NAPSEA Framework for assessing the feasibility of nutrient reduction strategies related to water management

DELIVERABLE 2.1 FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK Work Package 2 Governance & Policies 30-09-2023 www.napsea.eu Page 2 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 Grant Agreement number 101060418 Project title NAPSEA: the effectiveness of Nitrogen And Phosphorus load reduction measures from Source to sEA, considering the effects of climate change Project DOI 10.3030/101060418 Deliverable title Framework for assessing the feasibility of nutrient reduction strategies related to water management Deliverable number 2.1. Deliverable version 1 Contractual date of delivery 30.09.2023 Actual date of delivery 30.09.2023 Document status prepared Document version 1 Online access Yes Diffusion Public (PU) Nature of deliverable Methodological Framework Report Work Package WP2: Governance and Policy Partner responsible Fresh Thoughts Consulting Contributing Partners In the role of reviewers of the template: UBA, Deltares, UFZ, Hereon, NMI Agro Author(s) Geidel, Teresa; Glößl, Thomas; Dworak, Thomas Editor Theo Prins (Deltares), Joachim Rozemeijer (Deltares) Approved by […name…, format = “last name, letter first name.”, e.g. “van der Heijden, L.H.”…] Project Officer Blanca Saez-Lacava/Christel Millet Abstract Guidance and description of the process of forming a framework to assess the feasibility of policy instruments across governance levels and sectors aiming at reducing nutrient input Keywords Policy instrument analysis framework, Nutrient input reduction, nitrate, phosphorus, horizontal and vertical governance analysis, feasibility analysis, Page 3 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 Contents Deliverable 2.1 ............................................................................................................................................................................1 FeasIbility assessment framework........................................................................................................................................1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................................4 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................5 1.1. The NAPSEA project.............................................................................................................................................5 1.2. Background information on the Zero Pollution Action Plan ............................................................................5 1.3. How this framework was developed ...................................................................................................................6 2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................7 2.1. STAGE I: Data collection (template and interviews) ........................................................................................8 2.1.1. Step 1: Selection of policy instruments ....................................................................................................9 2.1.2. Step 2: Document review............................................................................................................................9 2.1.3. Step 3: Interviews to gather details ........................................................................................................ 10 2.2. STAGE II: Data analysis .................................................................................................................................... 11 2.2.1. Step 1: Vertical Analysis: Overview tables for integration across policy levels .............................. 11 2.2.2. Step 2: Horizontal Analysis: Overview tables for integration across sectors ................................. 11 STAGE III: Interpretation and recommendations ......................................................................................................... 12 2.2.3. Step 1: Investigating the enabling environment further ...................................................................... 12 2.2.4. Step 2: Summarizing results in a report ................................................................................................ 12 3. Concluding remarks ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 4. REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................................................. 13 ANNEX I: DATA COLLECTION TEMPLATE AS PART OF THE FEASIBILITY FRAMEWORK INCLUDING THE GUIDANCE FOR ASSESSORS .......................................................................................................................................... 14 ANNEX II: LIST OF DOCUMENTS SCREENED FOR THE CONTENT PREPARATION ......................................... 22 ANNEX III: List of selected policy instruments .................................................................................................................. 25 ANNEX IV: INFORMATION SHEET ON THE ZERO POLLUTION STRATEGY ........................................................ 