From Environmental Assessment To River Basin Management Plans

1. From Environmental Assessment To River Basin Management Plans H. Blöch, European Commission Water Framework Directive Seminar, Madrid 28 April 2006

2. Overview • State of play – implementation to date • First impressions and conclusions • Outlook: from first assessment to river basin management plans and their implementation

3. WFD Implementation Calendar Formal transposition into national law River Basin Districts, competent authorities Dec 2003  Environmental analysis, economic analysis Dec 2004  Intercalibration Jun 2006 Monitoring programmes operational Dec 2006 Public participation at the latest Dec 2006  Draft river basin management plans Dec 2008  Final river basin management plans Dec 2009  Implementation, assessment, adjustment - 2015 and further

4. Where do we stand ?“WFD Scoreboard” Country Trsp RBD Rep. Art5 rep. Austria J J J J K J J Belgium K K J K Cyprus J J J Czech Republic J J J Denmark J J J Estonia J J J Finland J J J France J J J Status April 2006 http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-framework/scoreboard.html Germany J J J

5. Conformity of legal transposition • External assessments started in March 2005 for EU10 and in Oct 2005 for EU15 • Results for all Member States expected in spring 2006 • A number of transpositions already assessed are incomplete

6. Compliance checkingArt. 3 (2004 report) • Assessment based on questionnaire/template • 3 main questions: • Is it complete? • Is it clear / understandable? • Is it compliant regarding key issues? • Key issues: • River Basin District identification (hydrological boundaries, assignment of groundwater and coastal waters) • Competent Authorities (legal base, clarity of assignment of tasks, coordination mechanism within RBD and MS, relation to other relevant authorities) • International cooperation (legal base, arrangements for coordination) • 24 MS reports and summary report available

7. Draft map of RBDs Currently 23 MS: • 134 RBDs Norway: • 14 RBDs RO, BG, HR: • 9 RBDs No double counting: • 96 RBDs (for 23 MS) • 69 national • 27 international http: //europa.eu.int/ comm/environment/water/ water-framework/transposition.html

8. Distribution of number of RBDs • 14 MS have 5 or less RBDs • 5 MS have 10 or more RBDs • UK: 17 RBDs (7 CAs) SPAIN Distribution of number of CAs SPAIN • 10 MS have only 1 CA • 5 MS have more than 10 CAs • DK: 17 CAs (13 RBDs)

9. Distribution of surface areas of RBDs 29 14 Danube Rhine

10. Compliance checking article 3 Preliminary results (1) • Non-compliance issues • International cooperation with EU countries or non EU MS not always considered or discussed • Set-up of some Competent Authorities is complex; inappropriate coordination and unclear attribution of responsibilities • Questions for clarification • Assignment of groundwater to river basin districts unclear • River basin district boundaries (ie. administrative basis rather than river basins) was not an issue, but sometimes still unclear • Some digital data sets of poor quality

11. Compliance checking article 3 Preliminary results(2) • Questions for clarification in all reports, however relevance and significance of open points varies • Further in-depth assessment needed and discussion with MS needed for 9 reports – non-legal follow up envisaged at the moment • Assessment reports available – will be sent to MS shortly • Facts and figures summary will be published in a few months

12. Compliance QuestionnaireArticle 5 reports • Compliance questionnaire based on reporting sheets developed for article 5 • Comparative screening assessment, will be complemented by selected in-depth assessment in a second step • Three main questions: - complete? - clear / understandable? - compliant on key issues? • Two parts of conformity:1. methodology2. data or results

13. Article 5 reports first impressions • Preliminary compliance assessment available for 13 Member States (not yet Spain) • Assessment scale • - (national part of) River Basin District (134 reports) • - in addition, assessment on national level or regional level, where necessary (e.g. BE, DE) • For these 13 MS, some statistics are • over 50.000 surface water bodies (SWB) • 77% of SWB are rivers • over 4.000 groundwater bodies

14. Article 5 compliance checking First impressions (1) • High diversity and different level of detail  60 vs. >10 000 pages • Spain 6 000 pages without coastal waters! • Several very good examples (international river basins, even far beyond EU boundaries) • Many reports are incomplete and not comprehensive • Methodologies very divers across Europe and rarely harmonised between national RBD and within int. RBD • Difficult to extract comparable data for analysis or compliance checking – need for WISE submissions

