2nd European Water Conference, Brussels, 2-3 April 2009 Active Involvement in River Basin Management – Plunge into the debate! http://water.europa.eu/participate

Sessions Public participation in the planning process What will the River Basin Management Plans deliver? Water and agriculture – a core challenge? Sustainable modifications to our water courses? Focus on hydropower and navigation Water pricing: sending the right price signals on sustainable water use The challenge of 2015 – environmental objectives and exemptions Emerging issues in European Water management

Much is happening in Europe for better water management… Conclusions Much is happening in Europe for better water management… …but still not enough! It can take time to restore water body, replenish a GW resource – long term perspective needed Implementation of pre-WFD Directives like old GWD is a minimum requirement, a starting point Balance the need for renewable energy sources with care to the aquatic environment Responsibility of agriculture for water quality, to reduce pollution at source

Working together for sustainable water management Public and stakeholder active participation ...that really makes a difference Cooperation among administrations (national, regional, local) Integrated management of drivers, pressures and impacts International cooperation Joint responsability, joint coordinated action The new governance established by the WFD includes - Active public and stakeholder involvement and participation, going beyond simple consultation. Public participation is not about giving up the responsibilities on decision making, but about making transparent and well informed decisions. - Cooperation among administrations at various levels is critical. River basin management planning is not a matter of water managers only. Engagement of those administrations responsible for regulating sectoral policies is very important for the effectiveness and the ultimate success of the plans. - Finally, all countries in the EU except MT and CY share some water courses with neighbouring countries (see the map). The WFD enshrines international cooperation, also beyond EU borders, as a necessary element to achieve sustainable water management. Solving downstream problems is a joint responsibility of upstream countries, and properly coordinated programmes of measures should achieve much more than the simple addition of national actions. All in all, governance issues are very important for the success of the WFD implementation. Decisions taken in 2003 and 2004 on the so called “administrative arrangements” will have an important share on the success or failure of the WFD implementation, in particular in countries with complex administrative structures. Now it is the time to see if the choices made at that time deliver.

Draft river basin management plans Significant effort in a number of MS On time? 16 Member States published: BG, CZ, IE, FI, FR, DE, EE, HU, LU, LV, NL, PL, RO, SE, SK, UK BE (3 out of 4), ES (1 out of 24), LT (1 out of 4) AT, CY, DK, EL, IT, MT, PT, SI – South of Europe is nearly completely missing! Complete? Important gaps: HU, RO, SK BUT THERE ARE GOOD EXAMPLES OF COMPLETENESS AND LEVEL OF AMBITION, WHICH SHOWS THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO PREPARE SUCH PLANS This Conference is held in the middle of the consultation period foreseen in the WFD for the draft river basin management plans, that should have been published by 22 December 2008. 16 countries have published their draft plans to date, 3 more for some RBDs only. 9 countries have not published the draft plans yet. According to the survey made by the consultants, draft plans published in HU, RO and SK show important gaps and are incomplete on important aspects. Some like HU indicate the intention to publish a more complete draft plan later on.

State of play and level of ambition +16% +2% +7% +13% +51% +27% +37% +20% Starting points are very different. As we see in this chart, the percentage of surface water bodies in good status or better varies among Member States. But the level of ambition of the plans are also different. In some cases the impact of the river basin management plans is expected to be low in terms of increased water bodies reaching good status, in particular in CZ, UK. In some countries or RBDs it is not possible to extract the information, either because there is no projection of water bodies reaching good status in 2015 or because this information is only in maps (the latter not being very transparent as information). Some countries indicate ambitious targets for 2015, like BG and IE. But, on what is the basis for the assessment of ecological status ? Average of percentages for national river basin districts. DE based on data from 5 river basin districts only.

Transparency in decision making Use of exemptions Extension of deadlines Temporary derogation (floods, droughts) Less stringent objective New modifications Insignificant use of the exemption for new modifications Reasons not clear In most cases justification for less stringent objective not found or not clear That’s not what the WFD requires! Transparency is very important in all decision making and in particular in the use of exemptions. As a general rule, good status is to be achieved in 2015. The WFD allows exempting water bodies from achieving this objective under certain conditions. The exemption can be to extend the deadline, article 4.4, which as we can see on the chart on the left is used in a large majority of the 120 draft plans analysed. It can also be to achieve a lower objective than good status, article 4.5, and this is used in much lower number of dRBMPs. According to the WFD, the exemptions need to be justified in the RBMP. On article 4.5 the consultants found that in most cases the justification was not there or was not clear. This is not what the WFD requires and it is not what we agreed with Water Directors in the CIS process! As regards the exemption on new modifications, the intended use is insignificant, only very few dRBMPs indicated some projects that may likely cause deterioration in status and in which they intend to use article 4.7 exemption. This is, to say the least, surprising, given for example the expansion of hydropower that is currently happening in many countries to meet the targets for renewable energy. Reasons for these low use of 4.7 are not clear. COM expects well developed justifications for the use of exemptions and will study these closely!

Programme of measures Level of detail vary considerably Information on costs and financing Only 9 out of 16 programmes analysed include information on costs of measures Climate change and Programmes of measures (POM) Will Climate Change be an issue in the first RBMP? 18 4 Will RBMP contain a separate chapter on CC? 9 Will the RBMP undertake a climate check of POMs? 10 8 Will specific measures for CC adaptation be included into first Programmes of measures? 6 13 3 No. of Member States replies (22) – based on a informal questionnaire received in July 2008 Yes No separate chapter, but CC included into different chapters Answer is undecided or unclear No The level of detail of the measures vary considerably. Some draft plans include detailed information about the extent of the measures, the geographical scope, its legal nature if appropriate, the funds allocated and the responsibilities to carry out the work. On the other end, some draft plans include just some brief description of the measures proposed, with no details about what the measures would involve, how much would they cost or who would be responsible for implementing them. It is difficult to have an informed discussion about measures in the consultation phase if the level of information about them is that poor. For example, out of the 16 draft plans from 16 countries that were analysed in more detail, only 9 included information on costs of measures. We also expect that RBMP take into account as much as possible climate change impacts. This chart shows the intentions to introduce CC considerations in the first RBMPs. This is the result of a survey carried out last year and there were still a number of countries that had not yet decided or their replies were unclear. 10 countries indicated the intention to climate check the programme of measures. 6 countries replied that measures to adapt to CC will be included in the first plans.

Expectations Transparent decision making Supported by an active public and stakeholder involvement Based on a sound technical basis to inform decisions International cooperation Not everything can be done before 2015 but... Most of it ! – High level of ambition Programme of measures showing determination to abandon unsustainable practices and end with long-lasting water problems (overexploitation, diffuse pollution, eutrophication, hydromorphological impacts...) Credible measures supported by clear financial commitments and assignment of responsibilities Integration of sectoral policies and existing directives

Water matters... Water pollution always ranks on top of EU citizens environmental concerns (Special EB Environment - March 2008) 52% of EU citizens show an interest to participate in the consultations of the river basin management plans (Flash Eurobarometer on water – March 2009) www.water.eu/participate