Contents of the Presentation

2. Contents of the Presentation • Key Components of the Water Framework Directive • Regulatory aspects of water monitoring in the context of the WFD (and analytical implications) • Integration issues: environmental, policy, standardisation, research • Need for a ‘science-policy’ interface • Conclusions, perspectives

3. Evolution of water policies TODAY WFD Bathing Water Drinking Water Surface Water Fish Water Shellfish Water Ground water Urban Waste Water Nitrates IPPC Exchange of Information Decision Surface Waters Dangerous Substances 2013 WFD Bathing Water Drinking Water Urban Waste Water Nitrates IPPC REPEAL

4. Water Framework Directive: key elements • protecting all waters, surface and ground waters • Setting environmental objectives • good quality (‘good status’) to be achieved within a set deadline of 15 years • water management based on river basins • combined approach of emission controls and water quality standards, plus phasing out of particularly hazardous substances • economic instruments: economic analysis, and getting the prices right - to promote wise use of water • getting the citizen involved: public participation

5. River Basin Management Plan • One plan for each river basin in Europe; • River Basin Management Plan as main instrumentfor planning, reporting and evaluation of success; • Publication 2009, updates every 6 years; • Contents: characteristics of river basin; environmental and economic analysis; monitoring network; established environmental objectives (‘good status’ made operational); results of public participation; programme of measures

6. Integration with other policies • Environment and health Natural resources • Chemicals Marine policy • Waste Transport policy • Development policy Research….. Each policy sector should consider also the side effects, positive or negative, to other sectors and ecosystems, The political commitment to sustainable development should lead to a more integrated approach to policy making and management (6th EAP).

7. River basins in Europe Strong needs for coordination at EU level

8. A Common Strategy for Implementation • Progress to date: • Common understanding and approach • Capacity building • Elaboration of guidance (14) on key challenges, such as environmental and economic analysis, best practices, monitoring, public involvement, wetlands, classification, etc. • Unprecedented cooperation of Commission, MS, stakeholders and NGOs – Establishing expert network

9. CIS operational diagram Water Directors Steering of implementation process Chair: Presidency, Co-chair: Commission Expert Advisory Forum“Flood Protection” Chair: Commission Strategic Steering Group“WFD and Agriculture” Chair: UK and Commission Strategic Co-ordination Group Co-ordination of work programme Chair: Commission Art. 21 Committee Working Group C “Groundwater” Lead: Commission and AT Working Group A “Ecological Status” Lead: JRC, DE and UK Working Group E “Priority Substances” Lead: Commission “Chemical Monitoring” “Chemical Monitoring” Working Group B “Integrated River Basin Management” Lead: FR and ES Working Group D “Reporting” Lead: Commission "GIS” Expert Network Stakeholders, NGO’s, Researchers, Experts, etc.

10. State-of-play • Already now an example of Good European Governance, as set out in the Commission’s Communication of July 2001 • Setting up of pilot river basin network - currently 15 pilots in 18 countries • Increasing awareness through numerous activities • Developing linkages with other policies.

11. Pilot River Basins Network • B, F, NL (Scheldt), • D, F, Lux (Moselle-Sarre) • France (Marne) • Ireland (Shannon) • UK (Ribble) • Denmark (Odense) • Finland (Oulujoki) • Norway (Suldals) • Portugal (Guadiana) • Spain (Júcar) • Greece (Pinios) • Italy (Tevere, Cecina) • HU/ROM (Somos) • PL, CZ, D (Neisse)

12. Pilot River Basins testing Activities: • Identification of practical methods of working – Sharing experiences • Organise ad-hoc seminars on Key Issues • PRB Steering Group setting work schedule • PRB workshops: Presentations and Discussion forum • Discuss initiatives to sustain the exercise • Experience PRB reports • First PRB Characterisation Report