15. Article 5 compliance checking - First impressions (2) • Some weak points identified: • economic analysis: e.g. definition of water services • chemical status: information on dangerous and priority substances • agricultural pressures: information on diffuse pollution • hydromorphological pressures: lack of data

16. Danube basin - risk analysis organic pollution, nutrient pollution, hydromorphology 18 Danube basin countries DE, CH, AT, IT, SI, CZ, SK, HU, UA, CRO, BIH, SM, RO, BG, MD, PL, AL, FYROM

17. Article 5 reports - substance The analysis is demonstrating your achievements as well as non-achievements … • First analysis shows that a high number of water bodies are at risk: • Hydromorphological alterations (inter alia from navigation, pressures of land use in urban and rural areas, hydropower, flood defences) are a common concern across Europe. • New Member States: waste water treatment as a key challenge • Non-delivery on tasks already due (Urban Waste Water Directive, Nitrates Directive) in ‘old’ Member States plays a considerable role in shaping waters ‘at risk’.

18. Conclusions • 90% of reporting obligations fulfilled • Lack of transposition: application to the Court of Justice; judgements already passed • Lack of reporting: infringement procedure started • Assessment of compliance started • Art 3 compliance checking – draft assessments for 24 out 25 MS – summary report available • Art 5 compliance checking – draft assessments for half of the 25 MS – summary report for mid-2006 – several technical reports finalised (e.g. agriculture, hydromorphology, eutrophication) – only statistics not for compliance checking

19. Next steps • Completion of assessment reports (Art 5 for mid-2006) • Identify feedback mechanism to MS, in particular to clarify questions • Demand for information on comparability of WFD implementation is increasing (eg. EP, MS, public) • WISE should be used to improve and update incomplete/unclear reports • Official Commission report in March 2007

20. Monitoring programmes RBMP Article 5 analysis Cost recovery Intercalibration Consultation draft RBMP RBD / CA 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2004 Public consultation RBMP Monitoring data Towards river basin management plans • Article 5 analysis is based on existing information • It is only one of the pieces of information needed for the RBMP

21. From article 5 reports to draft river basin management plans: filling information gaps • Refine Article 5 assessment of risk for those water bodies with insufficient data / under study … • Design and implement WFD compliant monitoring programmes and classification schemes • Refine/complete information on pressures • Refine/complete economic analysis, important for • justification of exemptions • HMWB designation • cost-effectiveness analysis of measures … • cost-benefit of WFD implementation ! • Make best use of funding instruments – CAP! • … and more. There is not much time left !

22. Some risks… • Monitoring and assessment schemes not in line with Annex V • Not covering all biological quality elements and parameters • Not intercalibrated • Scarce economic information to base decisions • Lack of information for some pressures (fully addressed for the first time in WFD) should not justify non-action • Funding instruments (Cohesion & Structural Funds, Rural Development Fund) not properly used … • “Business as usual” should NOT be an option !

23. Common Implementation Strategy Current Work Programme 2005-2006 • Intercalibration • Integration • Agriculture • Hydromorphology (navigation, hydropower, flood defence) • Work on environmental objectives and exemptions • Work is on-going for Article 4.7 – new modifications • Reporting and WISE (Water Information System for Europe) • Water scarcity

24. Future Work Programme 2007-2009: Improving comparability Possible items under consideration / discussion (work programme to be endorsed by Water Directors in November 2006) • Work to continue on some of the topics • Intercalibration • Environmental objectives and exemptions • Integration • Reporting and WISE • Emerging issues: • What is a river basin management plan ? – common understanding ? • Climate change • Water scarcity • Floods • Protected areas

25. WFD Common Implementation Strategy – an example of Good European Governance

26. Transparency and assessment all WFD article 3 + 5 reports, and maps are now available on the Internet http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/home

27. % … and an overwhelming majority of citizens in all EU25 expect from policy makers to take protection of the environment as important as economic and social policies. Demand and support by citizens Representative opinion poll, published April 2005 … for a distinct majority of citizens in all EU25 countries “water” is, amongst all environmental themes, the most important one.

28. Thank you for your attention