Informal Meeting of Water Directors of the European Union

Informal meeting of Water Directors of the European Union, Norway, Switzerland and the Candidate Countries

in Greece, Athens, 17-18 June 2003

Informal meeting of Water Directors
of the European Union, Norway, Switzerland and Candidate Countries

Athens - Greece, 17 and 18 June 2003

Final draft Synthesis[1] (with exception of floods)

Introduction

The Water Directors of the European Union (EU), Norway, Switzerland and Candidate Countries met on 17 & 18 June 2003 in Greece (Athens) in order to discuss, in particular:

• the progress of the WFD Common Implementation Strategy (CIS);
• the progress on the integrated pilot river basin testing exercise;
• the finalisation of the work programme 2003/2004 for the Common Implementation Strategy;
• the progress in the preparation of Daughter Directives for groundwater and priority substances;
• integration aspects between water and agriculture policy;
• the progress in the negotiations on the new bathing water directive;
• the issue of flood prevention and protection;
• the developments under the EU Marine Strategy;
• the support of research and the issue of climate change and water policy;
• the progress under the EU Water Initiative and other international initiatives.

The present note summarises the main elements discussed, and the agreements reached, during the Water Directors meeting. The agenda of the meeting is presented in Annex I. The list of participants is presented in Annex II.

Outcome of the Meeting

Agenda item 1: State of the implementation process and implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD)

Report: Greece

The Greek Presidency presented a summary overview on the transposition and the implementation of the Directive in the Member States and the other countries participating in the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS). The report is based on the responses from 23 countries to a questionnaire prepared by the Hellenic Presidency and sent to the Water Directors in advance of the meeting.

Overall, transposition and implementation is well underway in most Member States and Candidate Countries. In general, a similar working methodology has been applied for this process.

There is a general consensus on the importance of an active involvement of all interested parties during the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. A number of mechanisms were put in place to facilitate public participation. A number of common obstacles and problems were identified such as, inter alia, lack of data or a demanding timetable. Finally, it was emphasised that the CIS and in particular the pilot testing are essential building blocks for a successful implementation process in all countries.

Agenda item 2: Progress in the Common Implementation Strategy

Report: Commission

The Commission (DG Environment) summarised the progress since the last Water Directors’ meeting on the basis of the reports from the new Working Groups (WG) and the outcome of the discussion of the last Strategic Coordination Group (SCG). All the transitional activities which were agreed by the Water Directors in Copenhagen have been successfully realised.

The Water Directors took note of and welcomed the overall progress. It was recognised that the workload had decreased with the new working arrangements but that it was still important to set clear priorities. Only those activities which provided a direct added value to the implementation process would be supported. The activities should be focused and provide outputs in time to be useable and useful for the implementation process. On this basis and on the agreements reached in Copenhagen, the Commission was invited by the Water Directors to implement the arrangements in its role of an overall co-ordinator of the CIS process.

In particular, the following issues were addressed in more detail:

• Wetlands

The Water Directors invited the WG 2.B and the leader of the activity (Italy) to present a final draft guidance to the next meeting of the Water Directors under Italian Presidency. The guidance should clearly distinguish between the legal requirements under the Directive and best practices going beyond these obligations. Actions under the RAMSAR convention and the Water Framework Directive should not be mixed. . Finally, it was suggested to simplify and shorten the document in comparison to its current comprehensive draft.

• Intercalibration

The Water Directors took note of the request to provide data to the Joint Research Centre for the selection of possible intercalibration sites by the end of July 2003. It was recognised that the intercalibration process including the site selection will be an iterative and ongoing process since not all data and information are, at present, readily available.

• Reporting

The Working Group presented a Concept Paper on Reporting for Water.

The Water Directors supported the concept paper as a good starting point for further work and, in particular, to provide guidance to the Working Group for their tasks. Whilst agreeing the document in principle, further discussions on the paper in the WG and the SCG would be beneficial to clarify and refine some points,

in particular, further distinction between the mandatory reporting obligations and the voluntary exercise should be made. Furthermore, the link to other relevant initiatives or processes (e.g. INSPIRE) should be elaborated in more detail. The Water Directors also stressed that the reporting requirements need to be further elaborated swiftly, in particular as regards the level of detail, the data needs and the aggregation of data.

The Water Directors invited the Working Group to include these conclusions in the document and to continue discussion on some open issues. The outcome of these discussion should be reported back to the next SCG and WD meeting.

Agenda item 3: Common Implementation Strategy – Organisation and work programme 2003/2004

Report: Commission

The Commission (DG Environment) presented the final draft of the work programme 2003/2004 entitled “Carrying forward the CIS for the WFD” including also the mandates for the Working Groups and activities.

