1 / 18

Item 5 – Discussion on compliance checking

This report discusses the compliance checking process for Article 3 and Article 5 reports under the WFD. It includes an assessment based on questionnaires, key issues related to river basin district identification, competent authorities, and international cooperation. The report also provides an overview of the number and distribution of reports, maps of RBDs, and preliminary results of the compliance checking process. Next steps for completing assessment reports and addressing feedback are outlined.

reastin
Download Presentation

Item 5 – Discussion on compliance checking

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WG D - Reporting 21 March 2006 Item 5 – Discussion on compliance checking

  2. Compliance Checking - Article 3 reports -

  3. 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) • 23 MS draft Reports available – summary report under preparation

  4. 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

  5. Draft map of submitted main rivers and lakes • As submitted by MS • Criteria in reporting guidance not always followed • GIS data not usable at the moment but would be useful to be updated

  6. Draft map of large rivers and lakes • Rivers > 50.000 km2 • Tributaries > 5.000 km2 • Lakes > 500 km2 • Based on MS GIS submissions and improved with ESTAT database and CCM • Selection of rivers based on ESTAT database

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

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

  9. Compliance checking - Preliminary results (1) • Non-compliance issues: • International cooperation with EU countries or non EU MS not always considered or discussed • some CA set-up is complex with inappropriate coordination and unclear attribution of responsibilities • Questions for clarification: • Assignment of groundwater to RBD unclear • RBD boundaries (ie. administrative basis rather than river basins) was not an issue, but sometimes still unclear • Digital data set: • Cross border intrusion/overlap • No harmonisation across national borders • Incomplete coverage • Solution: update of datasets on WISE

  10. Compliance checking - 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

  11. Compliance Checking - Article 5 reports -

  12. Compliance QuestionnaireArt. 5 reports • Compliance questionnaire based on Art. 5 reporting sheets • Comparative screening assessment, will be complemented by selected in-depth assessment in a second step • Three main questions: - Is it complete? (data supplied) - Is it clear / understandable? (completeness and clarity of information) - Is it compliant regarding key issues? (conformity checking) • Two parts of conformity:1. methodology2. data or results

  13. Article 5 reports - first information • Draft compliance assessment for 13 MS available • 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 • High diversity and different level of detail –> 60 pages vs. 24 CD ROMs • Several very good examples (int. river basins) • Many reports are incomplete and not comprehensive(e.g. chemical status, agricultural pressures) • 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 • Considerable challenge to ensure that Art 5 analysis is complete and comparable when updated in RBMP

  15. Follow up

  16. Conclusions • 90% of reporting obligations fulfilled • Lack of transposition: Application to the Court • Lack of reporting: Infringement procedure started • Assessment of compliance started • Art 3 compliance checking – draft assessments for 22 out 25 MS – summary report under preparation • 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

  17. Next steps • Completion of assessment reports (Art 3 - Jan 2006 and 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

  18. More info All articles 3+ 5 reports are available at http: //forum.europa.eu.int/Public/ irc/env/wfd/library The draft maps are available at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/ water-framework/transposition.html

More Related