1 / 8

CIS work programme 2010 - 2012

This analysis presents feedback and insights from the CIS working programme in Germany, highlighting the process, challenges, proposed changes, and recommendations for enhancing the program's effectiveness. Various aspects such as transparency, structure, and benefits are discussed, along with key subjects and demands for 2010-2012.

wlambert
Download Presentation

CIS work programme 2010 - 2012

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. CIS work programme 2010 - 2012 Results of an bottom up analysis about the CIS-working programme(Germany) Holger Diening

  2. Analysis • impulse: • discussion paper of troika • participants: • Coordinators from regional authorities and RBMOs • Experts from state and regional authorities and heads of national expert groups • method: • Questionnaire on current CIS-process and on demands / expectations for the future process • Common interpretation and identification of proposals within a workshop of 30 persons.

  3. Extent of CIS-process • Many experts rate the actual CIS-process as rather too extensive. This refers to the volume and intensity of the process. After the 1. RBMP the process should be continued, but could be reduced. • Regional experts and coordinators have difficulties to follow the CIS-process and transfer the results to local experts. This limits the acceptance / success of the CIS-process. • To most RBMOs and local experts CIS-results have been often too late for timely implementation (e.g. Reporting ECO, Environmental Objectives Guideline) too less too much

  4. CIS-Prozess

  5. Opinions on the structure of CIS-Process • There is a high potential for reduction of sub groups under WG-Level after finishing their tasks in 2009. • The WGs are furthermore needed as important networks and as a base for common activities (e.g. preparation of workshops) => But change in working procedure necessary. • SSGs are further needed as interdisciplinary bodies (e.g. communication with agricultural sector). • Potential to reduce work of WG C • Actual no further need for drafting group Environmental Objectives and Exemptions • The mandat of new groups under WG-level should be task-oriented and time-limited.

  6. Transparency • Result: process is not sufficiently transparent • high transparency for experts directly involved (via circa) • low transparency for people outside CIS-process and regional coordinators (=> risk of low acceptance) • Proposals • Short Summaries (1-2 pages!) for certain main topics (e.g. groundwater, ecology, HMWB) as living document with further links to other important documents (e.g. CIS-Guidance)target group: regional coordinators and local level • Listing of all WGs and their subgroups • Timetable of all meetings and workshops (living document) very low very high

  7. for European harmonization for individual work Benefitof CIS-Process • Results / Proposals for 2010- 2012 • High Demand ( 90%) for information exchange, “best practice” and communication on chosen approaches and problems • Low Demand (20%) for new guidance documents or adaptation of existing guidance; only in special fields • Mixture of continuous communication within working groups and targeted workshops on special subjects (80%) • Ways to increase the benefits • Increase transparency for outside CIS-Community • Consideration of deadlines which are obligatory for implementation by national / river basin experts / authorities zero high zero high

  8. important subjects 2010-2012(frequently indicated) • Information exchange on RBMP / PoM / strategies + identifying of best practice in fields of significant water issues (e.g. agriculture, river continuity) • Clarity about compliance check RBMP 2010 • Clarification of economic aspects (RBMP 2015) • Early preparation and transparency about contents of Report 2013 • Implementation rules for funding (e.g. rural funds) • Interrelationship WFD / CAP • Harmonisation with other directives (flood, marine, habitat, …) • Harmonisation of reporting requirements (SoE, INSPIRE, SEIS, …)

More Related