1. Reporting and compliance checking on RBMP in 2010 WFD Reporting Working Group D on Reporting Brussels, 17/18 October 2006

2. Approach for compliance checking

3. General points (1) Reporting is not a purpose in itself – it is a tool to enable the fulfilment of various tasks (e.g. information of the public, assessment of compliance and policy effectiveness) Reporting is less important if WFD is implemented correctly and if environmental objectives are achieved Reporting becomes increasingly important if WFD is NOT implemented correctly and if environmental objectives are NOT achieved If reports are not available or not good enough, there is always the suspicion of “wrong doing” or “hiding”

4. General points (2) Commission is mandated to to check implementation by Treaty, MS shall provide all necessary information to enable the Commission to fulfil this task (Art 10) Commission can only check that transposition and implementation in consistent with the WFD (1:1 – implementation) – MS can go beyond (Art. 176 Treaty) Commission must ensure comparability of implementation between RBMP and consistency with WFD of individual RBMP Based on Committee discussion, current reporting guidance/formats should be informal – if this does not work, Committee can agree legally binding formats

5. What are the available tools? Tools for ensuring/improving implementation and compliance (available to the Commission): 1.Information exchange (workshops, …) 2.Develop common understanding (e.g. informal guidance documents) 3.Promotion of best practices 4.Link to financing instruments 5.Reporting – informal (WISE) 6.Political or public pressure 7.Publication of implementation reports - (first report March 2007) 8.(Legally binding) Guidelines (incl. reporting) adopted in the Art 21 Committee – not used (yet) 9.Legal proceedings (Art. 226 and 228 – Treaty) – some non-communication cases ongoing but not used extensively (yet) Common Implementation Strategy

6. WFD requirements – RBMP reporting For Member States: Art. 15.1: “Member States shall send copies of the river basin management plans … to the Commission and to any other Member State concerned…”. RBMP shall contain all information listed in Annex VII. For Commission: Article 18: The Commission shall publish a report on the implementation of this Directive at the latest in 2012 years... and shall submit it to the European Parliament and to the Council. The report shall include the following: (a) a review of progress in the implementation of the Directive; (b) a review of the status of surface water and groundwater in the Community undertaken in coordination with the European Environment Agency; (c) a survey of the river basin management plans submitted in accordance with Article 15, including suggestions for the improvement of future plans; (d) a summary of the response to each of the reports or recommendations to the Commission made by Member States pursuant to Article 12; (e) a summary of any proposals, control measures and strategies developed under Article 16; (f) a summary of the responses to comments made by the European Parliament and the Council on previous implementation reports.

7. In addition, everybody wants to know... How well are we doing? How good are the others doing in comparison? Is the implementation comparable? Does everybody make the same efforts? Is the implementation good enough? Does the policy achieve the envisaged results? How effective / expensive is the policy? What can be improved and how? For EU policies - only the Commission (or for some questions the EEA) are officially mandated and are in the position to answer these questions.

8. What data for RBMP need to be reported? High level Second level aggregation – depending on need/issues First level aggregation – time/space Raw data – individual measurements Example Percentage of water bodies in RBD not achieveing ecological status Status of all water bodies per quality element Exceedance of cadmium EQS (yes/no) Aggregation annual average of cadmium concentrations at monitoring site phytoplankton quality in the water body Individual cadmium concentration phytoplankton sample Best level for compliance checking? This depends on: Detail and sophistication of assessment Used Parameters Accuracy and precision of comparative assessment To answer this question,let’s look at compliance checking?

9. Range of implementations by Member States? efforts ambition (environmental objectives and benefits) (administrative and costs) Member State

10. How to define the WFD boundaries? efforts ambition What is WFD compliant? (environmental objectives and benefits) (administrative and costs) Member State What are the minimum administrative provisions and measures that must be taken according to WFD? What are the minimum environmental objectives and benefits that must be achieved according to WFD?

11. Compliance checking for Art. 3 and 5 report Compliance questionnaire based on reporting sheets Comparative screening assessment, will be complemented by selected in-depth assessment in a second step Three main questions: - Is it complete? (data supplied) - Is it clear / understandable? (completeness and clarity of information) - Is it compliant regarding key issues? (conformity checking) Two parts of conformity: 1. methodology 2. data or results

12. Steps of compliance checking (current thinking) Report communicated? Start legal procedure No Yes All parts of reports complete and clear? No Clarify with MS Yes If no completion Is report compliant for key issues? “compliance indicators or criteria” No Yes Halt assessment Update and completion Is report compliant after in-depth assessment? Yes Halt assessment No Clarify with MS Start legal procedure Verify assessment Decide upon follow up

13. Consequences for priority setting of compliance checking? efforts ambition Difficult to achive, only in pristine or non-impacted areas 1:1 - WFD compliant (environmental objectives and benefits) (administrative and costs) Member State No further assessment necessary Assessment highest priority Assessment if time and resources

14. Consequences for priority setting of compliance checking? efforts ambition Difficult to achive, only in pristine or non-impacted areas 1:1 - WFD compliant (environmental objectives and benefits) (administrative and costs) Member State No further assessment necessary Assessment highest priority Assessment if time and resources River Basin District

15. Compliance indicators – example water bodies Assumption: it is more likely that larger water bodies lead to failure of the WFD objectives – too small water bodies will be prevented because of administrative costs Indicator 1: Number of river water bodies related to river basin district size Data needs: - total number of water bodies - area of river basin districts 3 5 6 7 8 1 2 4 Member State 2 5 4 8 7 1 3 6 Indicator 2: Average size (river length) of water bodies Data needs: - agreed river network (GIS) - river length of water body - area of river basin districts Use of results: setting of priorities and sequence of in-depth assessment matching extent of assessment with available resources In-depth assessment considering typology and methodology

16. Compliance criteria Compliance checking can also be done on “trivial” criteria E.g. Has the river basin distric designation taken place on the basis of hzdrological catchment boundaries – are coastal and groundwaters associated clearly? (Possible answers: Yes, No, To a certain extent, Unclear, No information) Out of such simple questions, current thinking is to attribute a scoring system and to prepare “performance maps” per MS Simple communication tool not intended to replace the in-depth analysis to decide whether implementation is compliant or not (with the consequence of legal follow up)

17. Outcome of assessment of compliance indicators/criteria? Member State maybe compliant Member State compliant Member State not compliant Sequence of in-depth assessment High priority

18. WFD Reporting – RBMP “compliance indicators/criteria” and statistical information determine most of the data needs – agreement on ”comparable sub-units” necessary MS are requested to send copy of their RBMP which is prepared for national purpose and public participation – no harmonised format envisaged In addition, informal data exchange through WISE based on 2010 reporting sheets – voluntary commitment WISE should enable in 2010 minimum data submission but easy data availability (inter-operability) If no agreements are reached, than WFD will likely determine legally binding reporting formats for RBMP