13. Water policy framework and related needs • 6th EAP Thematic strategies (in particular marine, soil, urban) and all “parent directives” (e.g. sewage sludge, pesticides, landfill etc.) • WFD Implementation • Development of COM proposals (groundwater, priority substances) WFD implementation (agenda & milestones), review in 2015: need to integrate scientific knowledge/progress in a timely fashion

14. WFD monitoring framework • ARTICLE 8 • surface water monitoring • (ecological and chemical status, and ecological potential) • groundwater monitoring (quantitative and chemical status) • protected areas (specifications in related legislation) • ANNEX V.1 – SURFACE WATER STATUS • quality elements for the classification of the ecological status • normative definitions of the ecological status classifications • monitoring of ecological and chmeical status • classification and presentation • ANNEX V.2 – GROUNDWATER STATUS • quantitative status • monitoring of quantitative status • chemical status and groundwater chemical monitoring • classification and presentation

15. Monitoring parameters (1) • SURFACE WATERS – QUALITY CRITERIA • biological (plankton, macrophytes, benthos, fishes) • hydromorphological (hydrology, morphology) • physico-chemical (nutrients, salinity, pH, oxygen balance, pollutants) • ACCORDING TO VERY GOOD, GOOD AND MEDIUM STATUS CRITERIA • SURFACE WATERS – STATUS MONITORING • representativeness, frequency, typology of water bodies • surveillance monitoring (follow-up of anthropogenic inputs) • operational monitoring (water bodies at risk) • enquiry monitoring (accidental pollutions) • additional monitoring for protected areas • (drinking water, habitats, zones of species protection)

16. Monitoring parameters (2) • GROUNDWATER – QUALITY CRITERIA • quantitatif status (groundwater levels) • chemical status (conductivity, pollutant concentrations) • interactions with associated aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems • ACCORDING TO GOOD STATUS CRITERIA • (community standards and threshold values established by Member States) • GROUNDWATER – STATUS MONITORING • representativeness, frequency • surveillance monitoring (follow-up of anthropogenic inputs) • operational monitoring (groundwater bodies at risk) • identification (and reversal) of upward pollution trends

17. Analytical implications • ON THE REGULATORY VIEWPOINT • classification and presentation of status of water bodies • decisions linked to this classification • trend studies • management plan, identification of measures • follow-up of measure’s efficiency • ON THE ANALYTICAL VIEWPOINT • harmonisation needs (ex. strategies, sampling) • validation of analytical methods (RMs, interlaboratory trials) • standardisation of methods, if necessary • coordination of quality control programme(s) • comparability of data

18. Perspectives • TIME TABLE • design and operation of surveillance programme at the scale of • 27 countries (more than 120 river basins) by the end of 2006 • parallel research projects (methods, quality control) • coordination through the Common Implementation Strategy • river basin management plan in 2009 • programmes of mesures in 2012 • environmental objectives: attained in 2015 ?

19. Risks of pollution from diffuse/point sources (incl. landfills, wastes, contaminated soils, agriculture) Prevent / Limit Interactions with aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems? Links with SW status and EQS Quality standards / thresholds? Environmental issues(example of groundwater) Run-off Construction Products, Urban wastes Drinking water abstraction Trend identification and reversal • • • • • • Time

20. Policy integration POLICY Seveso, IPPC POLICY Env. Impact assessment INDUSTRY POLICY Birds, Habitats URBAN SECTOR AGRI- CULTURE DRINKING WATER POLICY Drinking water POLICY Sewage sludge landfill POLICY UWW, CPD POLICY groundwater POLICY Pesticides, Nitrates, biocides POLICY Bathing water POLICY WFD

21. Links to standardisation POLICY Seveso, IPPC POLICY Env. Impact assessment AGRI- CULTURE INDUSTRY POLICY Birds, Habitats URBAN SECTOR CEN CEN TC 308 § 345 DRINKING WATER CEN CEN TC 230 CEN CEN TC 292 POLICY Drinking water POLICY Sewage sludge landfill POLICY UWW, CPD POLICY groundwater POLICY Pesticides, Nitrates, biocides POLICY Bathing water POLICY WFD

