1. Item 1 – WFD Implementation Report 2007
Water Directors
18/19 June 2007
Item 1 – WFD Implementation Report 2007

2. Content Key messages/Summary Monitoring reporting Methodology
Key underlying problems
Discussion

3. Implementation Report
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)
Also published – NiD 3rd Impl report (COM(2007)120)
Snap-shot of the situation reported in
Based on reports from Member States
Assesses 3 components:
Legal transposition into national law (Art. 24)
Administrative arrangements (Art. 3)
Environmental/economic analysis (Art. 5)

4. Legal Transposition: - 19 MS with major shortcomings
Summary of key results
Legal Transposition: MS with major shortcomings
Administrative Arrangements:
International Cooperation not adequate everywhere
Economic analysis:
Low level of information on cost-recovery in different sectors

5. Implementation Results Legal transposition
Art. 4 (7) not transposed

6. TITLE Int. Cooperation Established Conventions Bilateral EU-internal
Shared with outside EU
Important component for WFD impl.
Underlying all aspects (Art 5, 8, 13)
However, formally an Art 3 requirement

7. Economic Analysis
Information available on cost recovery

8. Implementation Results - 3
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

9. Monitoring programmes reporting State of play
23 countries have reported to date, 21 thorough WISE
Missing reports: Estonia, Greece, Italy and Malta
Preliminary analysis of the data available by the end of May in WISE (19 countries)
17 countries reported surface water stations
18 countries reported groundwater stations
Data quality: Mapping of monitoring stations vs. Art. 5 water bodies - possible for only 60% of the stations

10. Surface water stations (11 May)

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

12. Density of groundwater stations Number of stations per 1000 km2
Extrapolated to EU27 results in ~58000 stations
Mean 18 countries

13. Follow - up Recommendations for MS: -overcome shortcomings
Implement fully basic measure legislation (uwwd, nitrates, ippc)
Improve methodologies and close data gaps
-enhance integration
Transpose and apply 4.7, the WFD impact assessment, to new infrastructure projects
Match financing priorities (national and EU) better with WFD analysis and implementation
-improve transparency
Make information available, also through WISE:

14. 2007 Implementation Report Key messages
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!

15. Methodology
Member States (paper) reports
Screening assessment report per MS/RBD (built on reporting sheets, done by consultant)
Performance tables (built on assessment report, done by COM DG ENV)
documents sent to Water Directors -> feedback mechanism

16. 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

17. Key undelying problems
Delay in implementation of UWWD, NiD and others -> different starting points, should this make a difference in WFD implementation?
Absence of implementation of certain aspects -> is it acceptable not to address a provision?
Comparability -> how much diversity is acceptable?
Lack fo data -> how big should the gap be allowed to be?

18. Abdsence of implementation
Economic Analysis
Abdsence of implementation
Information available on costs considered for cost recovery
Comparability?

19. Comparability of statistical data? Differences in ambition?
Differnces in concepts?
What about comparability within MS?

20. Comparability - Statistical Data

21. Comparability? Surveillance vs operational
Percentage of surveillance and operational monitoring for some Member States (information for DE and BE covers part of the country only)

22. TITLE

23. Concepts - Correspondence with stations of other reporting streams
Nitrates
EEA Waterbase
WFD Art. 8

24. Comparability – within RBDs
Performance – analysis of characteristics

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

26. Was the assessment helpful? Are the feedback mechanisms in place?
Discussion
Was the assessment helpful?
Are the feedback mechanisms in place?
What can we in the CIS process do to “close the gaps” and improve comparability?
How much “diversity” (differences in implementation) is acceptable?