26 Page 4 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the methodology for a feasibility framework to judge policy instruments that try to minimize nutrient pollution in water. The framework allows the assessment of different policy instruments from its design phase to the implementation (horizontal assessment) but also to analyze the interplay between different instruments (vertical assessment). The Feasibility Assessment Framework looks at five areas/components: i) legal issues, ii) governance aspects, iii) resources, iv) implementation, and v) monitoring & reporting aspects related to nutrient reduction. In the NAPSEA project, the framework will be applied to different policy instruments that tackle nutrient pollution in inland streams, rivers, lakes and estuaries that lead into the Wadden Sea, but it may also be useful for analyzing the feasibility of other environmental policy instruments. Page 5 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. The NAPSEA project This project researches the effectiveness of Nitrogen And Phosphorus load reduction measures from Source to sEA, considering the effects of climate change (NAPSEA). The primary objectives of the NAPSEA project are to support national and local authorities in the selection of effective measures to reduce nutrient loads and create political support for their execution. The project employs an integrated approach spanning from pollution sources to sea, considering governance, nutrient pathways and measures, as well as ecosystem health. Geographically, the project focuses on the Wadden Sea catchment area, with specific case studies for the Rhine, Elbe, Hunze, and the Wadden Sea itself. NAPSEA serves as a platform to showcase practices in implementation that are socially acceptable, sustainable, and efficient measures. The project also considers the influence of climate change and the additional benefits of measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The goal of Work Package (WP) 2 is to obtain improved support, with a set of guidelines to reach the policy vision of clean European seas by 2030. Efforts to combat eutrophication have significantly advanced in Europe, but certain challenges continue to exist, such as disjointed policies and limited public acceptance of measures. WP2 aims to analyse the policy and socio-economic aspects of nutrient management. This includes analysing barriers and highlighting good practices for implementing sustainable and effective strategies to reduce marine pollution – encompassing administrative, legal, financial, technical, and social dimensions. The overarching objective of this report (Deliverable 2.1) is the development of a framework to evaluate current nutrient reduction policy instruments 1 , judge their overall feasibility of reaching the objective and assess if they go in line with the Zero Pollution Action Plan 2 . The framework will later be tested on the Wadden Sea to understand its feasibility and how it can be advanced. The framework is created to assess policy instruments and their enabling environment and does not consider the level of policy actions or measures. Within the same work package, other tasks deal with the measures level. The results and the revised framework will be presented in Deliverable 2.3. Furthermore, this WP will use obtained information for policy recommendations and create a report on the feasibility of measures to reduce nutrient inputs in the Elbe and Rhine (D.2.2), which complement the work of governance assessment concerning N&P reduction. 1.2. Background information on the Zero Pollution Action Plan The European Commission has published its “Zero Pollution Action Plan” (2021), which is part of the Green Deal 3 , proposing actions that contribute to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 4 , and are harmonized with the 2050 climate-neutrality objective. This plan also weaves in the principles of the clean and circular economy, as well as the revitalization of biodiversity targets. One of the main objectives of the Zero Pollution Action Plan is to reduce nutrient losses by 50% until 2030, which is also written in the Biodiversity Strategy and the Farm to Fork Strategy. The principles to achieve this objective are set out in the figure below. 1 Policy instruments are techniques used by the governing authorities (government or public) to promote certain policies to achieve a predefined set of goals. They are interventions designed by such authorities intending to motivate all stakeholders involved in the issue at stake. This can be a directive, a regulation, a strategy, or a program. 2 European Commission (2021): EU Action Plan: ‘Towards Zero Pollution for Air, Water and Soil.’ https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0400&from=EN. 3 European Commission (2019): A European Green Deal. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-andpolicy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en 4 United Nations: Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ Page 6 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 Figure 1: Zero Pollution Hierarchy 5 . Before the Zero Pollution Plan was formed, the European Union had already implemented several legislations (e.g. Nitrate Directive) and other policy instruments, which partially contributed to the goals of the Zero Pollution Plan. The regulations and plans include guidance and partially specific programs of measures to give the Member States directions on how to meet the standards and thresholds, i.e. reaching good status in all rivers, lakes and transitional and coastal waters, and good environmental status for marine waters in the EU. One important policy instrument to guide how the nutrient reduction shall take place is the EU Integrated Nutrient Management Action Plan, where indicators distinguish sources of pollution and target values, it is expected to be published by the end of 2023. 6 While the different legislations, directives and other policy instruments likely serve the zero pollution strategy in some way, it is not clear to what extent this takes place. However, currently, a systematic assessment to which extent the current policy instruments are contributing to the objectives of the Zero Pollution Action Plan and what this means for the Wadden Sea is lacking. Therefore, the developed framework in this report should support the assessment and analyze the results. 