NGOs expectations for next WFD cycle

Messages to take away First WFD cycle showed some positive examples and beginnings of a systematic change but overall business-as-usual prevails 2nd cycle needs to demonstrate significant improvements, otherwise WFD approach is to be questioned (heavy administration, little gains) The priority areas where significant improvements are needed including through support from CIS No cheating on monitoring, status assessment and exemptions Tackling pressures adequately Planning for WFD compliant infrastructures (e.g. hydro, navigation) Integrating quantitative aspects of water management Prioritising measures that work with nature (e.g.green infrastructure) Making full use of economic instruments Integrating climate change Ensuring genuine public participation and engagement in decisions

No cheating on monitoring, status assessment and exemptions Build on the new intercalibration results, some current plans are not fit Improve monitoring, possibilities to secure funding exist Small water bodies Raise the level of ambition (restrictive application of exemption) Exemptions must be transparent, include timeline and measures if deadline is extended Uncertainty is not an excuse in 2nd cycle, no-regret measures are usually available

Tackling pressures adequately Learn from the barriers in 1st cycle Status + pressure – measure = WFD objectives (GES/GEP) Basic measures important but not enough Combine voluntary + backtop regulatory approaches Need to address agricultural pressures, possibly through legislative instruments (since CAP reform such a fiasco) Do not lose out on existing funding opportunities (RD, adaptation, floods), engage private sector + funding Start early to reform permitting procedures and historic rights Focus on upstream of the “end of the pipe” solutions (e.g. emerging pollutants)

Integrating quantitative aspects Define, establish and enforce e-flows Flexible water allocation system Tackle illegal water abstraction Water accounting and water saving targets

Planning for WFD compliant infrastructures Optimize (upgrade, refurbish) existing hydropower infrastructure while lowering environmental impacts (e.g facilitating downstream migration, sediment transport) Implement strategic pre-planning on river basin level Develop integrated criteria for identifying exclusion zones / non or less favourable areas for hydropower development on basin-wide scale Map those areas in the 2nd RBMP Develop and apply strategic planning mechanisms on national level within basin-wide (trans-boundary) framework Rigorous application of env. impact assessment procedures (WFD art 4.7, HD art. 6, SEA, EIA) Consider environmental resource costs and values of ecosystem services in cost-benefit analyses Feed-in tariffs (and other incentives) mandatorily linked to ecological criteria No go / exclusion zone E.g. HES, GES with good HyMo, IUCN categories I+II Non favorable E.g. GES with moderate HyMo, sections with long continuity, endemic species, restoration plans Less favorable E.g. area wit

Prioritising measures that work with nature Integrate ecosystem services into WFD analysis and implementation Start and learn from large scale restoration Integrated WFD/Floods directive implementation, win-win measures (role for CIS?) Integrate protected areas into RBMP and overall better coordination and coopperation with nature authorities is urgently needed Support nature conservation efforts, including efforts to maintain healthy water ecosystems, through green infrastructure

Making full use of economic instruments Use austerity as opportunity (water pricing, cost recovery) Transparency on costs/benefits, cost effectiveness, perverse subsidies Broad definition of water services Adequate contribution to cost recovery (polluter/user pays, envi/resource costs) Integrate ecosystem services and link to PES

Climate change and public participation Integrating climate change Fully integrated climate change in 2nd RBMPs from the beginning incl robust/reversible measures Promote ecosystem based approaches Ensure genuine public participation Prioritise and provide adequate resources (not a box ticking exercise) Involve in decision making

Importance of planning process: Poor start = poor finish Repeat what we said in art 5 report : art 5 analysis was poor, economic analysis was poor, application of econolmic instruments poor as the result. Stress importance of planning process, starting early, filling the gaps early – laying foundation for next steps

Importance of planning process: Poor start = poor finish Repeat what we said in art 5 report : art 5 analysis was poor, economic analysis was poor, application of econolmic instruments poor as the result. Stress importance of planning process, starting early, filling the gaps early – laying foundation for next steps

Messages to take away First WFD cycle showed some positive examples and beginnings of a systematic change but overall business-as-usual prevails 2nd cycle needs to demonstrate significant improvements, otherwise WFD approach is to be questioned (heavy administration, little gains) The priority areas where significant improvements are needed including through support from CIS No cheating on monitoring, status assessment and exemptions Tackling pressures adequately (voluntary + regulatory approaches) Planning for WFD compliant infrastructures (hydro, navigation) Integrating quantitative aspects (defining and implementing e-flows) Prioritising measures that work with nature (ES, green infrastructure) Making full use of economic instruments Integrating climate change Ensuring genuine public participation

Thank you for your attention