22. Research integration POLICY Seveso, IPPC POLICY Env. Impact assessment RESEARCH Water uses INDUSTRY AGRI- CULTURE POLICY Birds, Habitats URBAN SECTOR CEN CEN TC 308 § 345 DRINKING WATER CEN CEN TC 230 CEN CEN TC 292 POLICY Drinking water RESEARCH Interactions with wetlands RESEARCH Risk studies, remediation POLICY Sewage sludge landfill RESEARCH Soil & surface water interactions POLICY UWW, CPD POLICY groundwater POLICY Pesticides, Nitrates, biocides POLICY Bathing water POLICY WFD

23. Integration of research into GWD development? 2006 Directive adoption COM Adoption EAF Gw CIS WFD 6th FWP 5th FWP 2005 Priority 8: BRIDGE [Tailor-made to policy] 2004 2003 2002 2001 BASELINE [scientific success, But no direct support] 2000 1999 1998

24. The integration loop POLICY DEVELOPMENT DESIGN OF POLICY POLICY IMPLEMENTATION POLICY REVIEW RESEARCH, SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS, POLICY INTEGRATION

25. The consultation loop POLICY MAKER MEMBER STATES SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, POLICY DGs STAKEHOLDERS (industry, NGOs, Associations)

26. In a perfect world … NATIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMMES EU-POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION Co-ordination EU-FUNDED RESEARCH PROGRAMMES Integration of relevant policies is generally achieved through internal EC consulation

27. In reality NATIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMMES EU-POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION EU-FUNDED RESEARCH PROGRAMMES Only part of the results of research projects are effectively and efficiently applicable to policies

28. Links with FP6 FP5 and FP6 projects (Priorities 6-8) WFD SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY Scientific foundation Political agenda Time pressure Policy used as justification Specific research agenda Results accessability INTERFACE NEEDS Increased awareness Improved communication Concerted planning

29. Interfacing needs • An “interface” is needed for facilitating understanding and implementation of environmental policies • However, present networks only address a knowledgeable community • Workshops, action plans, reports, website, newsletters are all good communication tools but should be “tailor-made” to different user categories

30. WFD implementation Water managers Research Data & knowledge offers pilots PRB's WFD Guidances key-issues experiences demands

31. Others: Links to WISE • Water Information System for Europe (DG ENV, JRC-IES, EEA, Eurostat), aiming at efficiently managing all water-related information at EU level, ensuring coherence between various reporting mechanisms and needs, and providing access to information (including RTD) / data for various purposes and needs

32. Coordination needs FP6, ERA-NET Research funding programmes Research development PRB, RTD DEVELOPMENT Research use, demonstration DESIGN IMPLEMENTATION LIFE Water policies Research Policy interface Research policy Research Demonstration programmes REVIEW Research progress Research dissemination INTERREG III Research Integration interface HarmoniCA, ‘WISE’

33. Conclusions: inputs from the analytical community • Analytical progress represents a key feature of implementation and review of environmental policies: however, communication is far from being in place among the scientific and policy-making groups. Efforts are made to identify the operatibility of a possible RTD-Policy interface. • Coordination at EU level is required to ensure information exchanges among the analytical community on new features (new methods, new substances) and a mechanism enabling efficient QA/QC to take place (120 river basin districts in 2U countries!) • Improvements are already noted thanks to ‚tailor-made‘ projects funded under the ‚Scientific Support to Policies‘ (SSP) Priority of FP6, such as SWIFT-WFD (validation/development of screening/field methods) and a new topic on AQC in support to water and soil policies (upcoming evaluation). In addition, projects are looking at emerging substances, taking account of the analytical challenges (e.g. NORMAN) • Interfacing implies efforts to establish and maintain a multidisciplinary dialogue and to look at integration issues (other policies, public awareness, education etc.) – We cannot anymore afford to work isolated!