Status box
Working Group DIS Meeting (1-2 April 2014)
Agenda point: 3. Review of the WFD reporting guidance and schemas
Title: WFD Reporting Guidance 2016
Version no.:1.1
Date: 19March 2014
Following the endorsement by the Water Directors, in December 2013, of the way forward for the review of the WFD reporting requirements, a workshop took place in Brussels in January 2014 to discuss in some detail the modifications needed for the reporting guidance for 2016. The workshops was well attended by MS experts and relevant CIS WG leads.
The current document is the result of those reflections and takes into account contributions of other CIS Working Groups.
Due to time constraints, and a general check of consistency and harmonisation of style still needs to be done.
Please note that this document replaces version 1.0. The document was completed with the sections that were previously missing, but sections 1-7 were not modified.
Since the other Working Groups are being consulted through their leads and several of them are meeting in the month of March, further contributions from them can be expected before the meeting of the WG DIS. However, given the contributions already received from those Working Groups, in general these new contributions are not expected to lead to significant changes in the document.
WG-DIS members are invited to provide comments on this document and to endorse the revised reporting requirements being proposed.
Contacts:
Joaquim Capitão [
Jorge Rodriguez Romero [

WFD Reporting Guidance 2016

Draft v1.1

March 2013

Contents

1.Introduction

1.1.Purpose of this document

1.2.Principles of the review

1.3.Structure of the document

1.4.New reporting contents for 2016

1.5.Components of 2016 reporting

1.6.Mandatory vs voluntary reporting

1.7.Complementarity with other reporting streams

1.8.Summary of the main changes introduced since 2010 reporting

2.Reporting at surface water body level (schema SWB)

2.1.Characterisation

2.2.Pressures and impacts

2.3.Ecological status and exemptions

2.4.Chemical status and exemptions, and Mixing Zones

3.Reporting at groundwater body level (schema GWB)

3.1.Characterisation

3.2.Pressures and impacts

3.3.Quantitative status

3.4.Chemical status and exemptions

4.Monitoring (schemas SWM, GWM and monitoring)

4.1.Introduction

4.2.How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

4.3.Products from reporting

4.4.Contents of the 2016 reporting

5.Protected areas (schemas SWB, GWB and Prot Areas)

5.1.Introduction

5.2.How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

5.3.Products from reporting

5.4.Contents of the 2016 reporting

6.Reporting at MS level: Competent authorities, RBDs and Sub-units (schema RBDSUCA)

6.1.Introduction

6.2.How the Commission and EEA will use the information reported

6.3.Products from reporting

6.4.Contents of the 2016 reporting

7.Reporting at RBD/Sub-unit level for surface water (schema SWMET)

7.1.Methodologies characterisation

7.2.Methodologies classification ecological status and potential

7.3.Methodologies classification chemical status

7.4.Overall management objectives (nutrients, longitudinal continuity)

7.5.Definition of significant pressures and impacts

7.6.Methodologies exemptions

8.Reporting at RBD/Sub-unit level for groundwater (schema GWMET)

8.1.Methodologies characterisation groundwater bodies

8.2.Methodologies classification chemical status, upward trend assessment, trend reversal, quantitative status and transboundary coordination

8.3.Definition of significant pressures and impacts

8.4.Methodology exemptions

9.Reporting at RBD/Sub-unit level for RBMP (schema RBMP_POM)

9.1.RBMP dates, table of contents, more detailed programmes, justifications, public participation

9.2.Loads and emissions of pollutants to surface waters and groundwater

9.3.Water abstractions and exploitation of water resources

9.4.Inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances (NEW)

10.Programme of measures Reported at RBD/Sub-unit level (schema RBMP_POM)

10.1.Measures to tackle significant pressures

10.2.Measures to meet WFD objectives for Priority Substances

10.3.List of Key Types of Measure and quantitative indicators of the expected implementation over the second planning period

10.4.List of Measures

10.5.Detailed information on specific measures and aspects

10.6.Cost of measures

10.7.Coordination of measures in international RBDs

10.8.Progress with and achievements of the programme of measures for the first planning cycle

11.Reporting at RBD/Sub-unit level for economic analysis and cost recovery (schema RBMP_POM)

11.1.Introduction

11.2.Contents of the 2016 reporting

1.Introduction

1.1.Purpose of this document

Building on the achievements of existing EU water legislation, in 2000 the WFD introduced new and ambitious objectives to protect aquatic ecosystems in a more holistic way, while considering the use of water for life and human development. The WFD was hailed as a front runner in that it incorporates into a legally binding instrument the key principles of integrated river basin management: the participatory approach in planning and management at river basin scale; the consideration of the whole hydrological cycle and all pressures and impacts affecting it; and the integration of economic and ecological perspectives into water management. It provides a framework to balance high levels of environmental protection with sustainable economic development.

The WFD foresaw a long implementation process leading to the adoption of the first RBMPs in 2009 which describe the actions envisaged to implement the Directive. The plans are expected to deliver the objectives of the WFD including non-deterioration of water status and the achievement of good status by 2015.