1.3. How this framework was developed For the development of the framework, different policy documents were studied to understand the landscape of policies around the Wadden Sea protection and tailor the framework so that it investigates the policy landscape appropriately. For the content preparation international agreements on the protection of the Wadden Sea, EU legislation, Dutch and German Wadden Sea protection and management, and the North Sea catalogue of measures were considered. Next, for the development 5 European Commission (2021): EU Action Plan: ‘Towards Zero Pollution for Air, Water and Soil.’ https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0400&from=EN. 6 European Commission (2022): https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12899Nutrients-action-plan-for-better-management_de Page 7 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 of the framework existing methodologies such as the EU fitness check 7 and policy analysis schemes 8 have been studied and considered for the framework. The methodology was selected because it is relevant and fit for analyzing the interaction between policy instruments as well as evaluating the enabling environment. The quality of the framework was ensured by inviting comments from all consortium members and discussing the framework and how to make its features most useful in various meetings. For a first internal review, the template was circulated in the consortium in June 2023 and 7 responses were submitted and included in making the template stronger. Parallel, a list of policy instruments was created, which will be the policy instruments that the feasibility framework will be applied to in the upcoming months. This list was circulated amongst consortium members as well to ensure that all relevant policy instruments will be analyzed. The final list of policy instruments selected for analysis can be found in Annex III. 2. METHODOLOGY Policy instruments and their interaction with one another can be complicated and it is challenging to plan and revise them to their best effect. Comprehending the feasibility of policy instruments and the underlying reasons is therefore essential. Even if the ex-ante assessment can indicate how a policy instrument will perform, only when tested in real-world scenarios the effectiveness of policy instruments can be truly assessed, along with identifying the challenges that might hinder their optimal functionality. In the case of evaluating the feasibility of nutrient limitation strategies, additional challenges lie in the multitude of measures that are available for different sectors and impacting different stages of the DPISR framework 9 . To tackle the challenge, this framework tries to better understand the policy instruments' feasibility by assessing the enabling environment, as well as the level of integration of the policy instruments across the governance levels and sectors. Following the goal of the Zero Pollution Plan the framework developed should be able to answer the following questions: Is the current legal framework relevant for the reduction of nutrient pollution in the EU but also on the OSPAR-MS Level (in particular Germany and Netherlands) sufficient to achieve the 50% nutrient reduction target in the EU zero pollution plan using the example of the Wadden Sea? Why? Why not? Answering the questions above should allow us to derive recommendations on how to improve the existing policy framework and its implementation. The framework follows a simple matrix approach as shown in the figure below: 7 EU fitness check: A fitness check is a comprehensive evaluation of a policy area that usually addresses how a set of related legislative acts have contributed to the attainment of policy objectives. Fitness checks can also be conducted for horizontal issues, focusing on specific matters across many different legislative acts (e.g. reporting obligations). Fitness checks are particularly well suited to identifying regulatory overlaps, inconsistencies, synergies, digitalisation potential and cumulative impacts., Better Regulation Guidelines Fitness Check § (2021). https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/swd2021_305_en.pdf., P. 10 8 Policy frameworks that were studied included: Methodology for SDG-indicator 17.14.1: Mechanisms in place to enhance policy coherence for sustainable development (https://wesr.unep.org/media/docs/projects/methodology_17_14_1.pdf); CDC’s Policy Analytical Framework (https://www.cdc.gov/policy/paeo/process/analysis.html) and Pathways to policy integration: a subsystem approach (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11077-022-09483-1) 9 See https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/92-9167-059-6-sum/page002.html Page 8 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 Figure 2: Assessment framework The framework is implemented by applying three main steps as set out in the figure below: Figure 3: Feasibility Framework Figure 3 gives an overall overview of how the framework is set up. The framework is split into three main stages that are summarized below and described in detail below: 2.1. STAGE I: Data collection (template and interviews) Overall Goal: The goal is to collect data about each selected policy instrument regarding the way it works by answering questions about the governance categories. Page 9 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 2.1.1. Step 1: Selection of policy instruments In the beginning, a list of