1. WFD implementation and UWWTD Questionnaire-2007
European Research input for River Basin Management Annual meeting of the subgroup on water statistics
Luxembourg, October 2007
Violeta Vinceviciene
European Commission, DG Environment
Unit D.2 – Water and Marine, WFD Team

2. Contents WFD implementation: Reporting for UWWTD:
Key messages on implementation process
Follow-up work programme
Reporting for UWWTD:
Questionnaire 2007
Follow-up process within WISE system
Links of reporting under UWWTD with OECD/ESTAT JQ-IW
Conclusions

3. Water Framework Directive:
key elements
Protecting all waters, surface and ground waters:
Covering all impacts on waters; integrated approach of emission controls and water quality standards, phasing out of particularly hazardous substances
Good quality (‘good status’) to be achieved, as a rule, by 2015
Water management based on the River Basin
The challenge of shared river basins
River Basin Management Plans
Economic instruments: economic analysis, and getting the prices right - to promote wise use of water, cost recovery and equitable charging
Public Participation: getting the citizen involved

4. Different scales
Sub-basin/Sector/ Water type element of district to deal with particular aspects
 no link with pollution
Heavily modified water bodies (HMWB) human activity carried out makes it impossible to reach the goal without disproportionate costs (change activity…)
sea
District river basins + associated groundwaters and coastal waters
Water bodies scale of evaluation of the achievement of good status

5. WFD Timetable Transposition into national law Dec 2003
Administrative arrangements Dec 2003
Environmental/economic analysis Dec 2004
Monitoring programmes Dec 2006
Final river basin management Dec 2009
plans
Implementation, assessment, till
adjustment

6. Implementation report (1)
Communication ‘Towards Sustainable Water Management in the European Union’ (COM(2007) 128 final)
Supported by Annexes 1) WFD 1st Impl. Report (SEC(2007) 362) 2) UWWD 4th Impl. Report (SEC(2007) 363)
Snap-shot of the situation reported in
Based on reports from Member States
Assesses 3 components of WFD:
Legal transposition into national law (Art. 24)
Administrative arrangements (Art. 3)
Environmental/economic analysis (Art. 5)

7. Main messages (2)
Implementation well advanced with some positive examples – it is possible to implement the WFD well and in time!
Significant shortcomings – Member States have to do better!
Still time to rectify situation – decisive milestone is 2009 RBMP!

8. Implementation results (3)
Legal Transposition: MS with major shortcomings
Administrative Arrangements:
110 different RBDs, 40 are international
>60 % of EU territory is international
RBD size between and km2
International cooperation is not adequate everywhere
Economic analysis:
Low level of information on cost-recovery in different sectors

9. J K K J L J K “WFD Scoreboard”
Country
Trsp
RBD Rep.
Art5 rep.
Art8 rep.
Austria J
Belgium K
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
“WFD Scoreboard”
Country
Trsp
RBD Rep.
Art5 rep.
Art8 rep.
Greece K J L
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxem-bourg
Malta
Nether-lands
Country
Trsp
RBD Rep
Art5 rep.
Art8rep.
Poland J
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain K
Sweden
United Kingdom
Scoreboard and all MS reports publicly availble through:

10. TITLE
170 national RBDs
110 RBDs
40 international

11. Implementation Results Article 5 analysis (6)
Results: some facts and figures
water bodies in 23 MS
Average drainage area per water body between 19 km2 and 312 km2
Average size of a groundwater body between 300 km2 and 1000 km2
25% of water bodies is heavily modified or artificial (average of 24 MS)
29% of surface water bodies NOT at risk (average of 23 MS)
43% of groundwater bodies NOT at risk (average of 24 MS)
NOT at risk means that they meet or will meet WFD objectives

12. Implementation Results Article 5 analysis (7)
Risk analysis for surface water bodies (average per MS)
at risk
insufficient data
not at risk

13. TITLE

15. WISE viewer: WFD part (example)

16. Implementation Results Article 5 analysis (10)
Results: economic analysis
Low level of information available
When available, cost recovery level vary significantly between
1-100% for agriculture
40-100% for industries
70-100% for households
Few considerations of environmental and resource costs or baseline scenarios

