Status box
Title: Links between the Water Framework and the Floods Directives
Resource Document
Version: Rev. A
Date: 28.09.20112
Author(s): Core Drafting Group (BE, DE, IE, IT, NL, UK, WWF, COM)
1st Stage – FD/WFD Questionnaire
Following discussions in the Floods Directive Reporting Drafting group (FDRDG) on the links between the two Directives in the context of the developing the FRMP reporting sheets, it was agreed that further work was needed to identify the relevant links. At the WG F meeting in October 2010, it was agreed that this issue needed to be subject to further work at WG F level, going beyond the reporting aspects, and a core-group (BE, DE, IE, IT, NL, UK, WWF, COM) was created to further the work.
A questionnaire was therefore developed for WG F members to complete, in the form of an Informal Paper entitled "Questionnaire on the coordination between the Floods and Water Framework Directives". The questionnaire was structured according to the Articles of the FD, along with questions focussing on a number of areas where coordination in the implementation of the FD and WFD is suggested and / or required. This was the first step in identifying possible links, opportunities and potential conflicts for the coordination in the implementation of the FD and WFD. The following MSs completed the Questionnaire i.e. AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, EE, ES, FI, IE, IT, LV, NL, PL, RO, SE, SI and and UK. NO and Euroelectric also contributed. In total, twenty one replies where received encapsulating 17 MSs, Norway and one NGO.
2nd Stage – FAQ FD/WFD Version 0
All questionnaire responses were collated and the resulting information is the primary source of input for a FD WFD FAQ Zero Draft document. Many questionnaire inputs were used to highlight examples and suggestions that have worked in MSs were included to promote information being exchanged between MSs.
3rd Stage – FD/FWD Resource Document – Rev A
The FD WFD FAQ ‘Zero Draft’ (Version 0) was discussed in WG F 11, and following feedback from WG F representatives and discussion among the Core Group, it was decided that a revised format for the document was required. The Core Group met on 27th June in Brussels to redevelop the format and begin the drafting process, which the core Group has then continued over the summer of 2012.
This version (Rev. A) of the FD/FWD Resource Document is in the format foreseen for the final output from WG F, although some sections are still to be completed. Please note that this is a preliminary draft being circulated to WG F only for information and comment. It does not include all comments from the core group nor from the Commission.
Next Stages
Subject to discussion within WG F 12 and with the Core Group, it is intended that the document will be completed and further version will circulated to WG F for written comment. It is intended that a final draft version of the document will issue from WG F to be used as a basis for broader consultations to further refine what might be required to promote effective coordination between the two Directives and to identify the links from all perspectives. It is envisaged that input will be sought from:
· Other Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) groups such as groups on ecological status, climate change, agriculture etc.
· Other national competent authorities involved in the implementation of both Directives (note that WG F input would not necessarily be a coordinated national position particularly where different competent authorities are used for both the FD and WFD).
In the final stage, when all relevant groups have provided their input, a completed Resource Document can be prepared.
Endorsement by the Water Directors would be the final stage to finalise the document.
Contact:
Mark Adamson, IE () (Maria Brättemark (DG ENV) (Maria ))
WFD-FD LINKS RESOURCE DOCUMENT – GENERAL COMMENTS ON REV A (OCTOBER 2012)
11/04/13
GERMANY
General comments from the WFD-Perspective (partly in addition still a few from the FD-perspective):
- Paper is not very systematic, main issues are missing, partly not correctly formulated with regard to legal and technical issues.
- The WFD provisions are often not correctly quoted or described or well understood.
- Adding more practical examples and proposals would be very useful for better understanding.
- Generally, it should be distinguished between the terms “flood hazard maps and “flood risk maps”, instead of using “flood maps”.
GREECE
With the present note we send you our remarks on the report “Links between WFD and FD implementation” after further consultation with FD and WFD Colleagues of the Special Secretariat for Water (SSW).
On this well structured report, with detailed references on the links between the two Directives, we have some minus comments:
- page 13 “Monitoring” : Floods Directive implementation asks for detailed hydrological data monitoring (rainfall and discharge measures) which are not under the scope of WFD monitoring program. However it would be useful to develop the same monitoring network sites.
