Terms of Reference
(Final Version 7th April 2003)
Contents
1.Scope of Work
2.A phased approach
3.Deliverables
4.Timetable
5.Annex I: Specific Key Issues to be addressed
Terms of Reference: Scope of the work
The overall objective of integrated testing (WG 4.1) is to contribute to the implementation of the WFD directive in the selected Pilot River Basins, leading in the long-term to the development of River Basin Management Plans. The specificity of the testing versus the real implementation is that the testing should be a front-runner of the actual implementation, with focus on Key Issues felt to be of particular relevance. Reporting in the context of the PRB activities will concentrate only on these Key Issues. It is important to stress that the integrated testing contributes to applying the many operational issues mentioned in the Guidance Documents (GD). In fact, many of the questions arising from the Key Issues will refer to operational aspects and therefore, they will be only solved after the guidance's application to real cases.
The objectives of the integrated testing are set around two deadlines: the first covering the 2002-third quarter of 2003 period, and the second aiming at mid 2004. These deadlines are based on the considerations that the actual implementation of the WFD is already taking place in many countries and that reporting from Member States to the Commission on specific issues of the Directive such as Article 5 and its Annexes is required in a relative short time. The WFD implementation should then take advantage as much as possible of the Pilot River Basin activities. To be useful, the integrated testing should start as early as possible.
A phased approach
Two Phases are envisaged to reach the predefined objectives:
Phase 1a: Focus on testing of Key Issues related to the reporting commitments on Article 5, set up an on-line dynamic feedback and information exchange, and identify new Issues as the testing process evolves and additional cross cutting problems appear.
The time frame of Phase 1a goes till the third quarter of 2003, concentrating primarily on issues in the Guidance Documents related to the reporting commitments on Article 5 due March 2005. A list of general and specific Key Issues reported in the Annex 1 of the ToR has been developed in collaboration with the different WG leaders. The information acquired during this phase should flow among the different PRBs concerning experience on how Key Issues will be addressed, but also between PRB and WG leaders on the interpretation, implementation, checking for coherence, etc. of specific technical issues of the GDs. Furthermore, this information will be made available to the river basins involved in the “regular” implementation of the WFD, so that they can benefit from the pilot testing experience. The end product will be a document based on the elaboration of the reports dealing with the Key Issues addressed during the testing phase.
Phase 1b: Testing of the guidance documents not tested in Phase 1a (to be run in parallel with Phase 1a). Continuation of information exchange.
During Phase 1b the work will concentrate on the Guidance Documents not included in Phase 1a. This work will run in parallel with Phase 1a. However, it will extend until mid-2004. The simultaneous testing to be done in Phases 1a,b will allow an integrated testing of all GDs. The reporting will also be based on the list of general and specific Key Issues reported in the Annex 1 of the ToR that was developed in collaboration with the different WG leaders. A similar approach will be used to ensure the flow of information between the PRBs and the WG leaders.
Phase 2: Further develop integrated testing to contribute to producing Program of Measures and a River Basin Management Plan.
The work envisaged during this Phase would initiate during the second half of 2004. In this context, it is important to remember that a Guidance Manual on planning process will be produced by the end of 2005 by WG 2.9. A merging of activities between 4.1 and 2.9 is foreseen in order to establish a new key activity “Integrated River Basin Management”. Because of the restructuring of the CIS organisation, additional details on the timetable would be provided at a later stage.
Deliverables
D1. Electronic platform for on-line dynamic feedback and information exchange
D2. Intermediate reports concerning specific issues that had to be addressed by the PRBs (Phase 1)
D3. Comprehensive report concerning the testing of the technical Guidance Documents including also a proposal for update. The manual should describe the implementation process through the various stages, from preliminary set-up and information gathering to the actual testing of the guidance and recommendation for improvement of the GDs. This document should be exhaustive and serve as a basis for possible modification of the GDs, and, at a later stage, for the establishment of Programme of Measures and the development of River Basin Management Plans.