The WFD introduced a number of key principles into the management and protection of aquatic resources:

(1) The integrated planning process at the scale of river basins, from characterisation to the definition of measures to reach the environmental objectives.

(2) A comprehensive assessment of pressures, impacts and status of the aquatic environment, including from the ecological perspective.

(3) The economic analysis of the measures proposed/taken and the use of economic instruments.

(4) The integrated water resources management principle encompassing targeting environmental objectives with water management and related policies objectives.

(5) Public participation and active involvement in water management.

The key objective of the WFD is to achieve good status for all water bodies by 2015. This comprises the objectives of good ecological and good chemical status for surface waters and good quantitative and good chemical status for groundwater.

The key tool for the implementation of the WFD is the RBMP and the accompanying Programme of Measures (PoM). The planning process is a step-by-step procedure in which each step builds on the previous one (see Figure >). Each step is important, starting from the transposition and the administrative arrangements, followed by the characterisation of the River Basin District (RBD), the monitoring and the assessment of status, the setting of objectives, the establishment of an appropriate programme of measures and its implementation including the monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures supporting the following RBMP cycle.

The PoM is the tool designed to enable the Member States to respond appropriately to the relevant pressures identified at RBD level during the pressures and impacts analysis, with the objective of enabling the river basin/water body to reach good status. For example, if a significant pressure is overlooked during the pressures and impacts analysis, the monitoring programme may not be designed to assess the pressure, and the programme of measures may not envisage action to address it. The RBMP is a comprehensive document describing the execution of water management and identifying all actions to be taken in the River Basin District.

Figure 1Schematic representation of the WFD planning process

Article 18 of the Directive requires the Commission to publish reports on the implementation of the Directive and to submit them to the European Parliament and to the Council.

The assessment is based on information reported by Member States, consisting of the published RBMPs and accompanying documentation, the electronic reporting through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) in predefined formats, and any additional background documents that the Member States consider relevant.

The RBMPs are comprehensive documents that cover many aspects of water management, consisting of hundreds to thousands of pages of information, published in national languages. The assessment of the RBMPs is a very challenging and complex task and involves dealing with extensive information in more than 20 languages. The quality of the Commission assessments relies on the quality of the Member States' reports. Bad or incomplete reporting can lead to wrong and/or incomplete assessments. It is recognised that reporting is a big effort for Member States, in particular the electronic reporting to WISE. There are examples of very good, high quality reporting. However, there are also cases where reporting contains gaps or contradictions.

The first reporting cycle and the related assessment by the Commission and the EEA was overall a positive exercise where all stakeholders have progressed a great deal in understanding the state of EU waters. However, it also resulted in a heavy workload, both at Member State and EU level. A thorough review of the reporting requirements for the River Basin Management Plans has been carried out.

As a result the Reporting Guidance has been substantially revised. This document presents that Guidance.

1.2.Principles of the review

The principles for the revision of reporting schemas, as agreed by Water Directors in Dublin in May 2013 are:

  • To clearly define the reporting requirements, specifying exactly the data and information needed to be reported, on the basis of the requirements of the WFD and when needed additional requirementsthat would have to be approved by the Water Directors.
  • To explore possibilities for additional information based on an identification of the outputs linked to compliance checking, EU-wide assessments and benchmarking also in view of the inter-linkages with the reporting on the other water related directives.
  • To keep the main lines of reporting to be able to keep track of the progress.
  • To simplify the schemas as much as possibleand fully integrate them the in ReportNet structure.
  • To limit and focus the changes made to the reporting sheets
  • To harmonise the reporting scales.
  • To limit the reporting at water body to the minimum necessary.

The contents of the data and information to be reported must be simplified and must lead to reduce the MS and COM workload and not only to lighten the process and schemas.

  • Electronic reporting should be focused on data + identification (through targeted questions) of where detailed information on methodology can be found in the RBMPs and accompanying documents, requiring searchable formats and secured availability. This will entails a very significant simplification of the methodological schemas (e.g. Monitoring programmes, SW and GW methodologies)
  • Simplify the structure of the schemas, concentrating on a "backbone" structure that would lead to a max 2-levels, enabling the easy production of queries
  • Ensure consistency across DPSIR chain (mainly through harmonisation of common schemas listing drivers, pressures, quality elements, impacts, measures, and specification of rules for the consistency check) enabling interoperability with other streams of reporting under water or other environmental legislation.

It is important to recall that reporting should be based on the obligations of the WFD, and not on the level of implementation. Even for the second RBMP it will be difficult for some Member States to provide all data and information related to the WFD obligations, due to gaps in implementation. This should not be a reason not to include the information request in the reporting exercise, as other Member States will be able to report and the ones lagging behind may be able to do it in the future.

1.3.Structure of the document

This document is considerably longer than the CIS Guidance number 20 (the 2010 Reporting Guidance). This is because the contents that were in separate documents are consolidated into a single guidance (e.g. the user guide for the schema, and the QA validation rules) and more detail and guidance is provided on the terms used.

