Meeting: Water Directors – Riga 26-27 May 2015
Agenda point: 12 - Orientation debate on CIS Work Programme 2016-2018
Title: Discussion paper on the CIS Work Programme 2016-2018
Version no.: 2
Date: 18 May 2015
This discussion paper has been prepared by the Commission on the basis of contributions from the CIS Working Groups and internal discussions. Version 1 was discussed at the SCG meeting on 7 May 2015. Written comments were received after the meeting from CZ, ES, EurEau, EUWMA, FR, LU and SE. This version 2 has been amended to reflect the main answers to the 7 questions in the paper that emerged from the SCG discussion and written comments. The new text compared to SCG version 1 is highlighted.
The WD are invited to:
- take note of version 2 of the discussion paper and use it as a basis for their first discussion on the objectives, content, overall structure and methods of the next CIS Work Programme (WP) 2016-2018.
In particular, WD are invited to address in their oral interventions the following questions:
1. Considering the limited results of the CIS WG on agriculture in helping streamlining water objectives in the CAP, what is the best tool to continue discussing agriculture issues in the CIS?
2. Should the Agriculture WG be dissolved and the discussions be taken at the SCG and/or at the WDs' meetings?
3. Would it be helpful to move debates to a higher level, e.g. by organising dedicated sessions with MS heads of the agriculture ministries and/or with farmers organisations?
4. Since the WG Economics has not managed to develop guidance on cost-recovery as planned, in particular due to disagreement on what cost-recovery should apply to, should the group be disbanded?
5. If not, what should the Economics WG focus on and to deliver what? What would be the added value of this work? Can these issues not be dealt with by the SCG?
6. What key issues should be addressed mainly by the SCG during the next WP rather than by WGs? The review of the WFD for 2019, cross-compliance for the WFD under the CAP, measures and economic issues have been mentioned at the SCG.
- agree to the following process for the continuation of work on this issue:
· MS to provide additional comments in writing to the Commission by the 12th of June.
· On that basis the Commission to develop a first draft WP by mid-July.
· MS to comment on the first draft WP by the 7th of September.
· The Commission to transmit a new draft for discussion at the SCG on 28 September.
· After that, if necessary, an extraordinary WD meeting to be called, otherwise the Work Programme to go for adoption at the ordinary WD meeting in LU.
Contacts:
Nicola Notaro [;
Joaquim Capitão [
Jorge Rodriguez Romero [ /
Introduction
The agreement to start a Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) for the Water Framework Directive[1] (WFD) in 2001 was a milestone in working together towards successful implementation of the core water law at EU level. Over the past years, the impressive outputs, the added value and the cooperative spirit of the exercise have been widely recognised. Furthermore, implementation of the Floods, Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) and Groundwater Directives is now closely tied in with that of the WFD, and coordination with the implementation of other water-related Directives (Urban Waste Water, Drinking Water,[2] Bathing Water, Nitrates, Marine Strategy Framework and Nature Directives) is gradually improving.
The Water Blueprint published by the Commission in November 2012 together with the 3rd implementation report of the WFD identified important results but also serious implementation gaps and delays as well as actions to be taken to speed up the achievement of the WFD 'good water status' objective. Building on the successful co-operation of the previous decade and on the basis of the Blueprint proposals and the Council Conclusions adopted on 17 December 2012[3], a CIS Work Programme (WP) for the period 2013-2015 was agreed by Water Directors in May 2013 and is being executed. The current WP has by and large been successfully accomplished and is expected to be completed by the end of 2015 (see annex).
In March 2015, the Commission published its 4th WFD implementation report assessing MS Programmes of Measures (PoMs) and taking stock of the status of the implementation of the Floods Directive.[4] It contains a set of recommendations for MS to improve WFD implementation on the ground particularly in view of the adoption by December 2015 of the 2nd River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) and the 1st Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs). The basis for the Commission's recommendations is threefold: 1. the assessment of the 1st RBMPs; 2. the bilateral meetings with each MS to discuss their RBMPs; and 3. the evaluation of MS reports on progress with their PoM. Additional sources of information that have been considered include MS Partnership Agreements, Operational and Rural Development Programmes.
