Presentation on theme: "Module 4: European Blueprint"— Presentation transcript:
1Module 4: European Blueprint EU policy developments and implementation issues in the field of water managementYannick PochonIstanbul, 2015
2What is the Blueprint?The Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources presents the policy response to the challengeslong-term aim: to ensure sufficient availability of good quality water for sustainable and equitable water useClosely linked to EU 2020 Strategy and Resource Efficiency Roadmap
3Why a Blueprint?Improving the implementation of current EU water policyFostering the integration of water and other policiesWhen necessary, seeking the completion of the current policy framework
4Synthesis of policy recommendations building on assessments Impact Assessment« Fitness Check»EU waterpolicyinstrumentsOutlook of sustainability and vulnerability of EU water resourcesPolicyOptionsNov 2012BlueprintToSafeguardEU WatersReport on 2009River BasinManagement PlansReport on 2009River BasinManagement PlansReport on 2009River BasinManagementPlansReport on 2009River BasinManagement PlansReport on 2009River BasinManagement PlansReport on 2009River BasinManagement PlansReviewWater Scarcity& DroughtsStrategyReviewWater Scarcity& Droughts StrategyReviewWater Scarcity& Droughts StrategyReviewWater Scarcity& Droughts StrategyReviewWater Scarcity& Droughts StrategyClimate ChangeVulnerability& AdaptationClimate ChangeVulnerability& AdaptationClimate ChangeVulnerability& Adaptation
5The Blueprint packageBlueprint Communication COM(2012)673+ Impact Assessment SWD(2012) 381 & 382Report on River Basin Management Plans COM(2012)670Commission Staff Working Document, European Overview on River Basin Management Plans, Volumes 1 and 2 SWD(2012) 379Commission Staff Working Document, River Basin Management Plans, Volumes 3 to 30 (All Member States + Norway) SWD(2012) 379Communication on the Review of the European Water Scarcity and Drought Policy COM(2012)672 + accompanying Commission Staff Working Document SWD(2012)380Fitness Check SWD (2012)393
6Status of adoption of WFD plans GREEN - River Basin Management Plans adopted!RED – consultations not started, ongoing or finalised but not ALL plans adopted or reported to EC
7Assessment River Basin Management Plans: Some general findings A lot of effort put into preparation of the plans and impressive knowledge improvementHigh uptake of the common framework and common language on water management provided by the WFDIntegration of ecological perspective into water managementEnhancement of international cooperationPublic participation, stakeholder involvement4 Member States yet to submit all plansLow ambition in many of the plans.Uncompleted setting of measuresLack of comparability in some areas (e.g. chemical status!)Little understanding of aligning water management practices and environment protection (e.g. definition of exemptions)Insufficient consideration of water pricing and definition of costs7
8Status of surface waters Figure on the left: Distribution of ecological status or potential of classified rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters, calculated as percentage of the total number of classified water bodies. It shows the distribution of ecological status or potential for the different types of water bodies (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal). Overall, more than half (55 %) of the total number of classified surface water bodies in Europe are reported to have less than good ecological status/potential. Only around 44% of rivers and 33% of transitional waters are reported to be in high or good status. 56% of the lakes are reported to be in good or high status, and 51% for coastal waters.Figure on the right: Overview of chemical status of surface and groundwater bodies Percentage of rivers, lakes, groundwater, transitional and coastal waters in good, poor and unknown chemical statusThere is a high percentage of water bodies for which the reported chemical status has been 'unknown' .In many cases, the main reason for this gap is that the status assessment methods have not been fully developed yet or there were not enough monitoring data in this first cycle. In that case, it is advisable to adopt and implement no-regret measures, along with further development of the assessment methods and monitoring networks. However, in most RBMPs, there is no information on what actions will be taken to improve the monitoring and assessment methods for the next cycles.Note: Number of Member States contributing to the dataset: Groundwater (26); Rivers (25); Lakes (22); Transitional (15) and Coastal (20). Percentages shown for rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal are by water body count. Groundwater percentages, however, are expressed by area. The total number of water bodies is shown in parenthesis.Data from Sweden are excluded from surface water data illustrated in the figure. This is because Sweden contributed a disproportionately large amount of data and, classified all its surface waters as poor status since levels of mercury found within biota in both fresh and coastal waters exceed quality standards.