The Water Directors agreed the work programme document including the mandates of the WGs and activities subject to taking into account the specific comments listed in Annex III of this summary.

The meeting also discussed the need to start work on the issue of “river basin management plan and programme of measures”. While detailed methodology was not necessary at this stage, Member States and implementing agencies did need guidance as to the nature of these plans and programmes. It was agreed to discuss it on the next SCG meeting. The Water Directors invited the Commission to prepare a scoping paper as a basis for discussion taking into account comments from IRBM WG 2.B.

Agenda item 4: Integrated testing of guidance documents in Pilot River Basins

Report: Commission – Joint Research Centre

The Joint Research Centre presented the state-of-play on the PRB exercise and the key actions for the coming months.

The Water Directors agreed to include the proposal of the river basin Ribble (UK) into the pilot river basin network.

Belgium expressed an open invitation to the kick-off workshop for the Scheldt pilot testing on 1 July 2003 in Lille.

The Water Directors took note the progress and the outcome of the Belgirate Workshop of April 2003. It was emphasised that the PRB exercise requires stronger leadership, in particular from the Commission side. The JRC was invited to present a first in-depth report on the results of the PRB testing to the next meeting of the Water Directors.

Agenda item 5: Article 21 Committee

Report: Commission

The Commission (DG Environment) informed the Water Directors of the first meeting of the “WFD Committee” which was set up on 6 May 2003. The main issue on the agenda of the Committee was the rules of procedures and in particular a discussion on participation of third parties. This would be considered further when the Commission would have received legal advise sought. Furthermore, the working priorities were identified with regard to intercalibration and reporting.

The Water Directors took note of this information.

Agenda item 6: State-of-play on preparation of daughter directives

Report: Commission

6.1. Groundwater

The Commission (DG Environment) informed the Water Directors that the inter-service consultation within the Commission was near completion. It is the intention to adopt the Commission proposal before the summer break.

The Water Directors took note of the progress report from the Commission.

6.2. Priority Substances

The Commission (DG Environment) presented the progress on the preparation of new legislation on priority substances. It is envisaged to come forward with a formal proposal in the first half of 2004 recognising also the situation in the European Parliament and its elections in 2004.

The Water Directors took note of the progress report from the Commission.

Agenda item 7: Integration aspects: WFD and agriculture

Report: Commission

The Commission (DG Environment) presented a Working Document prepared by DG Environment on the interaction between the Common Agriculture Policy and the Water Framework Directive.

The Water Directors expressed the high importance of this subject because of the potentially significant contribution CAP reform could have to the achievement of the WFD objectives and welcomed the Commission paper and the approach as a good way to address the issue. Several comments had already been received and further specific comments were made during the discussion. In addition, the Commission invited Member States to present any additional comments by the end of July 2003. The comments will be considered in the revision of the document. The outcome of the ongoing negotiations on the mid-term review of the Common Agricultural Policy should be awaited and included in the paper.

The Water Directors invited the Commission to present the revised document, or at least a progress report, to the next meeting of the Water Directors. The final aim is to use the document as a reference document for administrations and water managers when addressing this issue.

Agenda item 8: Bathing Water Directive

Report: Greece

The Hellenic Presidency reported from the current state of discussion in the Council Working Group by highlighting some key open issues. France presented some considerations for discussionas regards some open issues, in particular the level of the thresholds in relation with a cost effective approach.

Many delegations expressed their interest for this important issue and highlighted the efforts made during the Greek presidency. Some delegations thought that there had been progress during the discussions in the Council but they needed more flexibility. Italy mentioned that during its presidency, the new proposal for Bathing Water Directive will be also a priority.

A new compromise text will be presented soon by the Presidency for discussion and further elaboration in a coming session at the Council Environment Group. For the moment the E.P. opinion has not been expressed, apart from the publication of some draft recommendations from the Rapporteur. The EP Plenary vote (1st reading) is now planned for 1st October 2003

Agenda item 9: Flood protection

Report: The Netherlands and France

The Netherlands presented themade a presentation on the final draft of the “bBest Ppractices pPaper”. Switzerland presented some specific comments on the “best practice paper” in writing.

The Water Directors welcomed the “bBest pPractices pPaper” and thanked the Netherlands and France for its preparation. It was agreed to circulate the final version of the document as an informal guide for water managers following the final revision of the paper including the comments made by the Water Directors. Final written comments on the current version were invited to be sent to France and the Netherlands by 17 July 2003.

Germany informed about their intention to host a conference on flood prevention in June 2004 in the context of the UN-ECE.

Hungary informed about an envisaged workshop on flooding as a follow-up of the Budapest initiative in the first half of 2004, and proposed to use this workshop as an input for the conference in Germany.

