Prep-SCG meeting of Friday, 13 September 2013

Summary and Main Conclusions (Prepared by Commission)

Present:

Nicola Notaro (ENV, SCG Chair), Jorge Rodriguez Romero (ENV, Floods), HelenClayton (ENV, Chemicals), H. CJacques Delsalle (ENV, DIS, Economics, Water Accounts), Ioannis Kavvadas (ENV, Floods), Claire McCamphill (ENV, Agriculture), Thomas Petitguyot (ENV, Ecostat), Lucia Bernal Saukkonen (ENV, Assistant), Helen Jolly (ENV, Assistant), Christos Fragakis (RTD, SPI), Fréderique Martini (FR, SPI), Wouter van de Bund (JRC, Ecostat), Johannes Grath (AT, Groundwater), Ian Davey (UK, Groundwater), Mario Carere (IT, Chemicals), Victor Arqued (ES, Eflows and Water Accounts), Teodoro Estrela (ES, Eflows), Mark Adamson (IE, Floods), Barbro Naslund-Landenmark (SE, Floods), Helen Ainsworth (UK, SCG member), Thierry Davy (FR, Economics), Axel Borchmann (DE, Data and Information Sharing), Irmantas Vallunas (LT, Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania)

Objective of the meeting:

•Share the contents of the respective mandates

•Identify areas which need coordination/input across WGs (links/synergies)

•Tentatively identify the modalities for cooperation among WGs

•Identify issues which potentially merit a strategic discussion at SCG level

Summary and Main Conclusions

Introduction

  • The importance of the involvement of MS, and in particular WG leaders, to deliver the whole CIS work programme was underlined.
  • There are high expectations as regards the Prep-SCG meetings. They should achieve much better coordination across the CIS activities.

Interlinkages between WGs:

  • The various WG leads presented their mandates and gave initial indications of their ideas as regards links to other WGs.
  • It was deemed important to identify the activities which will require coordination across WGs and at what stage the interlinkages are to be made.
  • It is the role of WG leaders to communicate with other WG leaders in order to reach a common understanding on the needs of coordination, best modalities for such coordination and timing.
  • COM proposed the drafting of a mapping of the interlinkages between WGs, including the essential elements of operational links. This would be used as a working document for the Prep-SCG and for information to the SCG.

Science Policy Interface:

  • The linkage to this group was only explicitly mentioned in the presentation made by the WG on Eflows, but this did notsignify that the value of what science can provide to policy was underestimated, but rather that as it is a crosscutting issue, other groups may have assumed the link without mentioning it.
  • RTD recommended that each WG should decide if they need a specific person appointed as SPI correspondent or not to identify topics on which RTD should be consulted. This model was used in the previous CIS, but its success depended on the person appointed and his/her involvement. Positives outcomes were based on the identification of activities that could be launched, not only with DG RTD but also other DGs, and the possibility of having an overview of RTD´s research projects.
  • It is required to identify the needs and, in a second step,to be able to use the scientific results to feed into the policy and decision-making process.
  • The availability of policy briefs had proven to be very positive. It was agreed that these would continue to be produced by RTD and uploaded in the relevant folder in CIRCABC. ENV will send RTD the link to the folder.
  • WG leaders should initially identify their needs and transmit these to RTD. For some WGs, such as Agriculture, the scientific knowledge is available, but what is missing is the translation into the decision-making process. In other WGs, scientific knowledge is still needed.
  • WG leaders could be part of the advisory groups forparticular research projects.

SCG agenda

  • MS should become more actively involved in SCG meetings so that they do not end up being a succession of COM presentations.For example, by proposing topics and giving a short presentation.
  • Ample time should be devoted to the discussion ofimportant subjects. Information points should be kept short by preparing written information in advance of the meetings and avoiding presentations.
  • The need to integrate river basin authorities in the CIS was discussed. Some argued that it is for the SCG and the Water Directors to ensure that the CIS outcomes are translated to the authorities working on the ground and also that their expertise contributes to the CIS developments. Butfrom the experience of the last years it was obvious that this has not worked well in all cases. The idea was proposed to use existing networks such as INBO to river basin authorities. No conclusion was drawn.
  • The most effective method for reporting the outcome of the Prep-SCG meetings to the SCG was discussed. COM proposed a new format for progress reports whereby there would only be one document into which WG leaders would upload information;this would then be exported to a word document for the SCG meeting. To be further considered once the technical solution can be found.
  • A number of issues were identified for discussion at the next SCG meeting of 30 September. A specific agenda point "Discussion points" was added.

Future Prep-SCG meetings

  • When the group is fully efficient, the meetings could be structured toallow the morning to report on progress,withthe afternoon devoted to a general discussion as well asbilateral/trilateral discussions between WG leaders to address the interlinkages.
  • The group will meet twice a year (4-5 weeks in advance of the SCG meeting that prepares for the Water Directors meeting) with the aim ofsetting the agenda for the SCG meeting. The 2014 WFD CIS Events Calendar will be updated accordingly to include the Prep-SCG meetings.