Last minute (Since 4th February) comments received on “Guidance on planning process”

Who did send it?

/ Comment / Who did react? / Reaction / Proposal from WG leader
Anne Thoren (Sweden) / Page 6.To include (Objectives of the Guidance Document) a cross reference to Annex 3 (Guidance documents) / Nobody / OK
Anne Thoren (Sweden) / Page 15. Delete “Alternative” in text and table / Nobody / OK
Anne Thoren (Sweden) / Page 15. Stress the relevance of Public Participation in the figure / Guido Schmidt (WWF) / Agree in adapting the figure due to the public participation issues / OK
Anne Thoren (Sweden) / Page 17 and 19. Mention to the existence of other types of planning / Nobody / OK
Anne Thoren (Sweden) / Page 32. Combine the two “Look out” boxes / Nobody / OK
Anne Thoren (Sweden) / Page 35. To improve paragraph on groundwater / Nobody / To maintain as it is in the guidance. Text already discussed on Workshop.
Anne Thoren (Sweden) / Chapter 5.6. New discussion on supplementary measures / Nobody / To maintain as it is. The comment is not specific enough.
Anne Thoren (Sweden) / Chapter 5.9. To add a new section “Evaluate the first period and prepare the second period”. / Nobody / Do not add a new section (it would change the logical structure of the Chapter) but to stress the need of evaluation and preparation after the first period in 5.8 (Implementation of the programmes of measures and evaluation)
Zsigmund Kovacks (Spain) / Page 66. Tasks 134 and 135 can not be longer than the activities it covers (136-142) / Nobody / OK
Guido Schmidt (WWF) / Graphic front cover (and page 62). Group technical issues and years / Nobody / OK
Guido Schmidt (WWF) / Graphic front cover (and page 62). Extend Public Participation arrow to 2015. / Nobody / OK
Guido Schmidt (WWF) / Graphic front cover (and page 62). There might be a third accompanying arrow regarding measures to prevent further deterioration starting even before 2004 (as there will be a specific guidance document, there should not be a starting deadline) / Aram Wood (UK) / Do not agree that there should be a third arrow representing the “prevent deterioration”. / To maintain as it is. The graphic is just to illustrate the so called components in the guidance and it is not dealing with the objectives of the Directive.
Thomas Stratenwerth (Germany) / Non deterioration clause needs to be transposed into national law to come into effect. In this respect the non deterioration clause is covered by the general deadline for transposing the Directive into national legislation
Guido Schmidt (WWF) / Page 30. To introduce a box saying “Look out! The Directive includes specific requirements for non deterioration and the implementation of extra measures to comply with previously existing water related community legislation. You should be aware that these measures should not wait until a RBMP is set up in 2009”. / Aram Wood (UK) / Agree in introducing a box but simply referring to the work that the Comission is leading on and not say anything specific about deadlines. Second part of the lookout box is not clear enough. / To introduce the following box:
Look out! The Directive includes specific requirements for non deterioration and the implementation of extra measures to comply with previously existing water related community legislation. The Commission is leading the production of a horizontal paper that will shed light on the requirement to “prevent deterioration”.
Thomas Stratenwerth (Germany) / A look out somewhere in the text of chapter 5 hinting at the non deterioration obligation would be okay.
Guido Schmidt (WWF) / Page 41. To include a similar graph to the one on surface water bodies but dealing with managing groundwater bodies in accordance with Article 4, based on system B / Nobody / OK if the graphic can be available and validated by groundwater WG
Guido Schmidt (WWF) / Chapter 6.2. To include in the flowchart of the "Legally binding deadlines for Member States" - as a first line - the "Non-deterioration" objective, without a timeline but including a footnote similar to the one on page 66, once that one is amended as we indicate later on.
WWF does not accept the date linked to entry 158. As far as WWF understands, the deadline for starting the obligation for "non-deterioration" is 22.12.2000. Further, even if it is clearly explained below that this issue will be clarified in a separate
document, we cannot agree with the existing text in the relevant "note"
and we urge to change so it reads as follows:
"Task no. 158 is related to the array ofmeasures necessary (...- leave as it is). Articles 4.3 to 4.9 are relevant for the application of this objective. For the moment (... - leave as it is.)"
Additionally, the actual deadline for these measures to kick-off -1.1.2002 - is wrong. WWF suggests to put a question mark BEFORE the year
2001 in this line, so it is very clearly and graphically expressed that
this issue is still pending.
Additionally, WWF's proposal to include from 22.12.2000 until 2009 a
line regarding "extra measures to comply with existing water-related
community legislation" WFD article 11.3.a) has not been included in
this flowchart and I would like to insist that it should be included
here (explanaition above). / Aram Wood (UK) / It is not appropriate to put the line for "prevent deterioration" in the flowchart of "legalling binding deadlines for MS" as the first line. This implies that the deadline for "prevent deterioration" requirement is prior to Dec 2003 and is prejudging the outcome of the Commission work.
As there has not been any agreement on when the "prevent deterioration" requirement becomes binding there should not be any date against task number 158. The existing time line should be removed and be replaced with a simple question mark at this stage.
Given that the date has not been agreed the note for task 158 should not refer to "an on-going task throughout the whole first assessment and planning period until December 2009..."
The note should be revised to read
"Task no 158...(leave as). Articles 4.3 to 4.7 ...(leave as is). Details of the time schedule for "prevent deterioration" will be dealt with through a specific document".
I don't agree that there should be an extra line for "extra measures to comply...". This will be addressed specifically by the second phase work. / To maintain as it is. The present flowcharts and linked footnotes express in an appropriate way the consideration of the non deterioration principle. It is not possible to go beyond without further guidelines.
Thomas Stratenwerth (Germany) / After coming into force of the national legislation the non-deterioration clause has to be enforced in the operational management of waters, e.g. in the framework of permitting.
However, it is not a priority issue of the planning process leading to the
programme of measures and the River Basin Management Plan as this process is focussed on those water bodies which are at risk of not achieving the objectives. Therefore, I disagree with Guido´s proposals concerning the flow-charts.
Guido Schmidt (WWF) / Chapter 6.4. All the different lines regarding active involvement should name the article 14.1 in the flowchart. This refers to the numbers 10,11,12,22,27,34,40,50,53,71,80,99,101,117,135,144. / Nobody / To maintain as it is. Public Participation is clearly included in task nº 159 covering the entire planning process and additional references can go against the flowcharts utility.
Guido Schmidt (WWF) / Page 87. Not include the guidance on planning process / Nobody / OK
Guido Schmidt (WWF) / Delete one of the members of WWF from the WG list / Nobody / OK