Session 1: The report on CIS-members´ views on the experience in the implementation of the economic aspects of the WFD.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Expert group meeting on draft delegated act on the European code of conduct on partnership (ECCP) under cohesion policy
Advertisements

The partnership principle and the European Code of Conduct on Partnership.
Water.europa.eu CIS Ad hoc activity on WFD Economic Issues -Progress Update Strategic Coordination Group Meeting, 23 February 2010 DG Environment, European.
Title of presentation Copyright IDS and MeTA 2010
Business environment in the EU Prepared by Dr. Endre Domonkos (PhD)
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Draft Mandate Johannes Grath Balázs Horvath (DG Env)
Indepth assessment economic analysis progress report SCG meeting May 2008 Maria Brättemark, Unit D.2, DG Environment, European Commission.
WG B Progress report Water Directors meeting Mondorf May 20 and 21
New Work Programme and mandates 2005/2006
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
Project Objectives, Workplan and Timescales
WG 2.B Integrated River Basin Management
WG 2.B Integrated River Basin Management
Chemical Monitoring mandate
INSPIRE fitness for purpose – Analysis
Strategic Coordination Group Eutrophication Guidance
WFD and Hydromorphology - 4/5 June 2007, Berlin, Germany -
Proposed CIS Workshop on WFD Economic Issues
CIS-Workshop on River Basin Management Plans
CIS work programme Ad-hoc activity on Economics
The role of the ECCP (1) The involvement of all relevant stakeholders – public authorities, economic and social partners and civil society bodies – at.
Good Practices on Disaster Prevention in Europe
WG 2.9 Best Practices in River Basin Planning
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
Activity on environmental objectives and exemptions
WG C Groundwater Draft Mandate
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Draft Work programme / revised mandate for WG F
Progress Drafting Group on Environmental Objectives and Exemptions
Activity on WFD and agriculture
THE INTOSAI WORKING GROUP ON KEY NATIONAL INDICATORS
Information on projects
Agenda Item 10: Feedback on dangerous substances workshop and Implementation Guidance WG-E(1)-07/04/INERIS - Implementation guidance.
WG 2.B Integrated River Basin Management
European Commission, DG Environment Air & Industrial Emissions Unit
WG GES: Decision review progress
Research as a new activity of the CIS WG 2B
WG C Groundwater Progress Report to SCG SCG-Meeting, 11/
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Session 2: Implementation experience - Art. 9
Legal issues in WFD implementation WD meeting 16 June 2008 Jorge Rodríguez Romero, Unit D.2, DG Environment, European Commission.
Pilot River Basin Water Framework Directive.
Wrap up of agenda item no. 3
Towards a Work Programme for the Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) Water Directors Meeting 28 November.
EU Water Framework Directive
Environmental objective document –
Water Directors meeting Mondorf-les-bains, June 2005
CIS Acitivity Env Objectives and Exemptions
Exemptions and Disproportionate Costs
Streamlining of monitoring and reporting under WFD, Nitrates Directive and EEA's SoE –concept paper DG Environment.
Assessment of WFD River Basin Management Plans State of Play
In-depth Assessment economic analysis - summary of results SCG meeting 11 March 2009 Anita Payne, Unit D.2, DG Environment, European Commission.
Directive on the assessment and management of flood risks - towards implementation SCG, By Maria Brättemark, European Commission, DG Environment,
Water Science-Policy Interface (CIS-SPI) Progress report
7a - Environmental Objectives and Exemptions under the Water Framework Directive SCG meeting 5 November 2008 Marieke van Nood, Unit D.2, DG Environment,
Presentation title Adaptation Committee and Least Developed Countries Expert Group Agenda item 5 (c-e) Draft recommendations developed by the Adaptation.
Meeting of PAP/RAC Focal Points, Split, Croatia, 8-9 May 2019
Eutrophication activity
UNDP Asia Pacific Regional Centre August 2010
Scene setter European Commission DG Environment
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Concept paper on the assessment of WFD River Basin Management Plans
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Brussels – 20 April 2007 European Commission - DG Environment
Ad-hoc Task Group on Hydromorphology
Key outcomes.
Water Director's Meeting December 2013, Vilnius DG Environment
2019 CIRS survey: Methodologies to improve decision-making documentation during medicines development and review – gap analysis Do you think your current.
Environmental Objectives and Exemptions State of Play
Presentation transcript:

Session 1: The report on CIS-members´ views on the experience in the implementation of the economic aspects of the WFD

Background Purpose: to gather views on the implementation experience of economic aspects of WFD Used as an input to the development of the Workshop Gather views on: experience of the implementation of the economic aspects of WFD including identification of the main implementation difficulties; experience with using the relevant guidance documents; needs for future work on economic issues related to WFD.