policy instruments needs to be compiled, with all policy instruments that are potentially relevant to the environmental problem that should be assessed. In the case of the NAPSEA project the policy instruments relevant to nutrient reduction have been selected based on research, the entire list of the policy instruments can be found in Annex III. 2.1.2. Step 2: Document review What to do? For the data collection, each policy instrument (which can be multiple documents) and existing assessments are screened for all the relevant details, which are filled into the template (Annex I) by the assessor. Table I contains a list of 5 governance categories (legal, governance, resources, implementation, monitoring and reporting) and their features for which information needs to be collected to carry out the assessment. For each of the governance features there is a question provided in the template (Annex I) to be filled out by the assessor to collect relevant information. Table 1: Governance categories and their features provide a basis for the template of questions (numbers in the left column relate to the question order in the template). Legal Nutrient reduction targets (1, 2) Specify goals for reducing nutrients mentioned in the policy instrument and specify with a roadmap, if available. Legally binding (3) Record any binding targets or goals in the policy instrument, and at which level. Repercussions and sanctioning (4) Outline the consequences of non-compliance scenarios in which the nutrient reduction targets or goals are not met. This could involve describing a range of actions, penalties, or corrective measures that will be taken in the event of failure to meet the required goals. Ratification in country (5) Give information about the transposition/ratification of the policy instrument in the country (national, subnational or local level). This especially applies to EU legislation. Non-compliance case (6) Report if there is a non-compliance case (i.e. infringement process) ongoing. Clear target audience (7) Define the groups or entities that the policy instrument is targeting. This could include industries, agricultural sectors, local communities, government agencies, and other stakeholders who play a role in nutrient reduction efforts. Geographic scope (8) Specify the geographical area to which the policy instrument applies (e.g. EU, Wadden Sea). Recommendations/ Binding statements (9) Provide any explicit recommendations, guidelines, or directives from the policy instrument. Please describe how the measures and actions are prescribed (Is there a programme of measures in place? Etc. Link freshwater and marine water issues (10) Describe how the interconnectivity between freshwater and marine ecosystems is addressed in the policy instrument. Governance Structure for implementation (across sectors) (11) Describe the structure or inter-ministerial body that is established to coordinate efforts across various sectors contributing to nutrient pollution (e.g. agriculture, industry, wastewater management). Furthermore, the way suggestions are implemented the way they are functioning (e.g. regular meetings), and the body's rights and responsibilities should be described. Structure for implementation (vertical coherence) (12) Describe the alignment and coordination between different levels of governance, such as EU, national, regional, and local authorities. This should include also the body’s rights and responsibilities and the way of structure that is implemented for interaction between those levels. Vertical exchange mechanism (13) Describe to what extent the reporting across different governance levels is institutionalized, and whether objectives and targets set on the highest policy level are broken down to /quantified for the lowest level. Please also mention, whether different policy areas are actively forming the policy instrument, where necessary. Participation (14) Describe what mechanisms to involve stakeholders are included in the policy instrument (e.g. public consultations, advisory panels). Please include any good practices or guidelines. Reflection of Zero Pollution Principle (15, 16) 1) Provide general information on which of the 3 stages (preventing, minimising and controlling, eliminate and remediate) the policy instrument serves Page 16 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 10. Are there efforts taken to interlink freshwater and marine water issues in the policy instrument? Y N P EU National SubNational Local Describe how the interconnectivity between freshwater and marine ecosystems is addressed in the policy instrument. Governance 11. Is there an inter-ministerial body or structure in place to coordinate the implementation of the policy instrument across sectors (horizontal coherence)? How regular are the meetings? Please describe in detail: Y N P EU National SubNational Local Describe the structure or inter-ministerial body that is established to coordinate efforts across various sectors contributing to nutrient pollution (e.g. agriculture, industry, wastewater management). Furthermore, the way suggestions are implemented the way they are functioning (e.g. regular meetings), and the body's rights and responsibilities should be described. 12. Is there a body or structure in place to coordinate the implementation from the national to local level (vertical coherence)? How regular are the meetings? Please describe in detail: Y N P EU National SubNational Local Describe the alignment and coordination between different levels of governance, such as EU, national, regional, and local authorities. This should include also the body’s rights and responsibilities and the way of structure that is implemented for interaction between those levels. 