DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D - Water, Chemicals & Biotechnology
ENV.D.1 - Water /
Brussels23February 2010
ENV-SCG04051109
for the WFD Common Implementation Strategy
04 November 2009 from 10:00 to 18:00
05 november 2009 from 9:00 to 16:40
in Centre Albert Borschette, Room 1B, Brussels
Meeting Summary
The Commission, DG Environment D.1 (hereafter referred to as COMM) invited delegates for the Strategic Co-ordination Group (SCG) meeting of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) for the Water Framework Directive (WFD) on 04-05 November 2009. The following Member States (MS) participated in the meeting: AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IS, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK and UK. In addition, representatives of CEFIC, COPA/COGECA, ECPA, EEB, ESHA, ESPO, EUREAU, EWA, EUWMA, WMO, WWF, EEA and Commission (DG ENV and JRC) were represented. A full list of meeting participants is provided in Annex 1.
The main objective of the meeting was to continue the work under the Common Implementation Strategy, discuss on the progress made under the various activities and prepare for the upcoming Water Directors meeting to be held in Malmö (Sweden) in November 2009. The Policy Summary of the Eutrophication Guidance agreed by the Water Directors in Brnowassubmitted to the SCG for endorsement. Also, a number of documents were submitted to final discussion before forwarding them to the Water Directors for their endorsement in Sweden: the guidance RBMP in a Changing Climate, the Intercalibration guidance, the guidance on Environmental Quality Standards derivation, a number of Floods Reporting sheets as well as the CIS 2010-2012 Work programme.
A draft agenda (see Annex 2) was distributed before the meeting.
The meetings documents and presentations are available on WFD CIRCA under the meeting sub-folder of the folder “D-Strategic Co-ordination Group” in the library using the following direct link:
A summary of the discussions under each point of the agenda and the conclusions are presented below.
1 – Welcome and introduction (COM)
The Commission’s chair, Jorge Rodriguez Romero (JRR), welcomed everyone to the meeting. He informed the meeting that DG Environment’s water unit had been reorganised and split into two: Unit D1 Water includes the WFD, Climate Change Adaptation and the Floods Directive; and, Unit D2 Marine includes the Marine Framework Strategy Directive and other water directives such as Drinking Water, Bathing Waters and Urban Waste Water Treatment. Helmut Blöech is now Deputy Head of Unit of D2. However, there are no changes of responsibilities of the desk officers in the water unit. From now on JRR will chair the SCG meetings.
2 – Approval of the agenda (COM)
There were some changes in the order of agenda items and some additions under item 9 (other issues): AT on strategic environmental assessment of River Basin Management Plans; DE on the list of meetings for 2010; and FR on the ratification of the UN Convention on cross border water bodies.
3 – Water Directors' meeting preparation (SE/ES)
The informal meeting of EU Water Directors and EU Marine Directors will take place 30 November-1 December 2009 in Malmö, Sweden. A preliminary programme was distributed as a room document at the meeting. The Swedish representative gave a short presentation and stated that if some participants had not already received invitations, they should ask her for details.
The day before the meeting (Sunday 29 November 2009) there will be an organised excursion: boots will be provided. The first day will be mainly taken up by the Water Directors’ meeting though the last session of day 1 will be a joint meeting with the Marine Directors. Day 2 will be the Marine Directors’ meeting. It is expected that the final agenda and documents will be ready by 13 November 2009.
The Water Directors meeting associated with the Spanish Presidency is scheduled for May 2010. Details were given of the events that will be held in the first half of 2010. Of particular note is the international conference on “Water Scarcity and Droughts: the path to climate change adaptation” (
4 – Information on legal issues and RBMP compliance checking (COM)
a)Update on state of play of legal action
The Commission, Maria Brättemark(MB), presented an update on the state of play of legal actions in terms of WFD transposition non-conformity cases, Groundwater Directive (GWD) transposition non-communication cases and upcoming transposition deadlines in terms of the Floods and EQS Directives.
In response, Finland indicated that a notification letter on the GWD had been sent to the Commission in September 2009: the Commission indicated that this would be checked. In Spain, a decree has been produced which has transposed the GWD: the Commission should be notified soon. Ireland asked when follow up action on the WFD non-conformity can be expected. The Commission said that it cannot say anything formally on this point though progress is foreseen in the next period as work is underway.
b)State of play of RBMP consultation and adoption process
The Commission (MB) presented an update on the state of play of RBMP consultation and the adoption process. There have been serious delays in consultation in some MSs which has a knock-on effect on meeting RBMP deadlines. The Commission webpage (water.europa.eu/participate) and the relevant folders on Circa ( ) will be updated with the latest information next week. The second European water conference was held in April 2009 and focused on the draft RBMPs. The conference report was published in summer in English with the executive summary and conclusions in all eu languages.
