1. Peer-Review Mechanism
for the Improvement of Water Framework Directive Implementation
Brussels – SCG meeting – 27 October 2016
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

2. Contents Reminder on Peer Review Process Feedback on implementation
Lesson learned
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

3. Purpose of the peer-review
The objective is to set up a simple, voluntary and targeted system to allow mutual learning between peers about WFD implementation and participative river basin management planning Who ? Practitioners from River Basin Districts involved in the implementation of the WFD
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

4. Project activities:
Launch of the Peer review Secretariat project for 2 years
September
2014
Establishing the protocol to perform the peer-reviews, "manual of procedures"
November
Initial call for expression of interest for both RBDs and experts launched
January
2015
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

5. Project activities: February-June 2015 August Sept. – Oct. 2016
Elaboration of ToRs with RCAs and first webinars
February-June
2015
First Peer Review missions
August
4 Peer Review workshops
Sept. – Oct. 2016
finalisation of Peer-review missions
Up to Nov. 2016
Final assessment and report
Up to
Dec. 2016
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

6. The peer-review tools 1- Peer review missions 2- Peer review workshops
Peer review missions dedicated to issues selected by Receiving Competent Authorities (RCAs) and implemented by selected volunteer reviewing experts. They where carefully organised in line with precise Terms of References and online preparatory meeting gathering the mission participants before and after the mission.
2- Peer review workshops
Hands-on workshops on most discussed issues during the missions
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

7. Geographic distribution of reviewing experts
Over 70 candidate reviewing experts from 15 MS
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

8. RBDistricts candidates for a PR mission
South Baltic Water District, Sweden
Tiber Basin Authority, Italy
Duero River Basin Authority, Spain
Jucar River Basin Authority, Spain
Water Management Agency, Luxembourg
Catalan Water Agency, Spain
Autorità di Bacino dell'Alto Adriatico, Italy
River Basin District of River Kokemäenjoki - Finland
Rhine-Meuse Water Agency - France
Miño-Sil River Basin Authority - Spain
Northern Baltic Sea Water District Authority - Sweden
Danish Water Agency - Danemark
Malta
Ministry of the Environment – Estonia
Glomma River Basin District – Norway
Environment, geology and meteorology centre - Latvia
18 Expressions of Interest from 12 MS
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

9. Peer review missions timeschedule
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

10. PR missions outcomes and messages
Expression of interest for 18 Peer Review missions, and could implement 15 in a difficult period during the turn of the RBM Planning cycle.
Good participation from MS (RCAs and experts) to join the process. Nordic and Latin countries appreciate in particular this opening to different experiences. Western and Eastern countries have less used the mechanism.
Good quality of exchange, cost effective mechanism, the number of missions could be higher in order to have more experts involved in the future.
A large variety of issues targeted with an high focus on Programme of measures, Groundwater, and Data Management work out later in workshops.
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

11. Participants missions feedback
Satisfied participants who gained inspiration and extra motivation in improving their daily work
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

12. Peer Review Hands-on Workshops
Groundwater on 8-9 September at the South Baltic Sea Water District in Kalmar (Sweden)
Data management on 5-6 October near Nice (France)
PoM on 18 October in Lourdes (France) before the annual EUROPE-INBO conference
Lessons learned for the peer review instrument for good practice exchange on WFD implementation between member states on 26 October afternoon before the SCG in Brussels (Belgium)
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

13. Peer review Workshops Objectives:
Compare issues, practices and practical experiences of Member States and basin organizations regarding WFD implementation
Exchange on difficulties and solutions in the domains
Identify the best practices including explanatory elements of strategies followed by the Members States
Outcomes:
Workshop reports gathering the main information
Presentation of the main recommendations in the "Lessons Learned" report
Call for more sharing between basins and more harmonization efforts in the technical domains
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism
27/10/2014

14. Groundwater on 8-9 September at the South Baltic RCA in Kalmar (Sweden)
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

15. Data management on 5-6 October near Nice (France)
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

16. PoM on 18 October in Lourdes (France) before the EUROPE-INBO

17. Excellent feed back from participants
A questionnaire was also sent to the participants in order to enable them to give their feedback on the workshops tool and share their satisfaction (see Annex 3). The results are summarised in the slide.
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

18. Conclusions
1- According to the experts and administrations taking part in the Peer Review process, both peer review missions and workshops were fruitful and an inspiring experience
2- The quality of exchanges was closely related to a careful and sequenced preparation of the missions including the use over a period of about 3 to 6 months of webinars before and after the visit to the RCA
3- Efforts remain to be done to touch more practitioners from the different districts
4- This new mechanism appears to be complementary of the CIS
5- All in all, the project as reveal the great potential of progress through collaborative work between member state practitioners
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

19. Recommendations for a more accessible /less scary mechanism:
Lessons learned
Recommendations for a more accessible
/less scary mechanism:
- Be explicitly open from the call of interest to different types of subjects for which the RCA would like to receive input from colleagues beyond the formal review of the River Basin Management Plan document. “Peer Review” appellation could be reconsider in the new phase as this expression refers to academic/research work. Peer coaching, Peer exchange?
- In the same spirit, better use the term “practitioners” or “colleagues “ than experts.
- The first cycle is the practical demonstration that the commission has not used the results of the peer review again the member states.
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

20. Lessons learned Recommendations for a more efficient mechanism:
To have a Peer Review project period more in ad equation with the WFD planning cycle
To simplify the administrative procedures proposed in the manual (e.g. lighten the paper work prior to missions with no formalised tripartite agreement).
To work out processes for direct transmission of information to river basin district practitioners, in order to facilitate the work of SCG WG members.
Possibly use the EU reporting contact points from the different European districts to disseminate information on the peer review mechanism or consult the SCG members on a adapted dissemination list to relay the information directly to the basins.
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

21. Recommendations for a more pro-active mechanism:
Lessons learned
Recommendations for a more pro-active mechanism:
- To use RBMP assessment results or expert say to proactively suggest pertinent peer review missions.
To introduce a new type of action in order to stimulate exchange between RCAs sharing similar type of issues in their respective basins. Twin review?
Propose peer review webinars or workshop targeting a specific topic. Identification of teachers.
- To develop synergies between CIS thematic working groups and the PR secretariat, the first one formalising thematic orientations and peer review as a link to the operational level.
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism

22. For more information:
All materials related to the Peer review mechanism can be found on the project website: For any further information feel free to contact the Peer review secretariat at the following address:
Establishment of a Peer-Review Mechanism