DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate C - Quality of Life, Water & Air
ENV.C.1 – Water /
Brussels, November 2014
for the WFD Common Implementation Strategy
5 November from 10:00 to 18:30
in Centre Albert Borschette, Room 1B, Brussels
A meeting of the Strategic Co-ordination Group (SCG) of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) for the Water Framework Directive (WFD) was held on 5 November 2014. The following Member States participated in the meeting: AT, BE,CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR,HR,HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE,SI, SK, and UK. In addition delegates from IS and NO and representatives of CEEP, CEFIC, EAA, ECPA, EUREAU, EURELECTRIC, EUWMA, INBO, NAVI TG, UEPG, Wetlands International, WWF EPO, DG ENV and DG AGRI attended the meeting. A full list of meeting participants is provided in Annex 1.
Copies of the invitation, agenda, meeting documents and presentations given are available for download from CIRCABC:
1 – Welcome and introduction
The Co-Chair Jean Paul Lickes (JPL) welcomed the delegates to the meetingtogether withCommission(COMM) Co-Chair, Nicola Notaro (NN).
2 – Approval of the agenda and minutes of the last SCG meeting
JPL proposed an amendment to the agenda relating to point 6a, moving this to after the individual reports from the WGs.FR asked to add the agenda of the WDs meeting under other issues. With these changes the agenda was adopted.
On the minutes of the last SCG, three amendments were requested:
- FR, p6 should make reference to the water, nature, marine director.
- IT: p8, the comment from IT should state it “highlighted the need for further work on indicators sensitive to hydrological pressures”.
- EAA: p3: the reference is to proceedings of the advisory council reported to this SCG as well as the MSFD.
With these amendments, the minutes of the last meeting were approved.
3 – Water and Marine Directors’ meeting preparation
IT informed delegates about the next Water and Marine Directors’ meetingin Rome on 24-25 November 2014. Registration is open, with a 10 November deadline. Participants were also asked to register for any social eventsthrough a separate form from.
SE asked if the proposal regarding work on hydromorphology will be on the WDs agenda. JPL stated that this depends on the discussions at this SCG.
LVconfirmed that theWater and Marine Directors’ meeting under the Latvian Presidency will take place on 26-27 May 2015 in Riga.Practical information will follow in due course.
4 - Legal and implementation issues regarding Water Directives
- SCG acknowledgement of the written report
NNstated that COMM has not produced a new report since the October SCG. However, a note was uploaded to CIRCABCpresenting the COMM view on the Court of Justice conclusions regarding water services.A number of activities that may impact on water status may be subject to cost recovery. However, cost recovery would not apply in all cases as, under Art. 9.4, MS may take other measures to deliver good status, if these are explained in the RBMPs and the WFD objectives are not undermined.
DE stated that it did not have the same interpretation. The Court did not interpret the definition of water services and, specifically, it did not state that the DE interpretation is wrong. The Court has given MS considerable room to deliver WFD objectives (including in reference to Art. 4). Paragraph 4 of the ruling refers to water use rather than water services.BE also did not share the interpretation of COMM. Water services are not limited to waste water treatment, but the Court did not state what was included within ‘water services’. MS do not need to justify why cost recovery is not in place.AT shared the view of DE and stated that MS should not be driven into an exaggerated process on water services with resulting costs.
NN highlighted the subtlety in the COMM interpretation. MS are to develop PoMsbased on the analysis of pressures. Where activities cause a pressure and cost-recovery is not applied, it is necessary for MS to state what measures will be applied.It was noted by Giovanni Vallera (GV) that the claim was in respect of Art.2.38 and whether Germany was compelled to make all activities to which that article refers subject to the principle of cost recovery. The Court concluded that the adoption of a broad approach to cost recovery is not necessarily appropriate, but it also did not want to producea restrictive approach. However, where MS do not apply cost-recovery for such activities they must still comply with Article 9.4.
On a separate issue,NN referred SCG to the view of the advocate general on a preliminary ruling on a national case referral from DE on interpreting provisions of the WFD. Two questions are addressed. The first concerns whetherWFD objectives are obligations of results or of means. The COMM view is that the objectives are binding, with MS having flexibility of means. The advocate general has followed the COMM view. The second concerns the prevention of deterioration of status and whether any deterioration even within a status class is included, or whetherdeterioration is only between status classes. The COMM view is that deterioration should be interpreted as a detrimental change of class at the level of the quality element, irrespective of whether this change affects the overall classification of status, in line with the one-out, all-out principle. The interpretation of the advocate general seems to follow the view of COMM,although the language is not completely clear (it does refer to quality elements but does not mention explicitly a change of class). It is hoped that the Court will provide a clear judgement.