9A lot has been achieved, but challenges remain Significant pressures (rivers)Significant impacts (rivers)Source: EEASource: EEA
10Water bodies in good status in 2009 and 2015: What progress expected? Nb of MSNb of water bodies% Water bodies in good status or potential 2009% Water bodies in good status or potential 2015Progress in %Ecological status of surface waters2182684435310Chemical status of surface watersInformation unclear to establish the 2009 baselineQuantitative status of groundwater2412022 (5197)89 (85)96 (92)7 (7)Chemical status of groundwater1 3247783 (68)89 (77)6 (9)The number of surface water bodies in the calculation is 82684, this is because certain MS are excluded:EL and ES: Lack of RBMPsFI, PL and IT: a high number of WBs in unknown status (threshold 50%)DK: Did not report on exemptions and therefore it is not possible to estimate expected status. For Belgium only Flanders and the Coastal waters are included, for Portugal the information is coming from the draft RBMPsTotal of WBs from WISE and RBMPs (for IE and SI)(127407) – ES (5012)- EL (1324) – DK (17983) – IT (8614) – PL(5643) – FI (6153) = which is about the number in the table (82684) For Groundwater: Numbers in brackets are calculated excluding FI and SE that reported a large proportion of groundwater bodies (around half of the EU total) which are largely in good status.EL and ES excluded from the calculations due to lack of plans. DK excluded as it did not report exemptions and therefore it is not possible to estimate the expected status in Information included from PT refers to draft plans. Information from Belgium refers to Flanders and coastal waters only.
11Blueprint impact assessment 12 priority problemsLack of water pricingLack of meteringLack of labeling of traded goodsLand use/Agricultural impactsInefficiency in buildings/appliancesInefficient water infrastructure (leakage)Lack of water re-useGovernanceTarget settingDrought managementUnderstanding costs and benefitsKnowledge base111111
12Blueprint objectivesVoluntaryRegulationConditionalityFundingEfficient incentive water pricingCIS Guidance on trading schemes by 2014Enforcement of Art. 9 WFD (ongoing)Ex-ante conditions under RD&C policy funds 2014Metering take upWater use reduction in agriculturePrecondition for some irrigation projects under RD as of 2014Reduction of illegal abstraction/impoundmentsApply GMES as of 2013Possible EU initiative on inspectionsCross-compliance under CAPAwareness of water consumptionSupport voluntary labeling & certific. schemesMaximisation of the use of NWRM (Green Infr.)CIS Guidance by 2014Greening of CAP pillar I as of 2014S&C Funds & EIB loansEfficient water appliances in buildingsEU Ecolabel & GPP criteria 2013Eco-design Working Plan in 2012Reduction of leakagesBest practice/tools on SELL in 2013Maximisation of water reusePossible Regulation in 2015Improvement of governancePeer review of RBMPs (2013 – 2016)In order to address the identified priority problems, in 2 slides I have collected all the policy proposals in the Blueprint, categorised as voluntary, regulatory, conditionality and funding. Due to limited time I will not take you through all of them.
13Blueprint objectivesVoluntaryRegulationConditionalityFundingImplementation of water accounts, e-flows & target settingCIS Guidance on WAs / E-flows & Target setting by 2014Reduction of flood riskThrough Green Infr. European Flood Awareness SystemFlood Risk Management Plans by 2015Reduction of drought riskThrough Green Infr. European FloodEDO inEnforcement of WFD requirements (ongoing)Better calculation of costs and benefitsCIS Guidance by 2014Better knowledge baseUpgrading WISE by 2015Support to developing countriesTackling pollutionReport on pharmaceuticals & the environment 2013Targeted enforcement of WFD, EQS/PSD, NID, UWWTD, IED …Cross-cuttingEIPs on Water and Agri as of 2013Overall enforcement of WFD, EQS/PSD, NID, UWWTD, IEDPossible European Semester Recomm. 2013CAP, S&C Funds & EIB loans
14Follow upEnsuring correct implementation of WFD in first and second RBMP period (Follow up RBMP assessment)Council ConclusionsFollow up bilaterally (COM+MS,)Possible enforcement actionCommon Implementation Strategy (CIS work program incorporated Blueprint policy options)Possible new legislative initiativesAssessment of PoM and integration of EU Water Directives2019 review WFD
16Good chemical status criteria (Article 3 & Annexes I and II) Risks of pollution from diffuse/point sources (urban, agriculture, industrial)EU-wide Quality standards:Nitrates & pesticides (more stringentTVs are required if associated surfacewaters or directly dependent terrestrialecosystems need them)TV establishment at most appropriate level (local, regional, national), with account of impacts on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, human toxicology and ecotoxicology knowledgeRun-offDrinking waterabstractionThreshold valuesfor “risk” substancesset by MS (end 2008) – Indicative list of pollutants provided – Transboundary coordination required – Possible amendment at RBMP review=WFD environmental objective(besides quantitative status covered by WFD)