This document is largely structured on the basis of the 2010 reporting schemas. Chapters are structured on the basis of the level of reporting (surface water body, groundwater body, RBD or Member State). This means that information on certain issue may be distributed in different chapters. For example data on status and pressures at water body level are in chapter 2 for surface water bodies and chapter 3 for groundwater bodies, whereas information on the methodologies on pressures and status are in chapters 7 and 8 respectively.

Each chapter and sub-chapter includes the following sections:

  • Introduction

Summarising the WFD obligations in the relevant topic and their role in the planning process.

  • How the Commission and EEA will use the information

Identifying how the Commission and EEA will use the information provided including the compliance checking and analysis that will be carried out and the products that will be developed from the information such as tables, graphs, charts and maps. The list of products in the guidance is not exhaustive, i.e. the Commission and the EEA may develop additional ones later on in close consultation within the CIS process.

  • Contents of the 2016 reporting
  • A sketch of the reporting schema to show how the data and information are structured in the files to be reported;
  • The data and GIS information to be reported, including quality assurance checks that will be incorporated into the electronic QA routines, in addition to the standard XML checks. This may include some targeted questions related to methodologies with closed list of replies.
  • Guidance on the expected content of RBMPs or background documents. This largely replaces the methodological summaries that were reported in 2010. It is not intended to be comprehensive in terms of what the Member States have to include in their RBMPs or background documents, rather to provide certain concrete elements of information that the Commission expects to find (see section on Components of the 2016 reporting below).
  • Glossary: clarification of terms and reporting requirements: in case it is considered that there is a need to clarify terms and reporting requirements, explanations are included in this section.

1.4.New reporting contents for 2016

Reporting of the second RBMP brings new elements into play, some due to legislation which was not fully in force at the time the first RBMP was adopted, others due to the fact that the second RBMP allows comparison with the first and therefore allows assessing of progress towards the objectives. The following paragraphs indicate a number of elements that will be new for the 2016 reporting and need to be addressed in the review of the WFD guidance.

In general terms, the second RBMP in 2015 provides the opportunity to compare the progress achieved since the adoption of the first RBMP in 2009. The assessment of progress can be performed in a number of aspects:

  • First and foremost, the progress towards the achievement of the environmental objectives, by comparing the status reported in the second and the first RBMPs. Following the discussions within the CIS (WG DIS, SCG and Water Directors), in addition to the reporting at global status (ecological, chemical), reporting should allow the assessment of progress achieved in individual quality elements.
  • The expected achievement of 2015 good status target. In the 2010 reporting this information was derived from the information on exemptions. This resulted in some difficulties of interpretation, in particular in relation to the water bodies with unknown status. It is proposed that it is explicitly requested to report at water body level if it is expected that the water body will achieve good status in 2015 or not[1]. This will provide MS more control of this key information and will avoid unexpected results in the aggregation process at EU level.
  • It is expected that the second RBMP will also bring about improvement of methodologies in many Member States. These improvements are expected to fill the gaps found in the first RBMPs.

WFD Annex VII part B also requires Member States to report in the second RBMP the changes since the first RBMP, in particular:

  • A summary of the reviews of the exemptions under article 4(4) to 4(7)
  • An explanation for any environmental objectives which have not been reached
  • A summary and an explanation of the measures foreseen in the first RBMP which have not been taken
  • A summary of the additional measures taken under article 11(5) since the publication of the first RBMP

Some Member States will re-delineate (some of) their water bodies as part of the review of the characterisation of the RBD.

The EQS Directive 2008/105/EC, as adopted in 2008, will be fully in force for the second RBMP. Some Member States did not implement the Directive in the first RBMP given the fact that transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the RBMP. The following elements of the EQS Directive which were not reported in 2010 are relevant for the second RBMP:

  • Inventory of emissions, discharges and losses
  • Trend monitoring in sediment and/or biota of priority substances
  • Mixing zones

In addition, Commission Directive 2009/90/EC (the QA/QC Directive) is also fully in force for the second RBMP.

As regards the Groundwater Directive, the assessment of trends of pollutants in groundwater will be possible for the first time in the second RBMP, by comparison of the monitoring results with the first.

1.5.Components of 2016 reporting

The 2010 reporting was made of 3 main components:

  • The RBMP, PoMs and background documents
  • The electronic structured information (XML files)
  • GIS layers

For the 2016 reporting, the same 3 components are expected. However, the experience of the 2010 reporting showed that reporting of methodologies through summary texts was not useful. It was often necessary to consult more detailed background documents to understand the approach taken by Member States. Consequently, it has been proposed to take an alternative approach, which will be based on targeted questions, as far as possible with a number of closed answers, and a precise reference to the section of the RBMP, PoM or background document where more information can be found. This approach will then be complemented with guidance on the contents of RBMPs, PoMs or background documents on specific issues, so that the necessary more detailed information can be found. It should be stressed, though, that this guidance on contents is not exhaustive, it covers only methodological elements which are deemed necessary to be reported. The RBMP should contain many other aspects as established in the WFD.