17. Reporting of Monitoring Networks – Art.8 (11)
Article 8 requires establishment of monitoring network and making them operational in Dec 2006; Deadline to report 22/03/07
First WFD reporting supported electronically through new WISE input portal (REPORTNET hosted by EEA)
Commission report - by end 2008
Status: 23 Member States reported through WISE (+2 MS) for a total 144 RBDs;
Missing reports: Greece and Malta
Preliminary analysis of the data available by the end of May’07 in WISE (23 countries): > GW stations and > SW stations
Data quality: mapping of monitoring stations vs. Art.5 water bodies - possible for only 60% of the stations

19. Implementation Results (13)
Main shortcomings:
lack of data and no follow up identified
variability of approaches and methodologies (e.g. size of water bodies)
designation of heavily modified water bodies
diffuse source pollution of surface water (incl. lack of inventory)
diffuse and point source pollution of groundwater (incl. lack of inventory)
assessment of overexploitation and salt intrusion in groundwaters
(analysis of) current levels of cost recovery and consideration of environment and resource costs

20. Follow - up Recommendations for MS (14)
Recommendation 1: overcome shortcomings
Implement fully basic measure legislation (uwwd, nitrates, ippc)
Apply economic instruments more widely
Put ecological assessment tools in place
Improve methodologies and close data gaps
Recommendation 2: enhance integration
Match financing priorities (national and EU) better with WFD analysis and implementation
Recommendation 3: improve transparency
Use public participation as an opportunity
Make information available, also through WISE

21. Analysing reported information further: Comparability of reported data (15)

22. Density of surface water stations Number of stations per 1000 km2 (16)
Extrapolated to EU27 results in ~53000 stations
Mean 17 countries

23. Lack of data (18)
Risk analysis for surface water bodies (average per MS)
at risk
insufficient data
not at risk

24. Future issues for WFD – 2007 and beyond
Comparability of implementation – improving step-by-step towards the river basin management plan
Intercalibration and ecological assessment
Reporting and Water Information System for Europe to be continued: fully implemented & operational by 2010 for entire WFD & furthermore!
Implementation of new EU water policies - groundwater, priority substances and flood protection
Streamline with other EU water policies: ‘old’ directives related to water  programme of measures for RBMP

25. Data needs from ‘statistical world’
water services
water uses
water prices
cost recovery
etc.

26. WISE is the most important mean for data visualisation to make integrated analyses of the status of water bodies

27. Reporting for UWWTD: Questionnaire 2007 (Art.15)
Official data request from Commission - 16 June’07
Member States must report within 6 months – i.e. by the end of 2007

28. The concept of reporting under UWWTD
Chain is linked up through stable IDs + coordinates
Agglom.  Collect.syst  UWWTP  DP  Receiving area/RWB
Size of agglom Receiving area type
defines treatment level requirements
Inventory +mapping of sensitive areas first before going to agglomeration questionnaire

29. Reporting for UWWTD-Q2007 (on art.15)
UWWTD Questionnaire 2007:
The structure:
Designated receiving areas (sensitive areas and their catchments: list and GIS files)
Agglomeration level
Member State level (sewage slugde management and water reuse)
Agglomeration level: Covers information on urban wastewater collection, treatment and monitoring of discharges for all agglomerations with the total organic load of >2000p.e.
Reporting every 2 years as a rule based on the Commision request
Fully implemented reporting (INPUT side) through WISE (via EEA ReportNet) for UWWTD next questionnaire in 2009
Some previously reported data (OUPUT side) is already on WISE viewer

30. WISE viewer in 2007 for UWWTD

31. Contents of UWWTD Q2007 Reporting sheets/forms: Contact details
Receiving areas
Inventory of sensitive areas (GIS + textual inform.)
Agglomeration level
Master data on agglomerations (IDs etc.)
Collecting systems: 3 simple questions
Treatment level & performance
MS level
Information on sludge and wastewater reuse
Food processing industries

32. Discharge Points/ Receiving areas/ RWBs
UWWTD Questionnaire 2007
Generated wastewater
Discharge Points/ Receiving areas/ RWBs
Collection
Treatment

33. UWWTD Questionnaire 2007 Urban waste water: domestic Agglomeration
Generated wastewater
Discharge Points/ Receiving areas/ RWBs
Collection
Treatment
UWWTP
Collec-ting systems (system of conduits)
DP2
Colected but NOT treated
DP3
Agglomeration
Urban waste water: domestic
industrial

34. UWWTD Questionnaire 2007 Urban waste water: domestic Agglomeration
Generated wastewater
Discharge Points/ Receiving areas/ RWBs
Collection
Treatment
UWWTP
Collec-ting systems (system of conduits)
DP2
Colected but NOT treated
DP3
Agglomeration
Urban waste water: domestic
industrial
Collection through IAS
NOT collected