In additionFurther, France introduced a non-paper, prepared by the Netherlands and France, on the follow-up to theof floods initiative by EU Water Directors. The lively discussion can be summarised as follows:

• Following the conclusions of the Copenhagen Environment Council and the findings of the EU Water Directors initiative on floods, Tthere is agreement on the need for a reinforced political commitment to flood prevention an d flood protection.
• There is agreement that integrated river basin management is the tooll of choice to address flood prevention and flood protection . Experiences and achievements by International River Conventions (Danube, RHINEhine, Elbe, Oder, Moselle/Mosel, Schelde/Escaut and Meuse/Maas) are highly relevant can provide considerable input to address the challenge.
• There is agreement that EU funding mechanisms could be very powerful and effective instruments for promoting investments in flood prevention schemes. Funding of such schemes would be conditional upon the existence of integrated flood prevention plans at the level of the river basin. The Commission was invited to explore the possibility for specific, targeted funding measures.
• There is agreement that it was desirable to improve and promote co-ordination and information exchange regarding floods on the level of the EU.
• There is agreement that EU research programmes could make a significant contribution towards the prediction and prevention of floods
• EU action on flood prediction and prevention could take a variety of forms

.

EU action on flood prediction and prevention could take a variety of forms,

i)informal guidance documents,

ii)Council conclusions / recommendations,

iii)A Commission Communication with associated Council conclusions,

iv)An EU action plan on flooding,

v)Legislative proposal (framework directive).

These options are not mutually exclusive and it is possible to envisage combinations of elements (i) – (v) above. There was no consensus among the Water Directors as to the form of the future EU action, however, it was recognised that while the form of EU action was an important issue, the content was the primary consideration.

There was a recognition that the objective was to improve the level of protection for European citizens.

As a follow-up to the meeting, DG Environment would discuss the options with the other Commission services and draft a position paper for further discussion with the Water Directors. There is agreement that funding of flood prevention and flood protection-related measures merits future consideration and action at EU level, based in coordination across the basin.

There is agreement on the added value of enhanced cooperation on research, at EU as well as national level.

The character of action to be taken at EU level to address flood prevention and flood protection needs to be further considered; there is no consensus yet. The Commission and some delegations expressed preference for a legislative instrument setting out principles such as a integrated river basin management approach, risk zone mapping or participation of the public, at the same time leaving protection objectives, deadlines for achieving the objective, and measures to decision at river basin level (no over-prescriptive approach). The Commission also stressed the need to establish a sound and predictable long-term basis for decision-taking for all involved (public and private), including possible future funding mechanism at EU level.

A variety of options were discussed and a diversity of views were expressed by the Water Directors.

[The following paragrphs will be re-drafted in the light of the final discussions and general agreements just before the end of the meeting:

During the discussion, the Water Directors recognised

(Elements for conclusions:

Need for political commitment

Added value of EU action including Research coordination

Development of options for funding for purpose of flood prevention

No consensus on the type of Community actions

International river conventions)

There was also a clear consensus that on an EU level, there is a role of the Commission.

that there is a role for EU action in this area. However, there was no consensus as to the extent and the nature of such a Community role. There was agreement that strengthening research co-ordination and developing a European network of flood research were possible area of activities.

Progammes on flooding should incorporated in the river basin management plans]

With regard to the form of a follow-up action at the EU level (Council recommendation, Communication, EU Action Plan or legislative proposal) there were a diversity of views expressed:

The Commission, with support of some delegations, expressed preference for a legal instrument which sets out a number of principles and general obligations without being too prescriptive.

It was agreed to continue discussions in the coming months with the aim of reviewing the possibility to agree a joint follow-up action on floods on the next meeting of the Water Directors.

Germany informed about the meeting of their intention to host a conference on flood prevention in June 2004 in the context of the UN-ECE.

Hungary informed about an envisaged their planning of a workshop on flooding as a follow- up of the Budapest initiative in the first half of 2004, and proposed to use this workshop as an input for the conference in Germany.

Agenda item 10: Marine Strategy

Report: Commission

The Commission (DG Environment) outlined a roadmap with a proposal for organisational arrangements.

Following a discussion, the Water Directors broadly endorsed the proposed way forward and accepted to include the Marine Strategy in their mandate. It was agreed to change the name of the co-ordination body to “Inter-Agency Co-ordination Group” in order to emphasis its role as co-ordination between the European Commission, the regional organisations and other relevant bodies.

There was a discussion as to whether there needed to be a steering committee interposed between WD and the expert groups. It was agreed that the Commission should, for the moment, undertake the preparation of documents and reports for the meeting of the Water Directors. This would be reviewed at the next meeting of the WD in November.