D4. Programme of Measures/RBMP (to be agreed upon for delivery date)
Timetable
Time / 2002 / 2003 / 2004 / 2005 / 2006Actions / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4
Information Exchange
Testing related to Article 5 commitment (Phase 1a)
Integrated testing of other GDs (Phase 1b)
Programme of measures/RBMP (Phase 2)
Deliverables / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4
D1 / X
D2 / X
D3 / X / X
D4 / ?
Annex 4 to the Odense PRB Guidance Phase 1A reporting 30 September 2003.
Terms of Reference (26 August 2003)
Annex 1: General and Specific Issues to be addressed
Preface
An issue of concern before and during testing is the typology and the definition of water bodies. This should be ready before testing of Guidance Documents (GDs) can start.
1
Key issues of a general nature:
Name of PilotRiver Basin: Odense Pilot River Basin
Project leader: Harley Bundgaarård Madsen
Reporting period: 1 Jjanuary -30. September 2003
Status: Final
Key issues of a general nature (common for all guidance documents)Organisational aspects for the testing / A
How did you organise the sharing and the diffusion of information? / A1GD 2.4 COAST
Through organizing working groups and a steering group with regular meetings, information dissemination via a local server network and e-mail, and from November 2003 also via a homepage.
Public information was organized through public meetings and advisory boards.
How did you organise the collection of the data needed? / A2GD 2.4 COAST
Most of the data needed are provided through existing national and regional monitoring programmes. New ways of collating and analysing data in accordance with PRB needs were organized through the working groups. Consultants are joining the project with a co-interest in developing new tools etc. for the future WFD work and are, for example, analysing data in small watercourses, where the present knowledge is limited.
How did you organise the capacity-building of staff and other partners? Did you use the guidance documents as they were on all operational levels or did you for example transform them into instructions for different administrations? / A3GD 2.4 COAST
The GDs were used as they were at all operational levels, and were not translated into Danish.
Which organisational problems did you identify? Did you find a solution for them? / A4GD 2.4 COAST
A project organisationnew cooperation structure was needed to integrate the work on wetlands, surface waters and groundwater as these areas are traditionally handled by different administration units. These new forms of cooperation were organized through the working groups, but were very time-consuming.
Did you involve the stakeholders & general public in the testing? If yes, how? / A5GD 2.4 COAST
Stakeholders and the general public were involved through 2 separate advisory boards, one with regional political and national/regional NGO representatives and one with national and expert representatives. These boards meet twice yearly. The planned homepage will contain an information discussion sitesite open only to members of the project and the boards.
The preliminary Art. 5 report will be sent to the advisory boards for commenting, and will also be presented at the regular Regional Spatial Plan meetings with local authorities and the general public during autumn 2003.
Did the involvement of these stakeholders & general public lead to changes or improvements concerning the data collected, or the content and the results of the testing? / A6GD 2.4 COAST
Local knowledge from farmers and NGOs was useful, especially for analyses of wetlands and small watercourses. Dialogue with the national experts and consultants on specific issues such as classification and reference conditions was established. As national guidance and tools for classification etc. have not yet been developed, this information sharing did not lead to any substantial changes, but rather to a common developmental process.
What experiences can you extract from this exercise for the implementation of art. 14? / A7GD 2.4 COAST
Stakeholders and the public can be involved through the existing regional spatial planning procedure, but more initiatives are needed. As these are very time-consuming, the necessary resources have to be allocated to this task in good time. Meetings every half year with stakeholders and other partners combined with a homepage is a good way to keep the public informed. When the work on programmes of measures starts, a closer involvement will be needed.