In response, Portugal indicated that public participation and consultations had been done on the Significant Water Management Issues and the delays on the RBMP were because the Competent Authorities had only been established a year ago. RBMPs for the two Slovenian RBDs had been published in September with consultation finishing in March 2010. There has been a restructuring in the relevant ministry with a doubling of the number of people working on water. In Malta consultations of the Programmes of Measures have been initiated and will end in March 2010. Consultation on 2 out of the 4 RBMPs in Belgium has finished. In Italy consultations started in August 2009 for all 8 RBMPs and these will be completed within a deadline that allows for the required 6 month consultation period.
c)RBMP compliance checking
The Commission, Ursula Schmedtje (US), presented on the concept and process for compliance checking the RBMPs. The process had started at the Water Directors meeting in Paris in December 2008 with the presentation by the Commission of a draft concept paper for compliance checking. This had since been developed and an early draft submitted to Working Group D on Reporting in September 2009. The Commission is now revising the document taking the oral and written comments into account and will submit a revised version to the Water Directors in Malmö.
Participants raised a number of questions on the overall approach. In the Commission report on Article 8 monitoring programmes, Luxembourg pointed out that there was a lack of coordination in reporting between MSs in international river basins. WISE is a clearing house for MSs not international organisations. Compliance is checked after the information has been funnelled through WISE. In terms of the Rhine and Meuse RBDs, coordination has been carried out within the River Commissions through initial MS contributions. International Commissions need this information as well.
France and Germany expressed concern that the concept paper should stick to the letter of the WFD and some of the paper goes beyond this. The WFD is a complex directive and compliance checking is a complex task. Indicators are to be used in the compliance checking but no indicators are presented in the report. Germany (supported by Finland, Hungary and the UK) thought that only the RBMPs should be used: could the Commission confirm this?
The Netherlands thought that there were some good points, for example the transparency, but they also have some concerns. A number of steps are shown in the compliance checking figure in the concept paper: is there a division in the questions that relate to the third (compliance for key issues/compliance indicators) and fourth (in-depth assessment) part of the checking process? Some questions may relate to screening and others are more relevant for in-depth assessments. Should it be up to MS to answer these questions rather than the Commission or consultants? Are all the questions necessary as many also have sub-questions, and is there a process to optimise the questions that need to be answered to check whether MS are compliant?
The UK supported some earlier comments. The assessment of strategy and policy achievements may be subjective and will need more assessment criteria and extra information. This will put a burden on UK colleagues to provide this extra information. The UK would also like the chance to comment on the paper. Some of the questions, such as on the use of voluntary or legislative measures in agriculture, are not as black and white as the document seems to say.
Hungary also supported earlier comments and indicated that the checking should be based on reported documents only and when aspects are not explained clearly then might have to go back to background documents, but generally the information used should be in the reported documents.
The representative from the WWF questioned whether it was the reporting process being checked rather than the situation as it really is and the effectiveness of the WFD. In some plans there is insufficient information on exemptions and the justification for their use, or on classification.
Austria was grateful for the discussion and agreed with previous speakers and in particular the Netherlands. The majority of the compliance checking will be done by consultants. Hence, clear questions relating to the different parts of the process are needed to ensure correct assessments.
Spain pointed out that, in terms of assessing compliance of implementation, the wfd lends itself to interpretation and is subjective. There are some deficits, particularly in developing indicators. Spain asked whether compliance checking will be done at the MS level or RBD level and whether one or many organisations will be dealt with?
The Commission advised that there has been progress in the latest version of the paper in terms of differentiation of questions between legal or technical aspects. Some questions are about information. For examples, questions relating to the effectiveness and use of voluntary or mandatory measures are not judgemental; rather they are descriptive. It is clear that the Commission would like to go beyond official RBMP reporting as they have to produce an assessment paper in 2012. This will have to present a picture of the effectiveness of WFD and the gaps. In other words a strategic assessment is needed. The concept paper is in line with the discussions with the Water Directors in Paris who agreed that there was a need for a strategic reflection on the WFD in 2012. There will also be a review on Water Scarcity and Droughts at the same time. Any legal action will be based on official reporting through wise. The data reported through WISE is legally valid and has the same status as the RBMP: this was agreed by SCG and WDs.
Some questions are very broad; these will be more detailed in later stages. It was emphasised that the questions presented will by answered by EC on the basis of the RBMPs, WISE reporting and background documents. Some of the main issues are straightforward; some are broader and need more detail. The Commission has to rely on reports from MSs and these have to be clear. In response to the comment from WWF, the Commission pointed out that background documents are also mentioned in Article 14. In terms of RBMPs there are different practices between MSs as the directive is flexible. For example, there could be a slim plan with the provision of more detailed information in background documents. What is needed is enough information to see if the reported information is compliant with the requirements of the WFD.
