1. 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

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

3. 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!

4. 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

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

8. 9,2
Ratio SURVEILLANCE/OPERATIONAL 24
Density SURVEILLANCE / 1000 km2

9. 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

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

11. 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?

12. 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

13. 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?

14. 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?

15. 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?

16. 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

17. 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

18. Comments?
Suggestions?