Vision WISE 2025 Where we are and how to get there?

1. Vision WISE 2025Where we are and how to get there? European Commission DG Environment Water and Marine Units

2. overview • Success, challenges/problems, expectations and vision (morning session) • Common language, conceptual approaches and way of working (afternoon)

3. What do we want to get out? • A distributed / decentralised–how and when do we get it? (need for tools such as reference datasets, …) • Define User Needs / products first • Improve business processes (including timelines, who does what, ETC/ENV contracts relation) • An integrated data model for fresh, coastal and marine waters (DPSIR driven) • All this should be translated into a renewed WISE vision and a timeline for stepwise implementation in three phases: • WISE 2.0 (for 2014), • WISE 3.0 (for 2018) and • WISE 4.0 (for 2025)

4. Achievements and frustrations • Without WISE, no electronic collection, focus of discussion, drive to integrate water-related reporting • No integration of water and marine datasets • No knowledge of what information we have and we can streamline • Separate process, no linked up work flow – outdated technology (Reportnet vs. ETC vs. consultants) • No where near interoperability, poor technical tools

5. e.g: Issues for reviewingWFD reporting guidance WISE Concept paper for RBMP assessment No full link with other EEA db (waterbase) Reporting guidance and sheets Tables and maps Need for clearer definition of requirements and scope for streamlining Lack of flexible tool to perform queries and design adhoc maps Limited harmonisation schemas WFD Master db EC Assessment reports RBMP Room for clarification, simplification, INSPIRE compliance RBMP Shape files RBMP assessment db xml RBMP Member states RBMP RBMP Additional information pdf Poor and expensive contribution to reports MS/RBD websites No proper indexation of files, common structure missing Common Data Repository (CDR) Costly and ineffective process for analysis and comparison

6. Vision • To develop WISE 2025 (incl. marine) which is: • Effective (inform management & policy) • Efficient (for MS, COM, EEA) • Inter-operable (available once, use many) • Accessible & informative (to public & stakeholders) • Helpful (are not seen by MS as a 'chore') • Integrative (across policies) • Avoid duplication (across Directives, with RSCs) • Up-to-date (do not wait for a 6-year update) • Need to review current visions and revise, if necessary!

7. User perspective: 3 main categories of products: Multidim. databases Interactive maps Guidance, wikis, etc. WISE Common ontology across DPSIR framework and policy cycle Focus on EU added value products: Support to EU policy implementation EU (impact) assessments Benchmarking tools Best-practices exchanges Capacity building Provider perspective Reporting under EU Directives: Water Marine Others! SoE National/River basin information platforms Other data centres ESTAT Deliverables research projects EU studies, etc. state pressures impacts drivers responses

8. Building blocks for information system (integrated data model – link to legislation in separate layer) Policies: MSFD, WFD, HD, BD, etc CFP, CAP, EU BD

9. Data and information – MS-EU links (Example Marine – SIIF aspects missing) Art. 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 Art. 12/16/20(3b) Art. 19(3) WISE-Marine INSPIRE EMODnet National systems Regional systems EU systems

10. Effective reporting • Content • Integration of content from different policies to enable its full use, to ensure no duplication • Needs a common framework/model to encompass: State, pressures, activities and measures • Approach to assessments • Scalable (geographic): sub-national->national->regional->European->global • Scalable (theme): specific components (species, contaminants)->broad components (birds, fish)->ecosystems • ->Agreed assessment methods, aggregation rules

11. Efficient reporting • Timing • Sequence to support scaling (geographic, thematic) – complementary between policies. • Move to continous and holistic processes • Information detail for multi-use • From high-level to detailed, in a connected manner to suit range of users (COM, RSC, national policy, stakeholders, public, implementers) • Decentralised, but accessible reporting • National web-based systems – no/minimal reporting to COM • Kept up-to-date by MS • Continuous 'low-level' effort, not 6-year 'bursts' • Accessed periodically by COM for compliance checks (according to Directive timelines)

12. Reporting is no longer reporting • MS should see the development of national information systems as their management tools • Development and maintenance of the system becomes more 'routine' (>established assessment methods) • National assessment of compliance gaps and solutions (SIIF) • Removes the 'burst of activity' needed to send reports to COM every 6 years • MS 'owns' the reporting information, adapts to its needs (within a common framework), improves management effectiveness (esp. large countries) • COM can harvest the necessary information as needed

13. SIIF principles - UWWTD • For national level: • Change from reporting to information management (SEIS) • Ensure transparency and public access (also 2003/4/EC) • Keep information regularly updated • Forward looking – solution oriented perspective • Reduce administrative burden for best performers • SEIS principles apply in addition (e.g. “Report once, use many”)

14. SIIF EU SIIF national Data model/Reference data/ Tools etc.

15. User needs • input data – data template • available data • presentation of information – visualisation • demo version visualisation (EU / national) • output formats

16. Compliance Evaluation / Impact Assessments State-of-the-environment SEIS SIIF INSPIRE Importance of legislation Different types of information needs (D)___R PSI DPSIR ENV↑ EEA↓ ENV↑ EEA↓ ENV↓ EEA↑

17. Future Compliance Assessment • No more reporting (submission of files by MS) • MS publish results and underlying data of their compliance performance online • Data and information can be easily shared (INSPIRE) • COM focuses on plausibility and non-compliance • Focus on gaps and solutions • COM/EEA: Regular publication of compliance “indicators” - ad hoc assessments on specific aspects • Reporting dealines to push MS / give overview (no need to harminise reporting deadlines) 17

18. SIIF consequences for EEA • Focus compliance on simple EU-wide overviews • Link up with national “compliance” information systems • More solution oriented information, measures/management plans/exchange of best practices (see air quality and waste pilot) • SoE and other dataflow will be even more separate from Directives (see more concetual work on marine Art 19.3) • Modular approach also changing business processes 18

19. What do we want to get out? • A distributed / decentralised–how and when do we get it? (need for tools such as reference datasets, …) • Define User Needs / products first • Improve business processes (including timelines, who does what, ETC/ENV contracts relation) • An integrated data model for fresh, coastal and marine waters (DPSIR driven) • All this should be translated into a renewed WISE vision and a timeline for stepwise implementation in three phases: • WISE 2.0 (for 2014), • WISE 3.0 (for 2018) and • WISE 4.0 (for 2025)