35. UWWTD Questionnaire 2007 Urban waste water: domestic Agglomeration
Generated wastewater
Discharge Points/ Receiving areas/ RWBs
Collection
Treatment
Stand-alone At.13 industries
IWWTP
DP1
UWWTP
Collec-ting systems (system of conduits)
DP2
Colected but NOT treated
DP3
Agglomeration
Urban waste water: domestic
industrial
Collection through IAS
NOT collected

36. Main challenges shortcomings under UWWTD
Designation of sensitive areas and their catchments for defining treatment level requirements to ensure protection of the environment
Helpful activities under CIS  guidance on the assessment of eutrophication (defining trophic status of receiving waters)

37. Linking UWWTD-Questionnaire with OECD/ESTAT JQ-IW

38. Integration of other EU water policy areas into WISE
EU ‘old’ directives on water
Urban Water Water Treatment Directive– 2007/8
Nitrate Directive – 2008
Bathing Water Directive –2007/8
Drinking Water Directive –2008
Other EU policies and reporting activities by 2010
ESTAT/OECD Joint questionnaire on inland waters (e.g. emissions data, water uses, water services, data on water economics, water prices)
Marine protection strategy
Floods directive
Priority substances directive via streamlining with EPER/e-PRTR reporting

39. Linking UWWTD-Q with OECD/ESTAT JQ-IW
The aim is to streamline reporting to EU level as agreed between 4 European Institutions (EEA, ESTAT, ENV, JRC) under WISE Implementation Plan
To establish the links (parameters and data to report) with other reporting systems (e.g. ESTAT, JRC, ENV, EEA), checking the overlapping issues, adjusting reporting by fulfilling the needs of partners
To organise/adjust reporting following WISE rules
To ensure that both reporting formats ESTAT JQ-IW and UWWTD questionnaire corresponds with WISE rules,
therefore interoperability and data exchange is ensured!

40. Linking UWWTD-Q with OECD/ESTAT JQ-IW
OECD/ESTAT JQ-IW: Reporting frequency – even years; data are voluntary to report
Differences of JQ-IW with UWWTD Questionnaire is territorial coverage:
UWWTD: for agglomerations >2,000 p.e. but no or partly information on agglomerations < 2,000 p.e.
Possible solution to use already reported data on UWWTD for the next JQ-IW:
pre-fill JQ-IW with the data reported for UWWTD Q2007 by aggregating at the level required before launching JQ in 2008
The remaining data (for small agglomerations < 2000p.e.) from MS could be added through reporting cycle for JQ

41. A set of overlapping and interacting ‘worlds’
WISE ‘world’
MS level ‘world’
River basin approach ‘world’
UWWTD ‘world’
ESTAT/OECD JQ ‘world’
EEA/EIONET ‘world’
A set of overlapping and interacting ‘worlds’

42. Conclusions on implementation of WFD and UWWTD
It is possible and feasible to implement EU water legislation by using CIS and its advantages via close dialog with MS
To prepare timely, comprehensive, precise and achievable RBMPs in achieving good ecological status needs
to implement programme of measures (where the ‘old’ and new EU water legislation plays a significant role)
Constant use of management by objectives for each component of WFD implementation steps
Transparency and control of the process is ensured via WISE
and through WISE ensuring coordination, streamlining and interoperability of data/information exchange reported under other EU policies/reporting activities (e.g. JQ-IW)
Monitor
check
Plan Do
Improve
review

43. Conclusions: the role for sub-group on ‘water’ of WG on ‘Statistics of the environment’
Close coordination and adjustment of reporting in the frame of WISE for the needs of other end-users and partners (group of 4) at the EU level:
streamline reporting on OECD/ESTAT JQ-IW and WFD/other EU water policies
fulfilling the needs of collection of data related to water uses, water services, water prices, cost recovery, etc.
streamline of existing reporting obligations, which are linked to, e.g., reporting under UWWTD
 Work programme for this sub-group for for future link, streamlining and coordination of reporting on water statistics within WISE system with reporting on WFD, UWWTD and other data needs for the EU water policy

44. Thank you for your attention

45. More information Water Information System for Europe (WISE):
On EU water policy:
WFD CIRCA Information Exchange Platform
Notes for the Speaker:
More information on the Directive, the implementation process and also the guidance documents are available on the internet.