European Freshwater Ecosystem Assessment: Cross-walk between the Water Framework Directive and Habitats Directive types, status and pressures

The EU policies on the freshwater environment and nature and biodiversity are closely linked. The aims of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Habitat Directive (HD) are to achieve good status for water bodies (WFD) and for habitats and species (HD) respectively. The types of rivers and lakes and their ecological status and pressures under the WFD are not directly comparable to the conservation status and threats for freshwater habitats and species under the HD (EC 2011a). The objective of this study has been to explore the possibilities of linking WFD and HD information on types of water bodies and habitats, and their status, pressures and measures, using WISE WFD information on types, ecological status, pressures and measures (EEA 2012, ETC-ICM 2012) and HD information on habitat types, conservation status and threats (EC 2007). The results may be used as input to the EEA Freshwater Ecosystem Assessment in 2015, and also for future European assessments of specific objectives, status and trends for various types of rivers and lakes after the reporting of the WFD 2nd RBMPs and the next HD article 17 reporting. The outcome may also be used as a basis for discussions of the potential and limitations for WFD and HD synergies in terms of monitoring programmes, assessment systems and measures to improve status. The general methodology used in this report is to analyse data and information reported by Member States on WFD types, ecological status and pressures in river and lake water bodies and on Habitats Directive freshwater habitats and their conservation status and threats. The major data sources used are the WISE-WFD database and the HD Article 17 databaseJRC.H.1-Water Resource

Which economic model for a water-efficient Europe? Report of a CEPS Task Force. CEPS Task Force Report, 27 November 2012

This CEPS Task Force Report focuses on how to improve water efficiency in Europe, notably in public supply, households, agriculture, energy and manufacturing as well as across sectors. It presents a number of recommendations on how to make better use of economic policy instruments to sustainably manage the EU’s water resources. Published in the run-up to the European Commission’s “Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Waters”, the report contributes to the policy deliberations in two ways. First, by assessing the viability of economic policy instruments, it addresses a major shortcoming that has so far prevented the 2000 EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) from becoming fully effective in practice: the lack of appropriate, coherent and effective instruments in (some) member states. Second, as the Task Force report is the result of an interactive process involving a variety of stakeholders, it is able to point to the key differences in interpreting and applying WFD principles that have led to a lack of policy coherence across the EU and to offer some pragmatic advice on moving forward

Identifying and prioritising services in European terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems

Ecosystems are multifunctional and provide humanity with a broad array of vital services. Effective management of services requires an improved evidence base, identifying the role of ecosystems in delivering multiple services, which can assist policy-makers in maintaining them. Here, information from the literature and scientific experts was used to systematically document the importance of services and identify trends in their use and status over time for the main terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems in Europe. The results from this review show that intensively managed ecosystems contribute mostly to vital provisioning services (e.g. agro-ecosystems provide food via crops and livestock, and forests provide wood), while semi-natural ecosystems (e.g. grasslands and mountains) are key contributors of genetic resources and cultural services (e.g. aesthetic values and sense of place). The most recent European trends in human use of services show increases in demand for crops from agro-ecosystems, timber from forests, water flow regulation from rivers, wetlands and mountains, and recreation and ecotourism in most ecosystems, but decreases in livestock production, freshwater capture fisheries, wild foods and virtually all services associated with ecosystems which have considerably decreased in area (e.g. semi-natural grasslands). The condition of the majority of services show either a degraded or mixed status across Europe with the exception of recent enhancements in timber production in forests and mountains, freshwater provision, water/erosion/natural hazard regulation and recreation/ecotourism in mountains, and climate regulation in forests. Key gaps in knowledge were evident for certain services across all ecosystems, including the provision of biochemicals and natural medicines, genetic resources and the regulating services of seed dispersal, pest/disease regulation and invasion resistance

The Natural Capital Indicator Framework (NCIF): A framework of indicators for national natural capital reporting

It is now widely recognised that components of the environment play the role of economic assets, termed natural capital, that are a foundation of social and economic development. National governments monitor the state and trends of natural capital through a range of activities including natural capital accounting, national ecosystem assessments, ecosystem service valuation, and economic and environmental analyses. Indicators play an integral role in these activities as they facilitate the reporting of complex natural capital information. One factor that hinders the success of these activities and their comparability across countries is the absence of a coherent framework of indicators concerning natural capital (and its benefits) that can aid decision-making. Here we present an integrated Natural Capital Indicator Framework (NCIF) alongside example indicators, which provides an illustrative structure for countries to select and organise indicators to assess their use of and dependence on natural capital. The NCIF sits within a wider context of indicators related to natural, human, social and manufactured capital, and associated flows of benefits. The framework provides decision-makers with a structured approach to selecting natural capital indicators with which to make decisions about economic development that take into account national natural capital and associated flows of benefits.Comment: 26 pages, 3 figures, 1 table, 1 graphical abstrac

Europe's ecological backbone: recognising the true value of our mountains

Europe's mountain areas have social, economic and environmental capital of significance for the entire continent. This importance has been recognised since the late 19th century through national legislation; since the 1970s through regional structures for cooperation; and since the 1990s through regional legal instruments for the Alps and Carpathians. The European Union (EU) first recognised the specific characteristics of mountain areas in 1975 through the designation of Less Favoured Areas (LFAs). During the last decade, EU cohesion policy and the Treaty of Lisbon have both focused specifically on mountain