DG ENV Mission Report

Mission to Nicosia / CY on the 29/30 Nov 2012

Participants:

Ministry of Environment CY (MoE)

  • Kyriacos Dyrou (Director Water Department)
  • Lia Georgiou (Water Department)
  • Dinos Poullis (Water Department)
  • Chrystalla Stylianou (Environment Department)

European Commission (ENV D.2)

  • Joachim D'Eugenio(Deputy head of unit)
  • Jose Rizo-Martin
  • Christof Mainz
  1. Overview of the main items of the mission:

The main objective of this mission was to meet with the responsible persons at the Ministry of the Environment, with several purposes:

  • Topresentthe MoE the concept and advantages of the pilot project for UWWTD under the SIIF-strategy (Structured Implementation and Information Frameworks), and the
  • Discuss a Partnership Agreement to support the implementation of the UWWTD in CY.
  • To be informed and updated by CY on the latest status of the implementation of the UWWTD
  • To discuss becoming a "Pilot" for the SIIF exercise
  1. Evaluation of the mission (results, impact and consequences for DG ENV):

The Workshop with the MoE was the first one of this nature. The contract to support the project was still to be signed. At least one more meeting with a pilot MS was planned forLithuania. As the main outcome of this informal meeting (both sides agreed not to prepare a formal minutes), the Commission managed to agree on a set of further steps.

MoE pointed out that a decision might take some time as they had to agree on aninternal position first (2 divisions in the MoE are responsible). Secondly they must agree on a general position in intergovernmental discussions. The issues still pending to be addressed would be about,

  • Whether through the agreement it would be possible to agree an extension to the Implementation Program to incorporate more realistic dates, possibly up to 2020.
  • Whether the data and the procedure to be reported at national and EU level would be negotiable, so as to reflect national concerns and difficulties.

Whether the infringement procedures for non-compliance would be “on hold”.

  • Whether it is certain that additional financial assistance will be granted through EIB and whether it could form part of this agreement (all the more given the difficult financial situation). Could financial aspects form a prerequisite in the Implementation Program to be agreed?
  • The consequences of not meeting the deadlines set in the agreement, in particular because of financial reasons.
  • The extent to which the negotiations for agreement are binding in any of the two parties.

In addition, MoE pointed out that due to the governmental elections in February 2013 and the extremely difficult financial situation, it might take long to decide whether they participate already as a Pilot MS in the process. At least2 other Ministries (Economy and Finance) will be involved in the process.

An indicative 4-phase-modelfor the next steps was illustrated by JDE:

Phase 0:Expression of interest (shown already by accepting the meeting)

Phase 1:Taking stock of national information (systems) –> workplan for component 1 and 2
Filling tables with CY data available, technical meeting on existing information systems

Phase 2: Implementation of phase 1 on IT-level incl. information on financing / funding

Phase 3:Integration of information on financing / funding with DG Regio planning and explore potential for Partnership Implementation Agreement

Phase 4:Negotiate and finalise Partnership Implementation Agreement and press releases

Regarding the Partnership Implementation Programme (PIA), the MoEindicated that a commitment to such programme would have to be internally discussed and agreed by the Minister. COM suggested to sign it on high level (Commissioner-Minister, e.g. at Environment Council meeting) if both parties agree on a PIA.

Most relevant details of the information provided by CY

  • CY presented information on compliance rates, which were quite different to those available for the 7th Implementation report. The draft report shows especially that compliance rates for Art.3, Art. 4 and Art. 5 are at a level of 0 %, as reported by CY for 31.12.2009. CY and COM stressed that the status for overall 34 agglomerations had changed considerably in the meantime. COM suggested adding a sentence to the 7th report if CY would send updated information. However, and despite of already achieved good results, many problems still persist, especially because estimations during the accession negotiations were too optimistic.
  • Concerning the Bathing Water Directive CY pointed out that they can offer the best results in Europe. The background is that almost no waste water reaches the sea as most of the treated waste water is used for irrigation.
  • CY presented a full overview on the Art. 17 situation and the investments planned. It is internal information, neither made available to the public nor to the Commission. The table shows a good overview on the status of every single activity in CY.
  • CY stressed that the financial crisis will lead to some delays. Financial support in the next fundingperiod is more than required to improve the implementation. Problems regarding the conciliation of timing between transitional periods agreed for the Accession and implementation periods for the Cohesion policy could appear (the final deadline of the transitional period for CY for the UWWTD expires on the 31 Dec 2012).
  1. To what extent were the objectives of the mission achieved:

The balance of the mission is frankly positive. Overall it was a fruitful meeting showing the different information levels in detail. There was a very proactive discussion with the MOE, having a relatively reduced number of representatives, but also the most relevant for the matter of discussion. The objectives of the mission were very much achieved concerning a discussion on the SIIF components (National Information Systems on compliance and the links with national Systems to EU, i.e. WISE/SEIS-INSPIRE) and the development of Partnership Implementation Agreements (incl. possible link to funding)

In addition to all the subjects prepared in the agenda, other important issues that hamper at present the proper implementation of the UWWTDwere tackled at the meeting, for instance

a)The need to improve knowledge on implementation and information on the way forward (investments needed)

b)The need to increase responsiveness at national, regional and local levels and transparency.

c)The possibility to use all possible formats of data on compliance: data can be numeric, textual data or geo-referenced data. In addition, Member States are entitled to report in their national language.

  1. Follow up required and objectives of any further action:

As a conclusion and follow-up of the meeting, an agreement of actions and timing has to be worked out, including the new contractor working for the Commission.

The CY Authorities were convinced about the added value of working together with the Commission on the SIIF. However, due to the upcoming elections (beginning of February 2013) a final decision might be delayed.

Also, this Workshop clearly showed the need for a SIIF and a more modern reporting system, which would provide more updated information (the current period of time between the reported year and the year of publication is around 2-3 years)

Actions in DG ENV:

The concrete content of PIA has to be better defined and shaped; unit ENV A3 must be involved.

A set of actions and a timetable for the steps to be taken should also be defined, considering a positive answer from any interested Member State.

Christof Mainz

Brussels, 4 March 2013