DK noted that during negotiations on the adoption of the WFD, the Council legal service came to a different conclusion, i.e. that the WFD sets obligations of means rather than objectives.NN stated the interpretation in 2014 may be different. The DE case on water services and an earlier EL case both also support a view that the binding obligation concerns objectives.
NO stated that the Advocate General's view on deterioration seems to be different to earlier guidance on Art. 4.7,which focuses on changes in status class.Jorge Rodriguez Romero (COMM) (JRR) replied that it is important to read the whole guidance to interpret it correctly (notably the part concerning Art 4.5). Changing class as a whole or at quality element level makes a big difference. Basing the deterioration obligation on the quality elements is a reasonable interpretation in line with the WFD and the CIS guidance.It is the middle of two extremes ("any measurable detrimental change" would be impossible to implement and, on the other extreme, "only change of class at global status level" would not protect water bodies from potential significant impairments of their ecological condition).
NN informed SCG that the amendment of Annex V of the WFD (updating the list of standards for monitoringof ecological status), approved by Committee, had been published in the OJ as Commission Directive 101/2014.
EAA noted that at the last SCG FR raised a request for more detail on MS non-conformity. NN replied that COMM had stated that more details are available on request, but no request had been made.
5 - Commission activities (information points)
a) Preparation of the Joint Workshop on Water, Marine, Nature and Biodiversity policies (2-3 December, Brussels)
JRR informed SCG that the invitation to the joint workshop was recently sent out. COMM is preparing a background document and this will be circulated next week. It will include the structure of the sessions and an annex on how MS have integrated actions on Natura 2000 within RBMPs.
NAVITG noted that at last SCG it had raised a question on whether the workshop would cover the assessment processes for new developments covered by each of these directives and if this could be covered by the background document.JRR replied that the background document is relatively short, but will consider whether to include this point in the session on environmental objectives.
FR asked who in COMM will coordinate this activity within the water unit after the departure of EvieAchilleos. JRR confirmed that this will be Juan-Pablo Pertierra.
b) EIP Water – latest developments
NN reported that the annual conference was taking place today in Barcelona with some WDs attending. It will launch a new call for action groups for under-represented priority areas, such as ecosystem services, and encourage under-represented actors, such as those from Central and Eastern Europe. The Task Force is working on the strategic action plan (for Spring 2015) of the EIP which will include improving links with the WFD.
FR stated that the link between EIP water and EIP agriculture should be stronger and more visible. Further, for EIP water, it would be useful to strengthen the link with WDs.NN noted that with the new COMM in place, the position of EIPs within Europe 2020 will receive attention and this is likely to include enhancing synergies. There is also a vacancy for a national expert to work on this within DG ENV. NN invited applications. The Steering Group link with WDs also needs to be maintained and it should be noted that a presentation was made at the last WD meeting and some WDs are in Barcelona.
c) Preparations of the 4th EU Water Conference (23-24 March 2015)
JRR informed SCG that progress on the agenda has not been developed since the last SCG as the support contract had not been signed, but it was hoped a more detailed programme will be available for WDs, along with pre-registration later in November. JRR also requested ideas for themes, potential contributions, etc., for the conference.
NL noted that at the last SCG FR had proposed that progress on the WFD should be included and NL supported this. It has results on progress on indicators for WBs and is looking at how to explain progress to the public, politicians and others. FR supported this highlighting that communicating progress is essential to persuade politicians that investment is needed. AT agreed and stressed the challenge of showing the results of improvements made.
d) Update Peer-Review Mechanism
Lourdes Alvarellos (LA) (COMM) reported that the draft Manual of Procedure for peer review had been uploaded in CIRCABC and requested comments by 14 November. Once it is approved, MS will be requested to circulate it to all relevant water management authorities.
IT noted thatthe draft had been circulated to river basin authorities and comments will be sent. An initial comment is that the deadlines for revision of documents for those involved in peer reviews are too short.INBO, which is part of the drafting team, highlighted that there are two forms in the Manual – for authorities seeking peer review and for experts to perform peer reviews. Submitting these will important for the next step. LA also noted that the process can be adapted in the light of experience with the first peer reviews.
e) Adoption of new regulation on Invasive Alien Species (IAS)
e) Adoption of new regulation on Invasive Alien Species (IAS)
Spyridon Flevaris (SF) (COMM) gave a presentation (uploaded on CIRCABC). The new IAS Regulation had been published yesterday. The focus is on prioritisation, prevention and use of existing instruments. In particular the surveillance system that shall be established by Member States shall make use of existing systems of surveillance and monitoring. The Regulation explicitly states that it will contribute to helping deliver good status under the WFD. It is estimated that there are 1,500-1,800 invasive alien species in the EU, but a subset will form a list of IAS of Union concern to be developed by an expert Committee. By the end of 2015 COMM should propose a draft implementing act with the list. The criteria for inclusion are provided in the presentation. The Regulation foresees three types of measures: on prevention (e.g. bans/restrictions on introduction); early detection and rapid eradication (e.g. a surveillance system); and management measures for well-established species. MS are allowed to take more stringent national provisions and an information support system is being developed.