Clarity of the Guidance / B
Is the guidance readable and understandable? If not, can you make suggestions for improvement / B1GD 2.1 IMPRESS
Generally easy to read and understand. Clear, straightforward language. Simple but relevant figures and boxes.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: In our opinion the GDs are generally understandable with instructive tables and figures, but are generally too long and often repetitive GD 2.2 (+ toolbox) in particular is rather difficult to follow. We suggest that the GDs should be shortened in such a way as to only contain clear, easily understandable messages and examples, with a short reference to the other GDs and the WFD. Many terms used in the GD need more stringent definitions, e.g “ hydromorphology”. The case studies given lack a description of the watercourse size and the specific problems, see also answer to B5.
Lakes: See watercourses.
GD 2.3 REFCOND
Watercourses: Yes. But practical examples would be desirable. Our comments are preliminary, due to the early state of our work on watercourses. Thus, we have spentded much time considering how to handle the WFD-rules having only few undisturbed reaches, few historical data, no paleolimnological data, few or no reference data on some of the quality elements and no models yet.
Lakes: Yes.
GD 2.4 COAST
The GD is understandable, but needs more concrete examples, especially on:- How to define the limit between transitional and coastal waters
- How to establish reference conditions from known areas/models/historical data.
The GD is very comprehensive, and has been of great help.
GD 2.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The GDs are well written and presented in an easily understandable language.
Do you think that the objective of this guidance document, the way it was elaborated, its status and its significance / juridical importance are clear? / B2
GD 2.1 IMPRESS
Yes.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: Yes. However, we wonder whether Chapter 1 in GD 2.2 is really needed (see remarks to B3).
Lakes: See watercourses.
GD 2.3 REFCOND
Watercourses: Yes.
Lakes: Yes.
GD 2.4 COAST
Yes.
GD 2.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Yes.
Are the requirements of the WFD clearly explained? Please indicate where you identified shortfalls! / B3
Generally, all the GD’s should start with a short presentation of WFD, stating the same requirements. In the present GD-versions, the presentation of the WFD differs from GD to GD.
GD 2.1 IMPRESS
More focus would have been relevant, differentiating between:
- Specific Art. 5 demands/obligations for reporting
- The full WFD implementation process.
It can be difficult to distinguish between “driving forces” and “pressures”, as is also indicated by some of the tables in GD 2.1.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: Yes, but we wonder whether WFD requirements really need to be explained in each GD (rather than just giving the reference).
Lakes: See watercourses.
GD 2.3 REFCOND
Watercourses: Yes.
Lakes: Yes.
GD 2.4 COAST
Yes.
GD 2.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No shortfalls identified as yet.
Does the distinction between requirements of the directive and good / best practices appear as sufficiently clear? Please indicate where you identified shortfalls! / B4
GD 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 IMPRESS
We do not fully understand the question. If good/best practice is not an issue in the WFD, why this question? The meaning of good/best practice is difficult to define.?
N
Not mentioned in the IMPRES GD!
We
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: We are uncertain of the meaning of good/best practices.
Lakes: See watercourses.
GD 2.3 REFCOND
Watercourses: We are uncertain of the meaning of this question, but think that the GD’s probably do not contains a full description of good/best practices. Thus far, the GD’s appears rather theoretical on this issue..
Lakes: We have not yet been working with the REFCOND guidance in detail. The definition of reference conditions, the typology and the ecological class boundaries are set up by the National Environmental Research Institute (NERI).
GD 2.4 COAST
The meaning of good/best practice is difficult to define.
GD 2.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Completely clear descriptions of which requirements have to be met via the WFD and which additional requirements it is recommended to meet.
Would you like to find more precisions on the different points which are developed in this guidance? For which aspects? / B5
GD 2.1 IMPRESS
Significant pressure analyses
More examples needed on “driving forces” and types of pressure, especially in relation to agriculture.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: More precision is needed on many terms, e.g We suggest that ‘watercourses’, ‘artificial watercourses’, and ‘hydromorphology’, ‘disproportional costs’, to mention the most important terms, should be defined more precisely in GD 2.2 (see see also specific remarks in 2.2).
Lakes: See watercourses.