13. Is there a vertical exchange mechanism in place that ensures that those who are responsible for implementation are linked to those who design a policy instrument? Y N P EU National SubNational Page 17 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 Local Describe to what extent the reporting across different governance levels is institutionalized, and whether objectives and targets set on the highest policy level are broken down to /quantified for the lowest level. Please also mention, whether different policy areas are actively forming the policy instrument, where necessary. 14. To which level is participation foreseen in the policy instrument and how should it be organized? Describe the level of participation, good practice examples or similar. Y N P EU National SubNational Local Describe what mechanisms to involve stakeholders are included in the policy instrument (e.g. public consultations, advisory panels). Please include any good practices or guidelines. 15. What phase of the Zero Pollution Principle 2 are reflected in the policy instrument? Please select all that apply: Y N P a. ‘preventing’ b. ‘Minimize and control’ c. ‘Eliminate and remediate’ Describe which of the phases from preventing to remediating is covered by the policy instrument. 16. Please tick all actions from the Zero Pollution Strategy Annex, that the policy instrument covers, and share any consideration below the list. In case you want more information on the Zero Pollution Strategy, please refer to Annex IV. Action 10: Revise the Environmental Quality Standards Directive and the Groundwater Directive (2022) Action 11: Review and, if necessary, revise the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2021-2023) Action 13: Revise the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in synergy with the review of the Industrial Emissions Directive and the evaluation of the Sewage Sludge Directive (2022) Action 17: Recommendations based on a fitness check on the implementation of the polluter pays principle (2024) Action 22: Build capacity and improve knowledge on less polluting practices with national advisory services for farmers (as from 2023) Action 23: Compile and make accessible in a digital format all main obligations on nutrient management stemming from EU law to limit the environmental footprint of farming activities (2023) Describe here any direct links between the policy instrument and the actions from the zero pollution strategy (same wording as in the zero pollution strategy, direct uptake of the measures proposed etc.). Page 18 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 Resources 17. Are there financing mechanisms suggested in the policy instrument? Describe in detail if possible. Y N P EU National SubNational Local Describe the sources of funding (e.g. different EU funds) mentioned or how measures can be financed that are suggested for implementation. Please note down the volume of funding as well as how it is distributed (conditions tied to funding, funding stability and flexibility etc.). 18. Does the policy instrument have a clear budget? If so, what is its volume (including the timeperiod) and what are the conditions tied to it? Y N P EU National SubNational Local Describe a budget plan or costs of measures and specify how the financial allocation for implementation should look. This involves breaking down the budget by activities, sectors, and timeframes. 19. Are there structures to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of strategies and measures to ensure that the selected measures are costeffective? Y N P EU National SubNational Local Give an overview of any structures that are in place to evaluate the cost-efficiency of the selected measures achieving nutrient reduction targets in relation to the resources invested. 20. Is there a data centre/communication platform available that provides member states with relevant information? Describe the platform/link.? Y N P EU National SubNational Local Page 19 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 Describe the communication system or platform that facilitates information exchange among stakeholders. Is it only available, or also made accessible? Please specify if it is useful across borders and updated regularly. 21. Is there a guidance format in place (e.g., helpdesk) to implement the policy instrument? Also, describe platforms for stakeholders or other services if available. Y N P EU National SubNational Local Specify the format in which guidance, instructions, and directives will be provided to stakeholders for implementing the policy instrument (e.g. written guidelines, manuals, workshops, progress checks and training materials). 22. Do municipalities and agencies at the local level have the capacity and skills to implement nutrient reduction measures? Y N P EU National SubNational Local Determine the required human resources for implementing the policy instrument. Please mention any information in the policy instrument about the number of staff that is in place/needed. Implementation 23. Who is the responsible body for the implementation and control of the policy instrument? Y N P EU National SubNational Local Identify the government agency, department, or entity responsible for overseeing the implementation of the policy instrument. Clearly define their roles, responsibilities, and authority in coordinating the various aspects of implementation. 