EU Water Framework Directive Article 8 – monitoring programmes Compliance checking Working Group D Reporting Brussels 31 March – 1 April 2008 Jorge Rodriguez Romero European Commission, DG Environment Unit D.2 – Water and Marine, WFD Team

General update on compliance checking exercise Contents General update on compliance checking exercise State of play Timelines Compliance checking concept

State of play Article 8 reporting 26 Member States reported (all but Greece, Malta only groundwaters) 24 Member States reported electronically through WISE !!! (Only MT, RO on paper, BG through WISE in February 2008) Extensive QA/QC on schema rules performed by EEA Most problems solved with bilateral contacts with data providers Thanks to all for their cooperation!

Some QA/QC issues found Among the most critical problems was the broken links between the stations files and the programmes files. This link is very important as the programmes file provides information on water category, quality elements monitored, etc Originally ~22000 broken links from 14 countries Currently ~3600 broken links from PL Pending QA/QC cases: PL And minor issues for EE, ES, BG Currently: 51114 groundwater stations 54093 surface water stations

SW SURVEILLANCE Total ~15000 stations SW OPERATIONAL Total ~40000 stations

9,2 Ratio SURVEILLANCE/OPERATIONAL 24 Density SURVEILLANCE / 1000 km2

Steps of compliance checking Report communicated? Start legal procedure No Yes If no completion All parts of reports complete and clear? Clarify with MS No Yes Update and completion Is report compliant for key issues/compliance indicators? Halt assessment Yes No Is report compliant after in-depth assessment? Halt assessment Yes No Decide upon follow up Verify assessment Clarify with MS Start legal procedure

Key issues Objectives of monitoring programmes Comprehensiveness Status of developments of methods Selection of quality elements Frequency of monitoring

Key issue 1: Objectives of monitoring programmes Have the following objectives in Annex 5 of WFD been taken into account in the design of the monitoring programme? Surveillance monitoring Supplementing and validating the impact assessment procedure detailed in Annex II Assess long-term changes in natural conditions Assess long-term changes resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity Operational monitoring Establish the status of those bodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives and assess any changes in the status of such bodies resulting from the programmes of measures Investigative monitoring Does the report provide any information on investigative monitoring?

Key issue 2: Comprehensiveness Is the report on monitoring programmes comprehensive? Does the report provide information of networks linked to the implementation of water Directives other than WFD, international obligations like river conventions or of voluntary agreements Is there any indication of international coordination in designing the monitoring networks

Key issue 3: Status of development of methods Are the methods available for the assessment of water status? What is the degree of development of the methods to assess ecological status of surface waters? Is there information on the level of confidence achieved by the methods?

Key issue 4: Selection of quality elements Which quality elements are used for the assessment of water status? At which level are the quality elements reported? Are surveillance monitoring (sub-) programmes comprehensive in terms of quality elements monitored? Is the selection of quality elements to monitor in operational monitoring (sub-) programmes in line with the requirements of the WFD?

Key issue 5: Frequency of monitoring What is the temporal intensity of monitoring? In general the WFD requires that the surveillance monitoring is carried out for a period of one year during the 6 years planning cycle. Does the report indicate higher frequencies than this minimum? The WFD provides indicative minimum monitoring frequency for biological quality elements operational monitoring. Does the report indicate higher frequencies than this minimum?

Monitoring programmes first impressions There are excellent examples! But also wide diversity Diversity of concepts E.g. surveillance vs operational Lack of integration of networks Monitoring effort varies widely Monitoring is cheaper than measures! Assessment methods still under development in many cases

Follow-up compliance checking monitoring programmes Concept paper and template for compliance checking will be presented to the Working Group D Reporting on 31 March - 1 April Compliance checking to be finalised by May-June 2008 Commission article 18 report in autumn 2008

Comments? Suggestions?