FR asked if there is a ceiling on the number of IAS in the list, how outermost regions are addressed and how to address those species that cannot be eradicated. SF replied that there is no ceiling – if species fulfil the criteria, they can be added. The Regulation includes provisions for outermost regions and MS will need to adopt lists for these. For some species eradication is not possible, so there is flexibility to manage/contain them.
NAVITG noted that the WFD applies to some large coastal and transitional WBs and controlling IAS is problematic and there is a strong interaction with the Ballast Water Convention. Further there is the issue of controls on the use of anti-foulants, which may stop IAS, but which may contain chemicals undesirable under the WFD. COMM noted that control of IAS in coastal waters is difficult and ballast water is a major IAS pathway, so implementing the Convention is important. The Regulation does not provide additional specific provisions on this. EAA urged all MS to ratify the Convention.
NL understood the monitoring of species on the list, but it is not clear how to monitor for early warning. SF clarified that surveillance is limited to the species that will be included in the list of IAS of Union concern.
UK welcomed the Regulation as an important step. The analysis supporting UK RBMPs has considered IAS control and biological control mechanisms look promising and cost-effective.
f) Demonstrating compliance with Article 46 of the Rural Development Regulation for investments in irrigation
Christine Falter (CF) (COMM –DG AGRI) gave a presentation (uploaded on CIRCABC) on the support measures under RD for irrigation and the rules regarding these. Most rural development programmes (RDPs) have been received from MS and COMM is preparing comments. The aim of the support is to provide economic and environmental benefits, ensuring the sustainability of the investments. In the new programming period, the conditions are much clearer than previously. Art 46 is the most important, but it is relatively complex and COMM is drafting guidance for the MS. Art. 46 sets out further conditions for investments, but the legal basis for those investments is found under other Articles, which describe rural development measures. There are two basic conditions which apply in all scenarios – that RBMPs have to be in place and that water metering needs to be in place or put in place as part of the investment. Beyond that, investments could be roughly divided into two categories – those improving existing irrigation facilities and those made in "new" irrigation. The presentation provided detail and examples on the application of the conditions in different circumstances and also how derogations may apply. In RDPs COMM expects MS to include explanations on how they will operationalise the conditions of Art. 46. For existing irrigation, COMM will expect a significant efficiency gain across the territory. How this is determined was detailed in the presentation along with clarifications of other specific provisions, how calculations are to be undertaken, etc.
ES asked how MS' own assessments in the RDPs will be assessed against a benchmark. AT asked about the reference year for water status for assessing proposals. Mike Mackenzie (MM) (DG AGRI) noted that the COMM's assessment for Art 46 will rely on references to the status of WBs under the WFD, as set out in RBMPs. On judging the sufficiency of the MS assessment of status of a WB, DG ENV will have to advise. The RDR refers to WBs where the RBMP identifies these as less than good status. JRR confirmed that the status used is the one in the RBMP last adopted, which is currently that in the 2009 RBMPs. However, when a project is proposed in the period covering the second RBMP, the updated classification (included in the second RBMP) would be the reference.
EAA asked, with regard to water metering, whether an abstraction licensing regime is required as some MS do not require this for trickle irrigation. MM replied that this is not a requirement set out explicitly in Art. 46, but that a licensing regime may be important to deliver some of the specifications in the RDR.JRR noted that a licensing/permit regime is a basic requirement of the WFD to control abstractions and to be able to comply with the conditions of article 46 - demonstrating real savings- metering of abstractions would be a key instrument.
IT asked if it might be possible to examine the link between potential water savings and real savings and asked how verification of water savings will be determined. MM stated that this is up to the MS concerned, but the methods must be sufficient to convince a COMM auditor. Metering should make this easier and this was a reason for including this as a precondition.
ES noted that the RDP period is 2014-2020, but the 2nd RBMPs will not be approved until 2015, so if a region asks for EU co-financing for investment relating to a WB that had unknown status or where the classification was not complete(missing quality elements) would it be eligible for co-financing? MM said that lack of certainty on status assessment would indeed block support for certain investments, but not for others - e.g. investments in improving the efficiency of existing irrigation equipment would still be possible (though the conditions would be stricter).