Meeting of Working Group 2D

Meeting of Working Group D on Reporting under the Water Framework Directive

from 10:00to 18:00on 28/04/2010

Building of DG Environment (BU-5) – Room C
Avenue de Beaulieu 5, B-1160 Brussels, Belgium

Draft Minutes

1. Adoption of the Agenda

Jorge Rodriguez-Romero (DG Env, Chair) (JRR) welcomed the participants to the meeting.He emphasised that one of the main points for discussion would be the review of the reporting of the river basin management plans (RBMPs)and noted that he was glad a number of Member States had expressed interest in providing feedback on their experiences. JRR noted that a lot of investment has been made in the RBMP reporting by both the Commission and the MemberStates and that therefore it is important to start reviewing the process and identifying what can be improved for the future. JRR went on to inform the meeting that the Agenda also included a number of interesting information points and noted that there would be a presentation on the Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE) under AOB.The Agenda was adopted without further amendment.

1. Adoption of the Minutes of the last Meeting of WGD on 29-30September 2009

JRR noted that comments on the minutes of the previous meeting had been received from France. These would be discussed bilaterally and the minutes amended. The Minutes were adopted without further amendment.

1. Reporting for WFDRiver Basin Management Plans:

a)Recall of the process and tools (Atkins)

Jon Maidens (Atkins) (JM) made a presentation.

b)Update on status of reporting and quality assurance process (EEA-Atkins)

JM made a presentation. JRR thanked JM for his presentations and asked the Member States to give their feedback on the Validation Assessment reports and noted that a resubmission of data may be required as a result. It was clarified that the Quality Assurance rules for each schema are identified in the Guidance.

JRR made a presentation showing the current state of play with respect to MemberState reporting on the RBMP. He asked those Member States who have not yet reported to provide DG Env with an update of when they are likely to report. He noted that the same presentation will be made to the SCG and Water Directors. As yet the scoreboard on reporting is not uploaded on DG Env’s web-page, but may be in the future. It was noted that some Member States had uploaded information despite the RBMPs not having been adopted (e.g. Greece and Spain). In these cases the information uploaded is based on the draft plans or other information and a further submission will be required once the plans have been finalised. It was emphasised that the purpose of the table is merely to present what has been reported rather than making a judgement on the quality of the reports, and it was agreed that the table requires further clarification in this regard to ensure that it cannot be misinterpreted.

c)Feedback from MemberStates and discussion (all)

AT provided a verbal update during which it was noted that the XML structure is currently being finalised and it is hoped to upload it in the coming weeks. AT has found it quite time consuming to input all the information into the tables and hope that the information can be used for other reporting streams, for example a questionnaire that will shortly be distributed by Eurostat. Bo Jacobsen (EEA) (BJ) and Beate Werner (EEA) (BW) together informed the meeting that the information reported to WISE is being provided to Eurostat and that the questionnaire should be pre-filled with this information prior to distribution to the Member States. JRR clarified that an exercise to identify the extent of the overlap between information streams has been carried out with Eurostat and that the intention is that the exchange of information continue to ensure that the Member States do not have to report the same information twice. This issue would be raised at the next WISE Steering Group meeting in June to ensure that the process is happening as agreed.

BE also provided a verbal update from the Flemish and Walloon regions. The Flemish representative noted that a number of technical issues had been encountered with the access tool and the XML which had required a large amount of time to resolve. In particular the restriction on the number of characters allowed in some text fields had presented problems. It was not known whether the problems with the access tool had been reported to the helpdesk. JRR and JM encouraged the Member States to use the helpdesk as it would save them time and effort. All issues should be reported, even if they have been resolved. The Walloon representative noted that there would be a delay in reporting, and that a response to the letter that had been received from the Commission would be provided soon. Despite the delay in adopting the RBMP, the region would respect the deadline of December 2012 for the implementation of the Programme of Measures.

ES made a presentation (available on Circa). JRR thanked the representative for his presentation and noted that the RBMP reporting exercise has been used to improve co-ordination in Spain. It was noted that quality assurance and validation checks would be carried out on all data provided but that the detailed assessment on the content of the plans would not be start until the plans have been finalised.

FI made a presentation (available on Circa). JRR thanked the presenter and welcomed him to the group and went on to remind the group that the schemas are a direct reflection of the reporting sheets that were discussed and agreed in this Working Group. It is important to remember the discussions held on the sheets and that the conclusions reached were sometimes difficult. As a result the guidance is not always clear and this is an aspect that can be improved in the future. Some of the flexibility allowed for in the reporting sheets has resulted in the schemas being more complex. It was agreed that a further discussion should take place once the evaluation of the information provided had been completed.