Thanks to the above assessments, meetings, and the successive CIS WPs, the information base and technical tools for the implementation of the WFD and related directives are now both solid and comprehensive. Therefore, a reflection is necessary on the future focus of the CIS to ensure that the process preserves its added value rather than continuing on 'automatic pilot' in a self-sustained fashion.
In defining the new WP for the period 2016-2018, it is necessary to ensure coordination and complementarity with the CIS Work Programme for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), with the CIF for the Biodiversity Strategy, and the implementation activities of the other water-related directives, bearing in mind the desirability of developing, in the longer term, a CIS that comprehensively covers all relevant water policies. Moreover, the 2019 WFD deadline for the review of the Directive should also be taken into account so that the new WP can provide a useful contribution to that review.
A set of questions was put forward in the following paragraphs to stimulate discussion at the SCG on the objectives, content, overall structure and methods of the next WP. Their aim was to prompt reflection but everyone could feel free to raise important questions which were not covered. The questions and contributions that follow them are the result of inputs on the future WP provided by the CIS WGs and SCG as well as reflections in the Commission.
On the basis of the discussion with MS and stakeholders at the SCG meeting on 7 May 2015, the Commission has updated the discussion paper to offer a more comprehensive basis for discussion at the Water Directors meeting in Riga on 26-27 May 2015.
1. Objectives of the CIS
The objectives of the current CIS Work Programme for 2013-2015 are threefold. The CIS should contribute to:
1. improving the implementation of the WFD and coordination with implementation of other water-related directives and facilitating the implementation of the first cycle of the FD;
2. increasing the integration of water and other environmental and sectoral policy objectives, particularly nature, agriculture, transport, energy, disaster and risk prevention, research and regional development;
3. Contributing, as necessary, to fill in possible gaps that may be identified in the EU framework on water.
Q1. These objectives are broad and allow the CIS to work on both long and short term tasks. They are also relevant for the assessment of the 2nd RMBPs and 1st FRMPs and the preparation of the WFD review. Do you agree that they could be considered as the standing CIS objectives after adapting their content to take into account the 2019 WFD review and maybe after reformulating the third one with more open language?
In the SCG there was broad support for retaining the above objectives with a limited re-draft of the third one. To this end, a first attempt to re-draft is shown above.
Some called for integrating further the work under Nitrates and the Urban Waste Water Directive within the CIS process.
The current WP stresses the need for CIS documents to become operational tools at River Basin (RB) level, relying on more exchanges of best practices and knowledge between authorities in RBs and/or MS with similar features and problems. At the same time the WP sets out a very busy agenda for Working Groups (WGs) to develop a wide range of guidance and policy documents to facilitate the technical implementation of the WFD which have largely been finalised.
Q2. Would you agree that the next CIS WP for the WFD should focus more on best practice exchange, on the use of existing tools and experience-sharing and less on the development of new guidance/technical tools? Would you agree that, in the case of the FD, which is still in the first cycle, consideration should be given to whether to develop guidance documents on aspects of the implementation of the Directive?
In the SCG there was broad support for the proposed increased focus on best practice exchange rather than new guidance for the WFD. Regarding the FD, several members expressed the wish to leave the door more open to guidance considering that the FD is much more recent than the WFD.
Some expressed support for a review of some guidance documents in light of the experience of the first cycle (guidance documents on HMWB, reference conditions and exemptions were mentioned).
2. Preliminary suggestions for key priorities to be addressed in the CIS WGs under the WP 2016-2018
Q3. Do you agree that the next CIS WP should run until 2018? Do you agree with the priorities listed here below for the next WP? Is there anything missing or anything that should be reinforced or dropped?