17Review of GWD Annexes I and II in 2013 and if appropriate, legislative proposals taking account of monitoring data and research outputsGWD implementation group with MS and stakeholders: https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/b1a3fb a-8b6d-0c056b6890e49 October Conference in Brussels
19An updated list of priority substances 12 new priority substances (very persistent and bio-accumulative, highly toxic, or suspected of being endocrine disruptors)To be monitored regularly in all Member StatesNo later than 2021, action to reduce or eliminate emissions and bring concentrations down to safe levels by 2027
20A watch listA new monitoring mechanism – the 'Watch List' - to improve the evidence base for identifying priority substances in the futureThree pharmaceutical substances included on the first watch listProvisions to improve the information presented to the public on the chemical status of waterA strategic approach to pharmaceuticals
22Three stage approachPreliminary flood risk assessment (maps, experience from past floods, predictions of future floods, identification areas of potential significant flood risk)Flood mapping (= knowing areas at risk of flooding, different scenarios, flood hazard maps & flood risk maps),Flood Risk Management Plans (= plans to reduce flood risks, covering all elements of the flood risk management cycle)(Transposition)(CA/Unit of management)* 2019** 2021Review /update every 6 years thereafterReporting to the Commission : 3 months after* = date of 1st review of pressure and impact analysis under the WFD** = date of 1st review of WFD river basin management plans22
24Urban Waste Water Treatment Collection rates:15 MS collecting 100 % of total polluting load. All MS maintained or improved previous results, compliance rates below 30 % in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia and SloveniaSecondary treatment 82 %, up 4 points. In EU-15, range %, EU-12, average 39 %Compliance rates for more stringent treatment 77 % overall but EU-12 only 14 %, whereas Austria, Germany, Greece, and Finland reached 100 %EU territory designated as a sensitive area increased by 2 points to 75 %UWWTD as a pilot for the Structured Information and Implementation Framework (SIIF)
26Review of Annexes II and III (monitoring and analysis) Article 11.2 requires an update to respond to technical and scientific progressImproving efficiency, effectiveness, comparabilityMinimum requirements for monitoring to improve public access to informationCoherence with water legislationDiscussion at DW Commiteee in November
28Towards an EU instrument on water-reuse ? Impact assessment of the identified policy optionsImpact Assessment Roadmap – internal agreement at DG ENV by March/April (publication – after agreed with other DGs/services (ISG) and SG)Public consultations – to be launched April/May (questionnaire), GreenWeek – session on water reuse (5/6/14)Stakeholders meeting – October 2014Completion of IA (proposal of an EU level instrument on water reuse) – December 2014EC Impact Assessment Board – March 2015Commission proposal of an EU-level instrument on water reuse (if justified) – end 2015
29Next steps: 4th European Water Conference Brussels, 23–24 March 2015. The main focus of the Conference will be the implementation of the Water Framework Directive and the Floods Directive. The timing of the Conference will coincide with the public consultations of the draft River Basin Management Plans and (some of) the draft Flood Risk Management Plans.The Conference will also feature the links to other related Directives and policies. The Conference is aimed primarily at those working on the implementation of the Water Framework and Floods Directives at national and regional level, including stakeholders with a legitimate interest in water policy.
304th European Water Conference Brussels, 23–24 March 2015. Experiences from the first cycle of implementation of the WFD, achievements and lessons learnedThe European Commission's assessment of the implementation of the WFD programmes of measuresPreparations and expectations for the second River Basin Management PlansExperiences so far in the implementation of the Floods Directive, including the preparation of the Flood Hazard and Risk Maps and the Flood Risk Management PlansIntegration issues: links between water policy and agriculture, energy, and navigation policiesOpportunities to support water policy under the new financing period (Rural Development Programmes, Operational Programmes, etc.)The role of water policy in the context of Green and Blue GrowthLive broadcastDay 1 (23/03/2015)Day 2 (24/03/2015)