FR made a presentation (available on Circa). JRR thanked the speaker for his contribution and went on to note that many of the issues that have been identified since October 2009 had not been identified during the testing as insufficient data was available. The decision was taken not to change the schemas, but the tools have been changed to fix any bugs that have been identified. It was suggested that in the future the reporting sheets and the schemas should be developed in parallel, and it was agreed that this should be considered when developing the 2013 reporting sheets. JRR also asked the presenter to provide more information bilaterally as to where he believed there was a lack of co-ordination between WISE and the GIS Guidance and where Eionet and WISE could be better harmonised.

IT made a presentation (available on Circa). JRR thanked the presenter.

PT provided the following statement.

“Portugal is well aware of the delay in the publication of the river basin management plans foreseen in article 13 of the WFD. As we have recently informed the Commission, the main reasons that lead to this situation are institutional ones. As a fact, the Portuguese piece of legislation that transposes the WFD into national law, foresees a decentralized institutional framework to implement some of its actions and measures. The “Water Law” (Law 58/2005 dated the 29th December) established a new institutional framework for water governance in Portugal, based on environmental and management principles, through the establishment of new River Basin District Administrations (ARHs), alongside with the Water Institute (INAG) as the National Water Authority.

It turned out that ARH´s organizational start-up was a complex and time consuming process. Therefore, the ARHs only started its full official existence in October 2008. There are five ARHs in the Portuguese mainland and two more in Azores and Madeira, to whom the process for the elaboration of the RBMP’s is committed to.

Right now, and as a result of a series of call for tenders, the District Administrations are elaborating 10 RBMP, being expected, by mid 2011, to have them all available for public consultation.

We also stress that the fact of not having these RBMP in force will not necessarily jeopardize the compliance with the goals set for 2015 in the WFD, since several management programs are working on that same direction – like the measures from the 2001 basin plans, the strategic plan for water supply and wastewater services, the national strategy for agro-industrial and agro-food industries or the river restoration initiatives. Another essential development is the establishment of a new policy for water prices in Portugal – Decree Law 97/2008, 11th June –, which is now being implemented following a strong public debate. The new institutional framework is seen as a fundamental tool for improving water management in our country.”

SE made a presentation (available on Circa). JRR thanked the presenter.

UK made a presentation (available on Circa). JRR thanked the presented and noted that the issue of flexibility versus comparability and ensuring the balance between them is interesting and one that will need further investigation when the results of the analysis are known.

In concluding the discussion JRR stated that the feedback had been extremely useful and that a number of ideas had been identified that should be considered when the 2013 reporting is discussed. He observed that a lot of progress has been made in the last five years and that it is interesting to note that in some Member States that the WFD reporting process has been the driver to establish internal structures that will increase the amount of information that is available on water. JRR also re-emphasised to those Member States that have yet to report that they should use the helpdesk if they encounter any problems because not only will it make life easier for those involved in the process it will also improve the quality of reporting an enable bugs to be identified.

d)Proposals for presentation of RBMP information in WISE (WRc)

Sarah France (WRc) (SF) made a presentation.JRR asked the Member States to provide comments on the presentation by 14 May 2010. The Member States were also asked to identify any element of information that should not be displayed in WISE or that should not be displayed in a certain way. A concept paper will be developed and distributed to the Working Group for comment. It will be implemented in WISE according to the available resources and timelines. The Commissions intention is to display some information in WISE in 2010 but the level of ambition will depend on the resources available. A discussion followed during which the following points were noted:

• The list of indicators in the presentation is illustrative, but will be exhaustive in the concept paper.
• The only water bodies that will be displayed in WISE will be those in the main rivers or lakes. However, all water bodies will be used for the calculation of summary statistics and indicators (e.g. impact).
• Some information (e.g. reference datasets) will available for downloading, but the Commission is aware that there may be some licensing issues. Member States were asked to inform the Commission if this will be an issue for their data.

