Cohabitating with the EUAn environmental manager’s

viewpoint on the synergies and conflicts between EU and national

regulations in the aquatic environment

Melanie JosefssonSwedish Environmental Protection Agency

Waterford, Ireland June 1, 2010

Commitments to developing EWS

• CBD Guiding Principles on IAS VI/23, GP 7

• Bern Convention’s European Strategy on IAS

• EU Communication on Biodiversity (COM (2006)216) Halting the loss of biodiversity– Obj 5. To substantially reduce the impact of IAS

and alien genotypes

• IMO Ballast Water Convention– HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan: Regional

Information System with Early Warning by 2013

What do we need to consider?

• IMO Ballast Water Convention• EU regulations

– Use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture (708/2007/EC)

– Marine Strategy Framework (2008/56/EC)– Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)– Habitat Directive– Plant Health Directive (2000/29/EC)– Animal Health Directive (2006/88/EC)

• Regional agreements /HELCOM, OSPAR

Ballast water ConventionInternational Convention for the Control and

Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediment 2004

• To prevent, minimize and ultimately eliminate the transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens through the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments.

• Requires a Warning System for harmful organisms

and uptake areas - Areas known to contain outbreaks, infestations or populations of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens (e.g. harmful algal blooms) which are likely to be taken up in Ballast Water, should be identified and avoided where possible (Guidelines on designation of areas for Ballast Water Exchange (G14).

Marine Strategy DirectiveGeneral requirements

• General requirements– MS develop a Marine strategy with the aim of

achieving or maintaining good environmental status in the marine environment by 2021

– Ecosystem approach– MS should make an initial assessment of

current environmental status by 2012– MS establish environmental targets and

indicators by 2012– MS establish monitoring program by 2016– Program of measures 2016-2020

Assessments of water’s environmental status

1. Analysis of essential characteristics and current environmental status of waters

• Table 1. Biological features– An inventory of the temporal occurrence,

abundance and spatial distribution of non-indigenous, exotic species or, where relevant, genetically distinct forms of native species, which are present in the region/sub- region

• Table 2 – Pressures and Impacts - Biological Disturbance. Introduction of non-indigenous species and translocations

Assessments of water’s environmental status (cont.)

2. Analysis of predominant pressures and impacts including human activity on characteristics and environmental status of waters

3. Economic and social analysis of their use and cost of degradation of the marine environment

Criteria for good environmental status relevant to the descriptors of Annex

I to Directive 2008/56/EC• Descriptor 2 Non-indigenous species

• 2.1 Abundance and state characterisation of non-indigenous species, in particular invasive species

• 2.1.1 Trends in abundance, temporal occurrence and spatial distribution in the wild of non-indigenous species, particularly invasive non-indigenous species, notably in risk areas, in relation to main vectors and pathways of such species.

Descriptor 2 Non-indigenous species(cont.)

• 2.2 Environmental impact of invasive species

• 2.2.1 Ratio between invasive species and native species in some well studied taxonomic groups, e.g. fish, macroalgae, molluscs that may provide a measure of change in species composition further to displacement of native species

• 2.2.2 Impacts of invasive species at the level of species, habitats and ecosystem

Conclusion

• Additional scientific and technical development is required for developing potentially useful indicators, especially of impacts of invasive species (such as biopollution indexes), which remain the main concern for achieving good environmental status.

Biopollution index

BPL= relative abundance, distribution, magnitude of impacts

– Magnitude of IAS impacts on native species• No displacement av inhemska arter• Local displacement , no extinction• Large scale displacement• Population extinctions• Population extinctions of native keystone

species– Assess impact on habitats– Assess impacts on ecosystem functioning

Water Framework Directive

– Purpose of the WFD – to ensure that inland, transitional and coastal waters achieve or maintain a good ecological status

– IAS not specifically mentioned in the WFD, but considered by most countries as a pressure and detract from naturalness. Annex V consider IAS as “potential “anthropogenic impact”

– Guidance from the EC on WFD

Options for Assessing IAS in the Ecological Status Classification

Approaches to dealing with IAS vary greatly between countries (and within countries)

1) Water body classified using pressure-based classification tools, classification then modified in an additional step based on IAS

2) Water body classed then modified depending on the abundance or percentage coverage of IAS

3) No additional assessment of IAS on the assumption that impacts of IAS are detected in existing instruments

4) Separate risk assessment for IAS undertaken, biopollution indexes published alongside water classification, but doesn’t affect classification

Other regional agreements• HELCOM

- Undertake monitoring in order to undertake risk assessments. Species that pose the major ecological harm and those that can be easily identified and monitored

- Alert to ships not to take up ballast water during outbreaks of harmful species and other high risk conditions- Exchange of information

• OSPAR- Voluntary Guidelines for the management of ships’ ballast water and sediment

• EPPO, Bern Convention, Bonn Convention, RAMSAR, CBD, ICAO

National regulations and Objectives

• Need for national monitoring and EW systems

• Requirements rapidly increasing while resources are dwindling

• Need for coordination in developing warning systems to ensure no double work

• Need for an ”ultimate solution” ”Mother-of all-warning systems” paid for by someone else?

National approaches

• Go ahead and take measures and develop systems at the risk of wastage and/or censure

• Wait and see what the EC will require of MS

Monitoring– New species discovered

Reports to the Species InformationSystem, Quality control and

verification

Information to the secretariate, competent authorities and country administration

boards

Risk analysisAuthorities, secretariate and experts

MeasuresSecretariate, Sectoral authorities,

County Administrative Boards

Rapid Response PlansSecretariate, Sectoral authorities,

County Administrative Boards

Proposed Swedish Early Warning and Rapid Response SystemAnalysis of the surrounding world

International information systems– New species can enter Sweden

Information to the Rapid Response Group