Spanish WFD article 13 reporting

1. Spanish WFD article 13 reporting Group D meeting April 28th 2010 Brussels

2. Spanish Article 13 reporting • Contents • Context • Methodology • Tools implemented • Reporting process status • Key learning's • RBD reporting process • UE reporting process • Steps ahead

3. Context • RBD definition in Spain is still work-in-process • Political issues still alive around border definition and competent authorities distribution (regional / central government). • Most RBDMP have not been approved to date, some of them have not even been released to the public • Some of the RBDMP are still on public consultation process • The reporting of March 22nd corresponds to the ‘state of the art’ at that moment but will likely be subjected to modifications. • Lack of uniformity across Spanish RBDs produced a lot of specific rework • Not all RBDs are using the same concepts, procedures and tools to produce their RBDMP making us work, for some areas, case-by-case.

4. Methodology • We took the opportunity to implement a reporting mechanism that should be applicable to all reporting obligations, not only Article 13 reporting, in the ‘WFD’ era. • Integration of the information has been a key priority • Automation • Coherence checking • Publication and integration of the information trough Spanish WIS SIA • Standardized file exchange mechanism using EU model. • Pre-filled files were sent to RBDs to facilitate information exchange and data quality. • We’ve developed 3 levels of compliance checking: • Automatic validation: compliance with XML schemas from EU • Manual structure validation: overall coherence, compliance of GIS information with access information, etc. • Manual content validation: specific checks of each module by the owners of each area in the organization • Communication, file sharing, versioning, validation, work-flow management and support have been automated where possible • A huge effort has been made to implement specific IT support tools • Single point of contact in each RBD

5. Tools implemented • Organizational tools • Consulting team to define information exchange conceptual model, contents, data specification and exchange formats • A thorough reporting guide has been developed for Spain (very well documented). • A national workgroup has been created with all RBDs to discuss reporting and WIS issues (‘Spanish Workgroup on Water Information Systems and Reporting). • 5 meetings have been organized so far with over 80 participants in each meeting • CIRCA space for document sharing • Very successful and enriching experience • Support ‘call center’ for reporting process support • Over 300 information requests answered: phone, email and Web-form • 3 people full time since fall last year. • Information management tools • New reporting portal for file exchange • Integrated automatic validation of files • Integrated Workflow engine for validation and reporting process management and visualization • All information received will be published through an dedicated web site integrated in SIA (Spanish WIS system)

6. Tools implemented

7. Reporting status • All RBD (except Canary Islands) have uploaded the 10 schemas and the associated GIS information. • All schemas were uploaded on time to WISE (6! hours before the final deadline) • Validation issues still being resolved both nationally and with EU. • The current reporting has to be understood as a first version of the information, will likely change and will be updated when the RBDMP will be formally approved. • A new national reporting deadline is being set to receive the ‘reglamento de planificación hidrológica’ (Spanish specific ‘program of measures’ information, more detailed than Art. 13 reporting) and the updated WFD data (probably right after summer).

8. RBD Reporting key learning's • Good • Great level of participation and involvement of RBDs: beyond any other reporting process • Great level of automation and process-management control thanks to a better definition of the reporting process and file exchanges (indicators were followed daily by management) • The information tools have been a key element to enable a more transparent and homogeneous reporting process: all RBDs were able to track progress of other basins trough the portal… • Single point of reporting for each RBDs has been a great step ahead. • Not so good • Content validation: no previous experience in content validation (learning curve) • What’s good? What’s correct? • Coherence issues between RBDs: Spain is becoming a scale model of the EU • Limits • Codes • Concepts and methodologies • … • Timing: never enough time • RBDMP not approved: provisory information • Some RBDs not yet ready to report anything (Canary Islands)

9. UE Reporting key learning’s • Good • A very well specified and documented process: little space for interpretation. Great job Jorge and his team! Many thanks! • Very agile and kind support from John and his people: well done! Many thanks too! • Good reliable and familiar tools • Validation application was useful • Not so good • Validation messages: a little confusing, specially at the end with so many versions of the exchange files. • Some validation messages were incorrect, due to revisions on the file specifications • So many versions of the exchange files: necessary but bothersome • Coherence with other Directives. • Still don’t know how the real evaluation of compliance is going a be implemented • Access files and XML schemas not 100% the same (field types, etc.) • Time constrains made impossible to feedback all validation issues to RBDs to get them resolved. • A more proactive feedback on WISE GIS Guide modifications • No GIS validation information received (yet?)

10. Steps ahead • New update of Art. 13 information after summer (probably not the last one) • ‘Reglamento de Planificación Hidrológica’ reporting • New directives will go trough the same reporting mechanism starting this fall • SOER: Oct 22nd. • Nitrates • UWWTD • … • A custom web site to publish Art. 13 reporting information • A new version of the portal is being developed to include some workflow management improvements: file blocking, better validation, etc.

11. Thank you!

12. Methodology • We started with the development and agreement with all RBDs of a specific ‘conceptual model’ for reporting Content analysis RBD validation Reporting specification RBD validation Data model definition RBD validation Exchange procedure definition RBD validation Reporting process with RBDs Reporting process to WISE

13. Article 13 workflow RBD User uploads a file to the WIS reporting portal Automatic file checking (formats, versions, mandatory fields..) Automatic consistency checking (coherence between tables and files, refered files, etc…) Manual content validation Semi automatic GIS validation (off-line tools) Global validation Reporting team generates EU files and uploads to WISE