Project Overview Written questionnaire sent to WFD Strategic Coordination Group (SCG) - April-May 2010 17 expert interviews conducted – May 2010 Final Report circulated to SCG – July 2010 ‘Core group’ of MS/stakeholders (based on SCG nominations) were involved throughout. Comments were provided on the draft questionnaire, interview questions and final report.

The report Based on results: of written questionnaire circulated to the SCG in March 2010: 25 filled-in Questionnaires 17 in-depth (semi-structured) interviews with selected WFD-economic experts in May 2010 (anonymized) Where possible, questionnaire replies assessed quantitatively (graphs, statistical assessments). In-depth interviews insights added under each topic

Key findings – Implementation experience (i) Majority of WFD economics work were undertaken by multi-disciplinary teams: - Economists dealt with methodological questions - Non-economists undertook the data collection and economic analysis. (ii) Most prominent difficulties – methodological and data availability (iii) Three key challenging areas were clearly identified: -selection of measures based on CEA criteria (79% of responses) -implementation of article 4 – exemptions (68%) -implementation of article 9 (63%)

Key findings – Implementation experience (cont’d) (iv) Positive implementation experiences mentioned included: - improving the effectiveness and transparency of the implementation process - strengthening the discussions between the various stakeholder groups - better decision making when developing the final POM (v) Transboundary cooperation – positive experiences highlighted but presented some new technical and organisation challenges

Key findings – Implementation experience (cont’d) (vi) Expert interviews identified some difficulties is integrating economics into the overall decision-making process for WFD implementation

Key findings: experience of CIS –guidance (WATECO, info sheets) Majority of responses stated that CIS guidance documents were used – mainly as a basis to develop national methodology, rather than directly used Expert interviews identified problems with the reader-friendliness of documents, lack of practical usability Beneficial role of the development of guidance in being a ‘joint learning process’

Key findings – further work needs General agreement on the topics for further work (CEA, Article 4 and 9) Overall, some form of joint work at a European level was considered to be useful by most respondents Diverging views were expressed regarding what this work should be and the best way to organise it Most common suggestions: -information, experience and opinion exchange -work on common definitions/re-working existing guidance on significant issues Development of new guidance received some limited support.

Overall conclusions (i) Economics can assist in the implementation of WFD (improved transparency, minimising implementation costs, enhancing discussion between stakeholder groups) General agreement on main areas for further work suggest that focus of discussion should be on how best to undertake the work Most economic analysis and data collection was undertaken by non-economists, therefore any further work should not just involve economists. May help to improve integration of economic analysis into WFD decision-making Diverging views on the need for future work on guidance documents suggests further discussion is needed.

The workshop - aims Share information, exchange views and MS experience in WFD-implementation regarding Art. 9 and cost-effectiveness analysis: improve understanding on common difficulties encountered Identify relevant developments & research Identify needs for future work relating to WFD-economics

The workshop – structure day 1 Session 1: introduction and scene setting Sessions 2 (Art.9) & 3 (CEA): implementation experiences, for both: Introduction – main results from questionnaire/interviews (15 min.) MS case studies (each 10 min. presentation, 5 min. questions) Stakeholder statements (5 min. each) Discussion (30 min.) End of day 1: draft outcomes of session 2 & 3, plenary discussion (30 min.)

The workshop – structure day 2 Session 4: Taking stock of research & other developments: 3 project presentations (20 min. each) Discussion (30 min.) Session 5: research and future work needs: Introduction – main results from questionnaire/interviews (15 min.) Discussion (45 min.) Session 6: Wrap up & final discussion Outcomes of session 5 & overall workshop & discussion Closing address