GD 2.3 REFCOND
Watercourses: We suggest a precise description of the ‘one out - of all out principle’.
Lakes: See B4.
GD 2.4 COAST
More precision, and some concrete examples, on how to define the limit of transitional waters, and how to define reference conditions.
GD 2.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
We need to work using the GD before we can acknowledge any shortfalls.
Do you identify some redundancies and where? / B6
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: There are several redundancies – actually too many to be specified.
Lakes: See watercourses.
GD 2.3 REFCOND
Watercourses: Not identified so far.
Lakes: See B4.
GD 2.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
No.
Coherence between Guidance documents / C
Do you think this guidance is coherent with the other guidance documents you tested?
If not, where and why?
Specific issues for which coherence problems might occur :
-REFCOND/COAST/water bodies
-INTERCALIBRATION/Monitoring: focus on (availability) of biological data
-HMWB / economics : economic analysis, disproportionate cost
-Public information and participation / economics : evaluation of cost recovery, identification of human activities being at stake
-Water bodies horizontal guidance / HMWB
-IMPRESS / HMWB
-……………………..
-……………………..
-……………………..
Are there sufficient cross-references to clarify the linkages between the guidance document?
Are there any incompatibilities between approaches, tools, methods proposed in the guidance documents? / C1
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: Water bodies/HMWB: Yes.
Lakes: See watercourses.
GD 2.3 REFCOND
Watercourses: Yes.
Lakes: See B4.
GD 2.4 COAST
More coherence with the water bodies, REFCOND and HMWB GDs would be useful, especially as the HMWB GD primarily describes issues of relevance for watercourses and not for coastal waters (see also 2.2-4 and 2.2-5). The linkage between the HMWB, REFCOND, COAST and water bodies GDs is not easy to extract, and some incompatibilities exist. The GD 2.3 is also useful to gdGD 2.4, and this should be specified more precisely in both GD’s.
GD 2.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
It has not presently been possible to assess the coherence between the present GD and other GDS.
The linkage between the HMWB, COAST and water bodies GDs is not easy to extract, and some incompatibilities exist.
Methods proposed in the Guidance / D
Are the methods proposed acceptable and operational? If not, why? What should be improved, modified or added? / D1
GD 2.1 IMPRESS
General approach OK.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: The methods in the GD are somewhat theoretical and difficult to handle, and hence are not sufficiently operational. For example, step 5 uses expressions such as "is it likely" that a water body cannot attain good ecological status, which is a subjective criterion. Moreover, it is very difficult to answer in that many factors other than changes in hyromorphology play a role. It appears that the test is unnecessarily subdivided into steps 5 and 6. In step 5 it is exclusively hydromorphology that determines the failure to attain good ecological status. Lack of attainment of good ecological status might just as well be due to physical changes. The subdivision therefore seems illogical. The test should use clearer, less ambiguous words. For example, what exactly is meant by hydromorphology? (see 2.2).
Lakes: See watercourses.
GD 2.3 REFCOND
Watercourses: We find the methods in GD 2.3 somewhat theoretical and difficult to handle and therefore not quite operational. We suggest more practical examples for all WB’s.
Lakes: See B4.
GD 2.4 COAST
As lack of knowledge is stated many times throughout the GD, the suggested methods are often too theoretical or unspecified. Greater focus, (examples and references, e.g. to the numerous scientific studies of macrophytes and benthos) on the use of historical data (which are often available) for establishing reference conditions for coastal areas is urgently needed.
GD 2.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The methods seem to be acceptable and operational but we lack practical experience.
Does the guidance document bring sufficient technical elements to implement operationally the requirements of the WFD in the field concerned by this guidance?
Does the “tools kit” allow you to start and go from theory to practice? / D2
GD 2.1 IMPRESS
Yes.
At least as inspiring approaches.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: The GD toolboxes are inspiring, but are these the same as a tool-kit?
Lakes: See watercourses.