In terms of the comment from Spain on bilateral discussions, it will depend on the country and issue. However, the Commission will not want to hold discussions with more than 100 RBD authorities. The main interlocutor is the MS representative. In terms of international coordination (point from Luxembourg), this information was often not reported to the Commission in the Article 8 reports even though there were elements in the schema to report this information. In terms of RBMP reporting, there are elements in the tools through which information on international coordination can be provided. Also links to international RBD “roof reports” should be mentioned in the RBMPs. Roof reports produced by International River Basin Conventions can also be reported to the Commission.
The EEA advised that WISE should be used as a widely as possible to report data. In that context, the use of WISE had been explained in meetings of International River Conventions by the EEA. They now need to be encouraged to use wise and it would be made more user-friendly for Conventions.
The Commission, Ursula Schmedtje (US), presented further details on the concept paper to the meeting. An inventory of key issues and key questions had been submitted to Working Group D on Reporting in September 2009. Written comments had been received from 8 MS: these were subsequently integrated into the paper. Examples of questions were shown for governance, classification of ecological status, Programmes of Measures, and measures related to agriculture.
Spain suggested that this exhaustive document lends itself to many interpretations that are best discussed in depth in the Strategic Coordination Group not at the Water Directors’ meeting. Germany and the Netherlands hoped that there would be time to discuss and comment on the document before the document went to the Water Directors. The approach was thought to be clear by Austria and the Netherlands, though some aspects may be missing (e.g. indicators). Separate steps in the compliance checking process are illustrated in slide 4 of the presentation. In-depth assessment will be very detailed. Austria suggested that perhaps the process should be stopped at step 3 until compliance screening has been completed and before moving onto areas where in-depth assessment may be needed.
The EEA advised that they will have a coordination role with the Commission on the 2012 report, not on the compliance side but on the wider status assessment and on policy effectiveness. Close cooperation will be needed with MSs to obtain information on what is actually happening in terms of the WFD.
The Commission advised that the concept paper will be finalised by 13 November 2009 and then circulated to the Strategic Coordination Group so that also all stakeholders can comment on it. There will be a period for written comments. The Commission thought that the different steps should not be taken one by one as they have already identified some key issues of implementation, and the intention is to directly undertake in-depth assessment for these issues. The objective is to get the main orientations on these key issues.
5 – Commission Activities (COM)
a)Reorganisation of DG Environment (JRR)
This item had been taken earlier in the meeting under agenda item 1.
b)Preparation of Report on Groundwater Threshold values
The Commission, Balazs Horvath (BH), gave a presentation on this item. Information had been collected from MSs earlier in the year using an Excel questionnaire. Only Greece had not replied. A report is currently being prepared. The report will go for inter-service consultation. Threshold values have been established for 164 pollutants, 5 MSs had reported stricter standards for nitrate and 6 for pesticides than the EQS included in Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC.
c)Publication of Directive 2009/90/EC
The Commission, Madalina David (MD), stated that QA/QC Directive had been published on 1 August 2009 and came into force on 20 August 2009. MSs need to transpose the Directive by 20 August 2011.
d)White Paper on Adaptation to Climate Change
An informal meeting of the Impact and Adaptation Steering Group (IASG) will be held on 20 November 2009 with the aim of identifying people who are responsible for adaptation issues in MS. Invitations for this meeting had been sent to MS permanent representatives. The meeting will discuss the inclusion of other stakeholders at a later stage. The contract on “Integrated assessment modelling of water-related scenarios and adaptation measures” hasbeen launched. Further details can be obtained on request from the Commission.
e)Article 38 Rural Development Regulation Implementation Rules (1698/2005)
Pascale Mathes from DG Agriculture– Unit G1 gave a presentation on the state of play of the definition of the implementing rules for Article 38 of the Rural Development Regulations in relation to payments linked to the WFD. Article 38 aims to compensate farmers, in the form of annual payments, for disadvantages resulting from the implementation of the WFD. It relates only to compulsory not voluntary measures. The draft implementing rules were presented to the rural development committee (RDC) in October with the aim of discussing and agreeing a text by December and adoption possibly by end of the year.
The proposal clarifies the scope of the measure, proposes maximum amounts of support at the same level as for Natura 2000 payments and sets provisions to avoid double funding with other mechanisms.
Belgium indicated that, given the time difference between the timetable for the application of the WFD and the programming period for rural development, it considered that it was not worth using the possibilities offered by Article 38 in the PoMs.
Luxembourg advised that the approach adopted is not very advantageous. Standardised payments are meant to discourage people searching around for compensation and payments. And what about consistency from year to year? The measures concern enforcement in geographic areas and aim to change behaviour. A single payment may have a one-off effect but it is not durable over time. The mechanism should be more flexible and will not bring about fundamental changes as hoped.