1. Assessment of the River Basin Management Plans (DG ENV)

a)Update on the process (ENV/EEA)

JRR reminded the meeting that a discussion had been held at the last Working Group on the basis of a concept paper on how to assess a RBMP. The concept paper had also been presented to the SCG and Water Directors. The Commission had received a lot of useful comments as a result. The intention of the document was to share some thinking of what the Commission intended to do as part of the assessment of the RBMPs and to obtain some feedback. In the process there were a lot of misunderstandings as to the objectives of the concept paper. The introduction to the paper clearly stated that the intention was not to limit the assessment to a compliance assessment but to also carry out some policy effectiveness analysis and therefore of the questions identified within the paper were not related to legal analysis but to policy analysis in order to identify what was going on in the different Member States. Despite the explanation in the introduction to the concept paper some of the feedback received related to the fact that some of the questions are not related to legal compliance.

The concept paper is the main reference for the Commission to developing further the tools for assessment of the RBMP. The Commission is currently working on this intensively to develop more detailed templates for assessment.This is an internal process and the Commission does not intend to share this with the Member States at the current time. The feedback received on the concept paper has been sufficient to enable the Commission to develop an assessment that will produce useful and reliable outcomes.

The Commission is now starting the quality assurance and validation of the electronic submissions. Once this has been completed the assessment of the contents of the submissions will begin. The majority of the work will start in august and it is anticipated that the first assessment of the plans will trigger some bilateral feedback with Member States for clarification of some points. The assessment is a complex process for the Commission, a large amount of information has been received in 21 languages. A process is in place but it may be some time before every MemberState has received feedback. The Commission is working closely with the EEA on the process.

b)Summary of WISE electronic delivery: presentation of example (WRc)

JRR went on to inform the meeting that one of the important tools that is being developed is a “Summary of the WISE electronic delivery” that will provide the XML file in a word document. The intention was to distribute a dummy document in time for this meeting but this was not possible due to time constraints. This will provide DG Env with access to the information in an easily readable format, and will also be useful to the Member States to see what was reported. A summary report will be produced for each RBD and will include a completeness check that will identify whether information is missing at a high level.

SF made a presentation (available on Circa).

JRR informed the meeting that the Commission’s intention is to make the summary reports publically available, although they won’t be published on the Commission’s web-page. It is possible that they will be made available through Reportnet as an outcome of the analysis of the information sent. The Commission will therefore ask the Member States to check the reports and to restrict any information that has been already marked as not being for public disclosure.

The dummy report will be developed and distributed to the Working Group for comment within the next two weeks. This will include some fake information in order to give an impression of the type of document that will be produced. The document will be mainly factual and will be automatically generated for all information that has been submitted, including those where the RBMPs have not been finalised.

JRR clarified that as the tool is to be used at an RBD level, summaries at national or international level will not be provided. It was also clarified that the automatic translation that will be carried out is to assist the Commission and that the assessments will be carried out by experts to speak the national language.

1. State of the Environment reporting (EEA)

BW made a presentation (available on Circa).

1. Information on reporting activities other than WFD

a)Reporting under the Floods Directive (ENV/Atkins)

JM updated the meeting with respect to the tools available for reporting on the Floods Directive which are now available. The same schemas have been used for Floods Directive as for WFD Article 3 reporting and Member States are only required to report if the management arrangements are different.Where Competent Authorities are the same but the roles have not been reported under the WFD then the Commission expects that these will be reported. The deadline for reporting is 26 May 2010. Working Group F has already agreed a set of reporting sheets for the next reporting exercise and the elaboration of the schemas will be progressed in the next few months.

b)Streamlining WFD/Nitrates/SOE reporting (ENV)

JRR recalled the presentation made at the last meeting and noted that the Commission has also informed the SCG and Water Directors of this work. It was agreed that the Commission would send Member States a questionnaire to ascertain the position. Such a questionnaire has been prepared jointly between the water unit, the unit dealing with the Nitrates Directive and agricultural issues, and the EEA and was sent to the Water Directors on 21 April 2010. Thequestionnaire seeks to gather information on how the monitoring and reporting programmes for the three reporting streams have been established to identify the overlap between them, how the design is evolving over time and whether there is an intention within the Member States to integrate the three streams. Agnieszka Romanowicz (DG Env) (AR) emphasised that DG Env would appreciate responses to the questionnaire as this is a first step towards harmonisation and the achievement of the objective to “report once, use many”. The results will be used to inform the forthcoming review of the Nitrates Directive reporting requirements. JRR informed the meeting that the Commission will present feedback on the questionnaire at the next meeting. He also reminded the group that the Water Directors have been asked to provide one response per MemberState.