- page 25 first paragraph. The phrase « For public information …. … of the wider picture» is repeated twice into the paragraph.
- page 28 par. 7.5.6 “Suggestion”. We think that detailed analysis of morphological changes and data of all water flow regulation and morphological changes in surface waters are part of WFD Art 5 Report in par. 7.5.4. The objective of SWMI report is to highlight important management issues.
- page 30 par 7.6.3. At the moment it is rather difficult to coordinate the consultation phase for the two directives so that the FRMP to be drafted by 22/12/2014, as it is proposed, because resources allocation for the implementation of Floods Directive have already been decided.
NETHERLANDS
The outcomes of our review can be summarized to the following key remarks:
- The main general comment is, that measures under both directives are should be the major ground for synergies and potential conflict of interest related. This does not get much attention in the document.
- SWMI and characterisation updated do not need reporting efforts. Whenever referred to, direct wording of the WFD is “interim review.”
- Deadlines mentioned are sometimes messy. Also, they are not fixed dates. Consultation under the WFD starts earlier in the Netherlands than frequently assumed in the FAQ paper
- Quotations of the directives’ texts should be limited to exact quotations.
Other comments can be found in the document attached.
SLOVENIA
We examined the document regarding FD-WFD links that you kindly sent. The draft text is well-constituted and we find the FAQ part very useful, so we didn't add any relevant comment. Slovenian specifics regarding public consultation under 7.6 is that we entered the process already in the phase of determination of areas of potentially significant flood risk according to the art. 5 FD, although it wasn't mandatory, and so far the proactive resolving of potential local-regional-national conflicts seems to be the main benefit of the process.
SWEDEN
General comments
The document ought to only reflect the legal and obligatorique issues between the Floods Directive and the Water Framework Directive .
There are different aims and objectives in the two directives. According to the FD the negative consequences of floods shall be achieved and, the flood situation, in terms of significant floods, itself is very hard to reduce. According to WFD European water shall reach Good Ecological Status.
The document should benefit if it describes the similarities and dissimilarities between the directives, phrased simple and strict to minimize the degree of “confusement or misinterpretation”. The aim ought to be very clear and the links might better be written as a comparison between the two directives, organized as step-by-step comparison followed by a simple table. This would lead to a short but concise document that can be of great help in the implementation work. The whole document can be built on a table reflecting the cycles and the time frame regarding what to do and when to report according to the two directives. When producing such a table the document will benefit if areas are identified where clarification is needed and for which steps it would be of great help to prepare guidance - on how to handle the objectives of the directives.
The background should reflect the recitals no xx of the FD since that directive was established after the WFD and after the great floods in Europe 2002. The purpose of the FD is to reduce the consequences of significant floods with adverse consequences for human health, environment, cultural heritage and economic activity (1§ FD). The FD is handling the risk perspective that is not handled in the WFD.
The terms in the document should be correctly referred to as it is written in the directives and earlier agreed and negotiated documents. Now there are many different new terms introduced, eg AFA section 1.4, should instead be ASPFR. The term “Flood maps” should be replaced by “Flood Hazard Map” and “Flood Risk Map” as it is written in legal and already agreed documents .
Synergies between FD and WFD can probably be found with more frequent floods (high probability floods) – not the significant floods as the FD refers to. When a significant flood is the reality the whole systems are full of water – the systems are completely soaked. So the links between the two directives described in the resource document are not always applicable – more of a wish. The document needs to reflect and handle this fact.
Links - heavily modified waters and FRMP - appropriate and applicable measures.
Proposal for new structure of the document
Chapter 1
Important chapter – should reflect the aim of both directives and also the differences and issues in common based on the legal facts. Add recitals from the FD.
Chapter 2
Governance will differ between the MS due to different national legislations and governance of each country. Take this chapter out
Chapter 3
Important chapter. The timetable should be correct and complemented and should be very strict according to the two directives.
The chapter ought also to be complemented with paragraphs that describes the different steps in the directives, the links, the similarities and synergies and shall reflect the dissimilarities and issues in contradiction between the two directives.
