status). Similarly, joint cruises to gather data
on the marine environment can save a lot of money if collecting samples for all relevant policy areas.
This requires, however, advance planning and close cooperation between different departments.
9
Annex: Overview of past, ongoing joint work and plans for the future
[version of May 2012, will be completed and updated before Directors' meeting]
The existing results and the planned joint work are listed below, in particular:

Interactions Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) and Habitats and Birds Directives
(92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC)
a. Frequently asked questions document : Links between the Water Framework Directive
and
Nature
Directives.
DG
Environment,
December
2011.
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/thematic_docu
ments/biodiversity_water/faq-wfd-bhd_20dec2011/_EN_1.0_&a=d
b. Policy summary on implementing these directives – under preparation
c. Other – guidance on the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives in ports and
estuaries
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/docs/Estuaries-EN.pdf)
and on sustainable inland waterway development and management in the context of the
Birds and Habitats directives (under finalisation)

Interactions Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) and Habitats and Birds
Directives (92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC
a. Frequently Asked Questions document: Links between the MSFD and the Nature
Directives (Birds Directive and Habitats Directive): interactions, overlaps and potential
areas
for
closer
coordination.
2012.
Final
draft
http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/marine_n2000/library?l=/marine_expert_group&vm
=detailed&sb=Title
b. Development of a common methodology for assessing fisheries impacts on marine
Natura 2000 sites (under finalisation).
c. MPAs – work of regional sea conventions

Interactions Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) and EU Biodiversity Strategy to
2020
a. Designation of the Marine Strategy Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG
GES) as operational forum for the implementation of Target 4 of the Strategy
b. Mapping and assessment of the status of ecosystems and their services in Member States
national territories with the assistance of the Commission by 2014, assessment of the
economic value of ecosystem services, and promotion of their integration into accounting
and reporting systems at EU and national level by 2020 (Action 5)

Streamlining of reporting and information management between the water, marine, nature and
biodiversity
a. Reporting sheets under MSFD
b. WISE/BISE similarities and synergies (joined up developments to be supported by
service contracts from the Commission for 2012-2014)
10