24. Is there a national, sub-national or local programme of measures (PoM) described in the policy? If yes, please describe. If no, to what extent does the policy instrument align with existing thresholds? Y N P EU National SubNational Local Page 20 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 Outline a comprehensive PoM that details the specific steps to be undertaken on a national, sub-national and local level or how those measures already exist in a different threshold and how they align with the policy instrument. 25. Is there a clear timeline for the implementation? Y N P EU National SubNational Local Provide the timeline for the implementation of the policy instrument, as detailed as possible. This should include information about milestones reached or if the implementation strongly lags. Monitoring and Reporting 26. Is there a regular monitoring system in place to check relevant parameters for nutrient reduction? If yes, how does it work at which level? Y N P EU National SubNational Local Detail the monitoring system that will be used to track progress towards nutrient reduction targets. This involves describing data collection methods, frequency, locations, and responsible entities for gathering data. Please indicate if an auditing system is in place and if independent controls take place. 27. How is the reported information used? Y N P EU National SubNational Local Explain how the collected monitoring information will be utilized to assess progress and how this data will inform adaptive management strategies. 28. Does this body have the mandate to regularly review and report the impact(s) of the policy instrument concerning… Y N P a. …policy effects b. … transboundary effects c. … cross-sectoral linkages Space for further explanation: Explain how the collected monitoring information will be utilized to assess progress and how this data will inform adaptive management strategies. Page 21 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 29. What kind of regular re-evaluation of the policy instrument is organized for the adaptation to technological and scientific advances? Is there a science-based approach expected? Y N P EU National SubNational Local Describe if and how the policy instrument will be periodically re-evaluated to assess its effectiveness, relevance, and alignment with changing conditions. Specify the frequency of reviews and criteria (science-based approach) for determining whether adjustments are necessary. Page 22 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 ANNEX II: LIST OF DOCUMENTS SCREENED FOR THE CONTENT PREPARATION The purpose of this document is to show which policy documents were taken into account for the content work within task 2.1. Task 2.1. team screened several policy documents to gain a better understanding of what policies are already in place and to ensure that the framework is fit from the content perspective. International agreements on the protection of the Wadden Sea • The Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation has managed and protected this valuable ecosystem since 1978. Today, almost the entire Wadden Sea coast is protected as national parks and nature reserves. The management system is a combination of the national management systems and the trilateral single integrated management plan (SIMP) and Wadden Sea Plan (WSP) implemented by the responsible authorities. • The Trilateral Wadden Sea Plan (WSP) is the common policy and management plan for the protection and sustainable management of the Wadden Sea Area. It is also the management plan for the Wadden Sea World Heritage Site and thus the foundation for preserving its Outstanding Universal Value. Adopted in 1997 (Stade Declaration) and updated in 2010 (Sylt Declaration), the WSP includes the Cooperation’s common vision, principles, policies and constitutes a framework for measures. • A revised SIMP to Protect the Wadden Sea was adopted at the Trilateral Governmental Conference (TGC), 28th Nov01. Dec 2022, The SIMP will be a political agreement of the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation, meaning it is a legally non-binding document of common political interest. Existing policy documents and legally binding instruments at the trilateral, regional, national, or local level will not be altered or affected by this plan. • For more infoAn overview of the conference https://www.waddenseaworldheritage.org/protection-and-management and the timeline (in German): https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/service/gesetzesvorhaben/schutz-deswattenmeeres-2147872 • the basis of the SIMP is the Leeuwarden Declaration in 2018, which documents the intentions of a ministerial council meeting for the protection of the Wadden Sea. The document does not mention nitrate, phosphorus, nutrients or eutrophication at all. The document is non-binding but may be important in terms of identifying what topics and positions are already agreed upon on the ministerial level. EU legislation1 The European Union legislation in the field of the environment is of specific significance for the Wadden Sea and has increased in importance during the past two decades. Of the comprehensive list of environmental legislation, the Birds and Habitats Directives, forming the Natura 2000 network, and the Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive are the most relevant ones. 2. International Laws The Wadden Sea is covered by several instruments of international law. The 1972 World Heritage Convention forms the basis of all World Heritage-related activities concerning the Wadden Sea. Moreover, a number of other multilateral environmental agreements concluded under the auspices of the United Nations also apply the Convention on Biological Page 23 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 