Synergies and Conflicts Between Water Framework Directive and Natura 2000: Legal Requirements, Technical Guidance and Experiences from Practice - Wetlands and Water Framework Directive: Protection, Management and Climate Change - page 19

first phase of imple-
mentation the overall conclusions of a workshop report (EC DG-Env 2010b ,p.12)
cover a series of positive

On the basis of experiences and case studies from the

findings. In the workshop apparent con fl icts could be

identi ed at a local level only. According to the authors of the report those con fl icts

were caused, in part, by misunderstandings.
While ensuring the proper application of Article 4 para 7 of WFD, noting the
particular requirements related to Natura 2000 and other protected areas is an
essential need for the future that should

finally lead to a more integrated “… work

with nature …” and resulting opportunities could be realised in a “… win-win-win

…” situation. This accentuation made by the authors of the workshop report (EC

DG-Env 2010b , p. 6) addresses chances offered by sustainable fl floodplain man-

agement as a tool which integrates navigation, flood protection and adapted agri-

cultural land use, as well as the possible protection of habitats.
The workshop report is completed by a background document which introduces
several case studies (EC DG-Env 2010a ). On the basis of more than 20 examples
for e.g.

fl

“ differences and commonalities in objectives and scope of the WFD and

BHD coordination of measures in the context of integrated planning to

achieve the WFD and BHD objectives

” and the “

”

possible actions are illustrated.

final conclusion for dealing with incompatibilities of goals of these
Directives aiming at the same aquatic ecosystems one

In the

finds the following advice

(EC DG-Env 2011 ).
As many HD Annex I habitats are aquatic areas or water-dependent systems, the
measures proposed under BD, HD and WFD may be partly the same. As far as
water bodies in water-dependent protected areas are concerned, measures under
these directives need to be coordinated between the responsible authorities for
nature conservation and water management, and included in the WFD programme
of measures. It is advisable to start dialogue on the programme of measures of WFD
at an early stage in order to avoid con icts that could arise from misconceptions of

the objectives of WFD and BD or HD. Regarding the Danube National Park area
that covers the river and the

fl

floodplains east of Vienna this coordination is
implemented on a broad scale (see Sect. 2.2.3 ). Regarding the National RBMP
these issues are not covered in detail, as strategic and operational structures already
exist between public, planning and the responsible legal bodies.
On the other hand, aquatic habitats in active river

fl

floodplains with moderate to
low connectivity with the main river channel are a rare ecosystem type throughout
Europe where rivers have been regulated for navigation and/or

fl

flood protection
purposes. Many of these water bodies bear high conservational value but often they
are not part of protected areas under HD regulation. Therefore, no legal con

fl

ict
exists when assigning priority to WFD goals in all such situations as an a priori.
Even when not

fl

— —

protected by HD, a dialogue on the programme of measures
as part of WFD implementation should be a

yet

firm request in order to save ecological

highlights.
Furthermore, the guidance document (EC DG-Env 2011 , p. 9) provides a lot of
detailed and instructive knowledge, offering ecological criteria for the identi

cation

of water-dependent Natura 2000 sites. The same document states that the “… WFD