1st Implementation Report of the Water Framework Directive Water Directors Meeting - INARI 30 November 2006 1st Implementation Report of the Water Framework Directive

Content WFD Scoreboard Preparation of WFD implementation report First results on key issues First results on MS performance Next steps

J K J L J K “WFD Scoreboard” - Nov 2006 Country Trsp RBD Rep. Art5 rep. Austria J Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Country Trsp RBD Rep. Art5 rep. Greece K J Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxem-bourg L Malta Nether-lands Country Trsp RBD Rep. Art5 rep. Poland J Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain K Sweden United Kingdom Scoreboard and all MS reports publicly availble through: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-framework/

Implementation Report Commission Implementation report in accordance with Art. 18 (3) Based on (only) assessment MS reports on Art 3 and 5 and legal transposition instruments Form of publication: Communication Overall performance on WFD, links to wider context areas, policy messages and way forward Commission Staff Working Document Assessment per MS/RBD or issues, indicators and statistics, more detailed analysis

Implementation Report Documents will contain information on: Status of European Waters Performance of Member States so far Recommendations for period until 2009 Commission Actions Priniciples: Snap-shot of the situation in 2005/2006, no update envisaged Only based on formal MS reports (even if additional information is available) – thereby demostrating the advantages of WISE Highlighting perspectives for improvements until 2009

First results on key issues General aspects: Different ways of presentation under testing Few general figures in Communication, more details in technical document Incomplete data availability will limit the number of meaningful figures/maps Current examples: Surface water bodies at risk Implementation of UWWT Directive Percentage of HMWB

Example 1

Example 2 Current implementation levels for Urban Waste Water (91/271/EEC) “distance to target”

Example 3 Percentage of HMWB per (national part of) RBD

Performance of Member States Issues for which performance indicators have been developed: Legal transposition Administrative arrangements (quality of implementation Art. 3) Environmental and economic analysis (quality of implementation of Art. 5) Administrative performance (aggregation of Art 3 and 5 performance)

Performance of Member States Administrative arrangements (Art. 3) 5 key issues: Designation of river basin districts Competent authorities Administrative set-up Int. Co-ordination Data submission Scoring system - example: QUESTIONS… Is the RBD designated (largely) on the basis of hydrological catchment boundaries? Are the coastal and groundwaters clearly attributed to the RBD? ANSWERS/SCORES… 5 points: RBD clearly and correctly designated, 0 points if no or entirely inappropriate designation

Administrative arrangements (Art. 3) Performance – example 1 Administrative arrangements (Art. 3) Best practices Best practices Distance to target EU15 EU10

Performance – example 2 Administrative performance (deadline, complete & clear reports, follow-up)

Performance of Member States Environmental and economic analysis (Art. 5) Analysis of characteristics (4 questions – max. 8 points) Example question: Is the methodology for delineation of surface water bodies clear? Impact of human activity (15 questions – max. 30 points) 7 questions on surface waters, 8 questions on groundwater Example question: Is information on significant pollutants and their loads provided? Economic analysis of water use (3 questions – max. 6 points) Example question: Has information of the level of cost recovery been supplied? Protected areas (1 question – max. 2 points) Four key issues – many sub-issues:

Example: economic analysis Resource cost

Eight ideas for recommendations to Member States Implement fully ‘older’ EU environmental legislation Improve the implementation of economic instruments Put the ecological assessment schemes in place Assess impacts of new projects – apply 4.7 correctly Improve methodologies and comparability Close the data gaps in the Art. 5 reports Fully exploit financing tools Work with Commission/EEA to implement WISE

Eights ideas for Commission actions Continued partnership for CIS Fully implement WISE in collaboration with EEA/MS Assist in improving ecological assessment schemes Promoting the use of economic instruments Establish EU approach on cost/benefit assessment in water policy Address water scarcity and droughts Factoring climate change into river basin management Improve policy integration – agriculture, …

Follow-up until March Finalise technical analysis and validate internally results, if possible verify with WISE data Finalise Communication and technical report by mid-March Early-warning of Water Directors (submission on 20 March) EU Water Conference, 22 and 23 March 2007 Launch of WISE: water.europa.eu

Follow-up after March Bilateral contacts with some MS Priority according to analysis (where potential for progress is biggest) Regular feedback to WD and SCG Expand and improve public WISE together with MS! Next Commission report on Art 8 in Dec 2008 Big review report on RBMP in 2012 – major milestone! Until then, cooperation has precedence over formality – use the time!

Your are all invited to the European Water Conference 22/23 March 2007 in Brussels Invitations and programme will be available shortly