GD 2.3 REFCOND
Watercourses: We find the tool-boxes of GD 2.3 inspiring, but we would appreciate some practical examples.
Lakes: See B4.
GD 2.4 COAST
No, see above.
The examples of present classification systems are illustrative, but are not a ‘tool kit’ as all the examples need thorough revision before they can be used, for example in our coastal waters.
GD 2.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
We lack practical experience.
Among the tools and methods which are proposed in this guidance, do you think that some are difficult to implement and why?
(for technical, social, cultural, political, economical reasons) / D3
GD 2.1 IMPRESS
Some tools mentioned and examples given in the Appendix. Although inspiring they have not been implemented in this rather early stage of WFD implementation, however. We have primarily relied on the experience and methods gained through monitoring and environmental management.
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: We find the designation test in GD 2.2 rather difficult to handle especially regarding step 8, "Designation test". The methods are very abstract and non-operational. The methods mentioned appear to be very resource-heavy and are virtually impossible to carry out as part of a planning process. For example, to determine whether an "other means" is technically feasible might necessitate carrying out extremely expensive and laborious technical investigations. Once it has been determined whether "other means" are technical feasible, cost estimates have to be prepared. What is the meaning of "disproportionately costly" of "other means" in step 8? This is a very diffuse term. The magnitude of the financing allocated to improving the aquatic environment in Denmark is decisive for determining where to draw the line for "disproportionately costly" in the WFD. Finally, political consideration has to be given to the economic framework and possibilities in relation to the WFD and other activities under the responsibility of the political authorities (see 2.2).
Lakes: See watercourses.
GD 2.3 REFCOND
Watercourses: Our work is not finished yet, and it is therefore difficult to answer the question.
Lakes: See B4.
GD 2.4 COAST
Yes, see earlier remarks D1 and D2
GD 2.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
As above.
Do you think that some aspects have not to be included in this guidance? / D4
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: See earlier remarks.
Lakes: See watercourses.
GD 2.3 REFCOND
Watercourses: No.
Lakes: See B4.
GD 2.4 COAST
See earlier remarks
GD 2.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
As above.
On the contrary, do you think that some aspects are lacking?
Which aspects should be developed? / D5
GD 2.3 REFCOND
See B4.
GD 2.4 COAST
See earlier remarks and specific remarks in 2.4.
GD 2.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
As above.
Do you need more concrete examples (for example concerning the current practices in Member States)? / D6
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: See 2.2.
Lakes: See watercourses.
GD 2.3 REFCOND
Watercourses: Yes!
Lakes: See B4.
GD 2.4 COAST
Yes, see earlier remarks D2
GD 2.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
More examples would make no difference in the concrete situation and those that are presented provide an overview of the necessary varied approaches to the topic.
Which pitfall(s) / obstacles would you identify in the recommended process & methods?
Could you propose any solution to this problem? / D7
GD 2.2 HMWB
Watercourses: See 2.2.
Lakes: See watercourses.
GD 2.3 REFCOND
Lakes: See B4.
GD 2.4 COAST
Yes, see answers to 2.4
GD 2.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
We would like to see comments as to what extent it is recommendable to reward stakeholders financially for participating in actual investigative studies. And to the extent that it is recommendable, it would be advantageous to know how great a sum is acceptable relative to the economy of the whole project.
Does the guidance help to achieve a common approach in transboundary river basins? / D8
GD 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.9: HMWB
Not relevant in our PilotRiver Basin.
GD 2.3 REFCOND
Watercourses: We have no experience in our Pilot River Basin
Lakes: We do not have transboundary river basins.
GD 2.9 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The present Pilot River Basin is not transboundary, and we will not have the opportunity to use the GDs in a common approach. Sønderjylland County will use them on the watercourses travers the border with Germany.In areas with transboundary river basins, however, it will depend on how the individual authorities define terms from the test such as “significant physical alterations”, “disproportionate costs” etc. The GD does not help to achieve a common approach to the WFD with regard to these central definitions.
1