Diversity (CBD), the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) and its daughter Agreements, i.e. the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Waterbirds (AEWA), the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS), and Agreement on the Conservation of Seals in the Wadden Sea, for which CWSS provides secretariat services. The Ramsar Convention (Convention on Wetlands of International Importance), the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern Convention) and the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) are also of relevance for the Wadden Sea. National Protection and Management • In Germany, the coastal federal states of Hamburg, Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein are in charge of the implementation of the Federal Nature Conservation Act which sets the framework for establishing nature reserves and national parks. The World Heritage Site includes three national parks: the National Park Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer (established in 1985), the National Park Hamburgisches Wattenmeer (established in 1990) and the National Park Niedersächsisches Wattenmeer (established in 1986). The main objectives of the national parks are to protect the Wadden Sea and to allow natural processes to take place with a minimum degree of disturbances and other detrimental effects of human activities. Each national park is protected under a National Park Act by nature protection law of the respective federal state. The three national park authorities are responsible for the implementation of the respective legislation and management of the site. • In the Netherlands, protection combines a unique national physical planning approach, the Key Planning Decision Wadden Sea, 3rd Policy Document Wadden Sea (PKB, since 1980), with a designation of the Wadden Sea under the Nature Conservation Act 1998, supported by an additional designation such as the Flora and Fauna Act. Together with the Ecological Main Structure (EHS), they form the basis for the protection and management of the Dutch part of the Wadden Sea. The PKB defines the overall objectives of conservation, management and use of the Wadden Sea and is binding for all state, regional and local authorities. North SeaCatalogue of Measures per member state • No specific plans of measures or actions per member state • There is an INTERREG NORTH SEA REGION PROGRAMME 2021-2027 SEA SCREENING - FINAL REPORT, which shows that the programme does not have to be checked against a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) • OSPAR’s assessment work is supported by monitoring under the Eutrophication Monitoring Programme. This includes long-term data collection under the OSPAR monitoring programmes for: • atmospheric inputs (Comprehensive Atmospheric Monitoring Programme – CAMP) • riverine inputs and direct discharges (Comprehensive Study on Riverine Inputs and Directive Discharges – RID) • concentrations and effects in the marine environment (Coordinated Environmental Monitoring programme – CEMP) • Monitoring is complemented by modelling activities on nutrient reduction scenarios and transboundary nutrient transport, to help direct future actions in combating eutrophication. Page 24 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 • The implementation of the Eutrophication Strategy takes place within the framework of the obligations and commitments of Contracting Parties under other international agreements. This includes European Union legislation to reduce nutrient discharges and emissions, for example, the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC), Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC), the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EEC) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). • OSPAR has Hazardous Substances and Eutrophication Committee Page 25 of 28 Deliverable D2.1 ANNEX III: List of selected policy instruments EU level • Nitrate Directive • Water Framework Directive • Drinking Water Directive • Habitats and Birds Directive • Water Re-use regulation • Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, establishing rules on support for national CAP strategic plans, and repealing Regulations (EU) 1305/2013 and 1307/2013; • EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive • Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (and revision thereof (draft)) • The National Emission Reduction Commitments Directive (NEC Directive) • Groundwater Directive • Sewage Sludge Directive • Industrial Emissions Directive • Gothenburg Protocol • EU Zero pollution strategy • EU Nutrient Management Plans under the Zero Pollution Strategy • Farm to Fork • Soil strategy for 2030 / upcoming EU Soil Health Law • Action plan for organic production in the EU • Nutrients – action plan for better management (forthcoming) Wadden Sea level • Wadden Sea Plan • Strategy of the OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the NorthEast Atlantic 2030 • HELCOM Nutrient input reduction scheme National level – Germany • Nationales Luftreinhalteprogramm Deutschland • CAP strategic plans • Zukunftsstrategie ökologischer Landbau • Eiweißpflanzenstrategie des BMEL • Wasserhaushaltsgesetz (WHG) • Oberflächengewässerverordnung (OGewV) • Grundwasserverordnung (GrwV) National level – Netherlands • Nationaal Samenwerkingsprogramma Luchtkwaliteit (NSL) • Nationaal Programma Landelijk Gebied (NPLG) • Deltaprogramma Agrarisch Waterbeheer (DAW) • Nationale Eiwitstrategie • Nationaal Programma Landbouwbodems • Nationaal Programma Circulaire Economie • Nationaal Water Programma • Bestuursovereenkomst grondwater bescherming