Example:
FD WFD
General description based on legal and agreed text.
Are there any synergies or dis-synergies? Information in common – information specific for each directive. What can be used or not. Are the directives corresponding to the same issues?
FD WFD
Step 1 PFRA Identification
etc
Reporting Reporting
Step 2 FHM and FRM ZZZZZ
AA BB
XX YY
Reporting Reporting
Step 3 FRMP Programs of measures
etc
Reporting Reporting
Chapter 4
Merged into chapter 3
Chapter 5
Merged into chapter 3
Chapter 6
Merged into chapter 3
Chapter 7
Is this chapter of importance? If so - it should be much more concise and shall not contain any “wishes” of how the directives should be implemented.
Annexes
Abbreviation list
Links between the
Floods Directive (FD 2007/60/EC)
and
Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000/60/EC)
Resource Document
Contents
1 Introduction and aim of this paper 1
1.1 Aim 1
1.2 Audience for the paper 1
1.3 Legislative and policy context for coordination 1
1.4 Introduction to the Floods Directive 1
1.5 Introduction to the Water Framework Directive 2
1.6 Legal Requirements and Potential for Synergies 2
1.7 Document layout 3
2 Governance 4
2.1 Spatial Management / Reporting Units 4
2.2 Administrative Arrangements 4
2.3 Interaction with Stakeholders and Other Policy Areas 5
2.4 Governance and Information 5
3 Timetable 6
3.1 WFD Reports and Timetables 6
3.2 FD Reports and Timetables 6
3.3 Synergies in WFD and FD Timetables 6
4 Stages of Implementation 111110
4.1 PFRA 111110
4.2 Flood Maps 111110
4.3 Characterisation and SWMI Analysis 121211
4.4 Objectives 131312
4.5 Measures 131312
4.6 RBMPs & FRMPs 131312
4.7 Monitoring 141413
5 Public Information and Consultation 151514
5.1 WFD & FD consultation timetables 151514
5.2 Potential WFD & FD Consultation Synergies 151514
6 Data Sharing and Reporting 161615
7 FAQs 171716
7.1 Introduction to the Floods Directive and Water Framework Directive 181817
7.1.1 What synergies do FD and WFD require between the two directives? 181817
7.1.2 What are the synergies in the application of the two directives? 181817
7.1.3 Does FD require consideration of water quality? 181817
7.1.4 How does WFD provide for managing flood risk? 181817
7.1.5 Which measures do both WFD and FD seek to prioritise? 181817
7.1.6 How should water management activities be integrated with civil protection planning? 181817
7.2 Stages of Implementation – RBMPs and FRMPs 181917
7.2.1 How might FRMPs be fully integrated into RBMPs? 181917
7.2.2 How might FRMPs and RBMPs be coordinated? 181917
7.2.3 How might the RBMP support FRMPs? 191918
7.2.4 How can conflict between RBMP and FRMP objectives be avoided? 191918
7.2.5 How might RBMPs and FRMPs address hydropower? 191918
7.2.6 Is there scope for RBMP and FRMP objectives to be completed together? 192018
7.3 Governance 192019
7.3.1 What is the difference between RBD and UoM? 192019
7.3.2 Are there same Competent Authorities used by MSs for FD and WFD? 202019
7.3.3 How is WFD/FD coordination working where there are different CAs or UoMs? 212120
7.3.4 Can existing WFD transboundary groups implement FD? 212220
7.3.5 Will the Regulatory Committee apply to both WFD and FD 232322
7.3.6 Can conflict resolution for water management issues be integrated 232422
7.4 Timetable 242423
7.4.1 What are the WFD Reports and Timetables? 242423
7.4.2 What are the FD Reports and Timetables? 242523
7.4.3 What are the synergies in WFD & FD consultation timetables? 252624
7.5 Stages of Implementation 262725
7.5.1 What is the objective of the PFRA? 262725
7.5.2 Can the PFRA benefit from WFD information? 272825
7.5.3 What is the objective of the WFD Article 5 Report? 272826