1 / 24

Agenda item 1 – State of transposition and implementation – first results -

This document outlines the results of the state of transposition and implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). It includes an overview of the WFD Scoreboard, the approach for conformity and compliance checking, and the first results for legal transposition and compliance with Articles 3 and 5.

gtardiff
Download Presentation

Agenda item 1 – State of transposition and implementation – first results -

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Water Directors’ Meeting London, 28/29 November 2005 Agenda item 1 – State of transposition and implementation – first results -

  2. Content • WFD Scoreboard • Approach for conformity and compliance checking • First results for legal transposition, Art. 3 and Art. 5 compliance checking • Conclusions and next steps

  3. (non) communication (non) conformity (incorrect) implementation “WFD Scoreboard” for 2004-2005 Note:“WFD Scoreboard“ does not provide any information whether report is satisfactory and/or in line with the WFD

  4. WFDScoreboard 2004/2005(EU 25 MS - part 1/3) *: transposition for Brussels Region missing **: first non-compliance case

  5. WFDScoreboard 2004/2005(EU 25 MS - part 2/3) *: transposition for Aland Region missing

  6. WFDScoreboard 2004/2005(EU 25 MS - part 3/3)

  7. Other countries • EEA countries have not accepted WFD inclusion in EEA Agreement yet (open issues with Iceland) • Norway submitted Art 3 and is working on Art 5 reports • Bulgaria and Romania submitted Article 3 and 5 reports

  8. Article 5 reports Submission status – 25 November 2005 All articles 3+ 5 reports are available at http: //forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library

  9. Legal Transposition

  10. Conformity of legal transpositon • External assessments started in March 2005 for EU10 and in Oct 2005 for EU15 • DG ENV developed questionnaire developed to assist in the assessment • First draft results for 6 of EU10 available – results of assessments by end of 2005 • Results for EU15 expected spring 2006

  11. Compliance Checking - Article 3 reports -

  12. Compliance checkingArt. 3 (2004 report) • Assessment based on questionnaire/template • 3 main questions: - Is it complete? - Is it clear / understandable? - Is it compliant regarding key issues? • Key issues: - River Basin District identification (hydrological boundaries, assignment of groundwater and coastal waters) - Competent Authorities (legal base, clarity of assignment of tasks, coordination mechanism within RBD and MS, relation to other relevant authorities) - International cooperation (legal base, arrangements for coordination) • 22 MS draft Reports available – summary report under preparation

  13. Draft map of RBDs – to be updated shortly Currently 23 MS: • 134 RBDs Norway: • 14 RBDs RO, BG, HR: • 9 RBDs No double counting: • 96 RBDs (for 23 MS) • 69 national • 27 international

  14. Distribution of number of RBDs • 14 MS have 5 or less RBDs • 5 MS have 10 or more RBDs • UK: 17 RBDs (7 CAs) Distribution of number of CAs • 10 MS have only 1 CA • 5 MS have more than 10 CAs • DK: 17 CAs (13 RBDs)

  15. Distribution of surface areas of RBDs 29 14 Danube Rhine

  16. Compliance checking - Preliminary results • None of the 22 reports is fully clear and satisfactory • Questions for clarification in all reports, however relevance and significance of open points varies • Only 7 reports are currently assessed as non-compliant, further in-depth assessment needed • Final assessment reports expected in January 2006

  17. Compliance checking - Preliminary results (2) • Non-compliance issues: • International cooperation with EU countries or non EU MS not always considered or discussed • some CA set-up is complex with inappropriate coordination and unclear attribution of responsibilities • Questions for clarification: • Assignment of groundwater to RBD unclear • RBD boundaries (ie. administrative basis rather than river basins) was not an issue, but sometimes still unclear • Digital data set: • Cross border intrusion/overlap • No harmonisation across national borders • Incomplete coverage • Solution: update of datasets on WISE

  18. Compliance Checking - Article 5 reports -

  19. Compliance QuestionnaireArt. 5 reports • Compliance questionnaire based on Art. 5 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. methodology2. data or results

  20. Article 5 reports - first information • Draft compliance assessment for 13 MS available • Assessment scale: • - (national part of) River Basin District (134 reports) • - in addition, assessment on national level or regional level, where necessary (e.g. BE, DE) • For these 13 MS, some statistics are: • Over 50.000 surface water bodies (SWB) • 77% of SWB are rivers • Over 4.000 groundwater bodies

  21. Article 5 compliance checking - First impressions • High diversity and different level of detail –> 60 pages vs. 24 CD ROMs • Several very good examples (int. river basins) • Many reports are incomplete and not comprehensive(e.g. chemical status, agricultural pressures) • Methodologies very divers across Europe and rarely harmonised between national RBD and within int. RBD • Difficult to extract comparable data for analysis or compliance checking – need for WISE submissions • Considerable challenge to ensure that Art 5 analysis is complete and comparable when updated in RBMP

  22. Follow up

  23. Conclusions • 88% of reporting obligations fulfilled • Lack of transposition: Application to the Court • Lack of reporting: Infringement procedure started • Assessment of compliance started • Art 3 compliance checking – draft assessments for 22 out 25 MS – summary report under preparation • Art 5 compliance checking – draft assessments for half of the 25 MS – summary report for mid-2006 - several technical reports finalised (e.g. agriculture, hydromorphology, eutrophication) – only statistics not for compliance checking

  24. Next steps • Completion of assessment reports (Art 3 - Jan 2006 and Art 5 for mid-2006) • Identify feedback mechanism to MS, in particular to clarify questions • Demand for information on comparability of WFD implementation is increasing (eg. EP, MS, public) • WISE should be used to improve and update incomplete/unclear reports • WISE Workshop – 15/16 Dec 2005 – will allow access for experts to all data • Official Commission report in March 2007

More Related