In the SCG, nobody proposed a different duration (than 2016-2018) for the next CIS WP. The point was made that the WP timelines need to be linked to the RBMPs cycle to be most useful. There was also broad support for the list of issues included in the table below. However, some argued in favour of further streamlining the list that they considered too long, for instance by matching the new items against the gap to be addressed, conducting a prioritisation exercise or a SWOT analysis of CIS progress.
Others made suggestions for additional items such as:
· issues specific to coastal and transitional waters;
· an EU funding mechanisms catalogue;
· WFD exemptions (broader than 4.7);
· Economic issues (article 5 economic analysis, cost recovery, integration of ecosystem services in the WFD economic analysis, integration of economic analysis between WFD/ MSFD trough cooperation between WG-economics and WG-ESA)
· better integration with other policy areas including links with adaptation;
· water-use efficiency/droughts;
· innovative stakeholder consultation tools;
· restoration and floods;
· e-flows in wetlands;
· invasive alien species;
· basic/supplementary measures (including better links with ND, DWD and UWWTD implementation, implementation of WFD article 7, consideration of uncertainties/cost-effectiveness, efficiency of measures, exchange of information on natural water retention measures, measures to address pollution by pesticides and a strategic approach to nutrients);
· scaling/delineation of water bodies;
· WFD and transport;
· Further work on chemicals inventory
· Innovative chemical analytical tools not entailing excessive costs
· Feedback on second WFD reporting exercise
· Interim reporting on implementation of the programme of measures 2018
· Review of article 5 analysis
· Support the implementation of rural development regulation as regards water (art. 46)
· a navigation guide to existing WFD guidance.
A clarification was requested on what the EEA is planning on water accounts/WEI+.
This initial list of issues has been identified through the input of the WGs and the conclusions of the implementation of the first cycle as reflected in Commission reports.
Topic / Issue / Comment /Ecological status / Finish the intercalibration work for GES / Agreed work to finish intercalibration by 2016.
Expected deliverable: contribution to the Commission Decision on intercalibration
Ecological status / hydromorphology / Continuation of Intercalibration for GEP / The work agreed under the current work programme is likely to continue. Expected deliverable: comparison of GEP approaches in MS and, to the extent possible, intercalibration of GEP
Ecological status / Continuation on the work on nutrients, establishment of consistent and comparable boundaries / The work agreed under the current work programme is likely to continue. Expected deliverable: best practice in using nutrient standards as supporting elements for the assessment of ecological status
Ecological status / Innovative monitoring and assessment for ecological status / Expected deliverable: exchange of information on innovative techniques and approaches
Hydromorphology / Hydromorphological issues: discussion on consideration in ecological status classification / Implementation gap identified in the first cycle. Expected deliverable: best practice in using hydromorphology as supporting elements for the assessment of ecological status
Exemptions / Updating Guidance on WFD 4.7 / Implementation gap identified in the first cycle. Expected deliverable: update of guidance number 20 or supplementary guidance
Ecological status, chemicals, measures, reporting / Ensure coordination with other Directives, mainly MSFD but also nature and biodiversity policies / Critical period in coordinating the implementation of WFD and MSFD. Expected deliverable: input to MSFD GES Decision, coordination of reporting of plans and programmes, measures to combat eutrophication, other deliverables TBD
Groundwater / Preparation GWD annexes review / Expected deliverable: input to the review of the Annexes as required by GWD
Groundwater / Voluntary watch list / Expected deliverable: implementation of a first (voluntary) watch list for groundwater
Groundwater / Methodologies for threshold values establishment / Implementation gap identified in the first cycle. Expected deliverable: best practice in developing threshold values
Groundwater / Guidance on groundwater dependent ecosystem / The work agreed under the current work programme is likely to continue. Expected deliverable: guidance TBC
Groundwater / Information exchanges on DWD, trends assessment, peer review, e flows, groundwater progress indicators, lag time of measures to achieve good groundwater chemical status / Other issues that merit information exchange. Expected deliverable: mainly workshop reports
Chemicals / Technical guidance on sampling and monitoring watch list substances and new priority substances / JRC is preparing draft guidance with input from WG Chemicals members.