WFD Stakeholder Meeting 2 February 2007 WFD Environmental Standards Rob Hitchen WFD Team, Defra.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1. 2 Content Principles of the Water Framework Directive WFD and Agriculture WFD and CAP.
Advertisements

Preliminary Cost Effectiveness Analysis and WFD economics update Kevin Andrews.
The EU Water Framework Directive and Sediments The Water Framework Directive was transposed into law in EU Member States at the end of Nearly two.
AICT5 – eProject Project Planning for ICT. Process Centre receives Scenario Group Work Scenario on website in October Assessment Window Individual Work.
Water Framework Directive Programme of Measures River Basin Management Plans Milan Matuška Ministry of the Environment Slovak Republic Water Protection.
Better Regulation Executive Making regulation work for everyone Introduction to Regulatory Impact Assessment Claire Chaubert February 2007.
Water.europa.eu Assessment of the River Basin Management Plans – preliminary findings Conference on River Basin Management Planning Ankara, 28 February.
Consultation on River Basin Planning Guidance Volume 2 and the updated WFD Impact Assessment Rory Wallace WFD Implementation.
Presented by CIDA on behalf of the Task Team on Multilateral Effectiveness.
Fish migration from a Water Framework Directive perspective
River Basin Characterisation 2 Risk Assessment outputs River Basin Management Team Environment Agency.
Component 5.2 Harald Marent, Veronika Koller-Kreimel, Austrian Ministry for Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management Edith Hödl-Kreuzbauer,
Indicators to communicate progress towards good status WG DIS, April 2015.
THE MANAGEMENT PLAN IN PRACTICE Case study. RBMP Detailed publication process in the directive...  art. 13: general rules  annex VII: detailed contents.
Water Framework Directive Implementation and Risk Analysis John Sadlier Water Quality Section.
River Basin Management Planning Cath Preston Senior Planning Officer (River Basin Planning) 2 nd March 2006.
WFD Characterisation Report Dr Tom Leatherland Environmental Quality Manager 29 October 2003.
Water.europa.eu Water Framework Directive - a framework for Community action in the field of water policy Marieke van Nood WFD Team, DG ENV.D.2, European.
Water.europa.eu Assessment River Basin Management Plans CIS Strategic Coordination Group meeting Brussels, May 2011 Marieke van Nood WFD Team DG.
EU Project: Trans-Boundary River Management Phase II and Phase III for the Kura River basin – Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan ( Transboundary.
A Practical Approach: The General Physico-Chemical Quality Elements and the Classification of Ecological Status.
Reporting and compliance checking on RBMP in 2010 WFD Reporting Working Group D on Reporting Brussels, 17/18 October 2006.
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC 2 nd MEETING CHEMICAL MONITORING ACTIVITY (CMA) BRUSSELS, 17 th NOVEMBER 2005 Chemical Monitoring Activity Draft Outline of a Guidance.
1 European Topic Centre on Water Workshop on: Identification of surface water bodies under the Pilot River Basin Initiative Monitoring Water Bodies Steve.
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Overall Approach to the Ecological Classification 01 July 2003 D/UK WGL CIS 2A.
Slide 1 WG F Brussels, April 2008 Water – the key to adapt to Climate Change Unit ‘Protection of Water & Marine Environment’ DG Environment, European.
Water.europa.eu Compliance Checking of River Basin Management Plans Strategic Coordination Group Meeting, 4-5 November 2009 DG Environment, European Commission.
EEA water report 2012 Upcoming EEA report state of our water environment 2012 In support of the Commission Report on WFD implementation Peter Kristensen.
Building WFD into impact assessment Richard Sharp Geomorphology IEMA webinar Thursday 31 March 2016.
EU Update/CIS England WFD Stakeholder Forum 4 April 2008.
PRESENTATION OF MONTENEGRO
Environmental policies in Europe
Relationship between EUROWATERNET and the Water Framework Directive, and for broader water reporting Steve Nixon ETC/WTR.
CAFE SG 23 November Brussels
Principles and Key Issues
State of Implementation of CEA in Germany
Daughter Groundwater Directive
Synthesis of the intercalibration process Working group 2.5.
Purpose Independent piece of legislation, closely integrated in a larger regulatory framework (complement to WFD): prevent deterioration protect, enhance.
State of play of French progress in cost-effectiveness analysis
Progress report Working Group D - Reporting SCG meeting May 2008 Unit D.2 Water and the Marine - WFD Team.
Monitoring, assessing and classifying the environment
One-out-all-out and other indicators
1. Implementation of the Water Framework Directive: notifications & infringements, RBMP assessments for the agricultural sector Expert Group on WFD & agriculture.
Philippe QUEVAUVILLER
Horizontal Guidance on Wetlands Rome, 12nd June
Progress report Working Group D - Reporting SCG meeting May 2008 Unit D.2 Water and the Marine - WFD Team.
Update on RBMP&FRMP adoption and reporting Assessment of RBMP&FRMP
Preparing a River Basin Management Plan WFD Characterisation Manager
Meeting of Water Directors Future Work Programme of the CIS
Project 2.7 Guidance on Monitoring
5b - Expert Group on Agriculture & Water/River Basin Network on agriculture Paving the way for WFD in cross compliance: discussion on practical implementation.
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT SCG Meeting in Brussels
Objective setting in practice
Comparison of methodologies for defining Good Ecological Potential
EU Water Framework Directive
Environmental objective document –
Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive
3rd meeting, 8 March 2006 EEA Copenhagen
Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive and Inland Waterway Transport Marieke van Nood WFD Team, DG ENV.D.2, European Commission.
Preparation of the second RBMP in Romania
IMPRESS Guidance and Policy Summary Water Directors Copenhagen, 21-22nd November 2002 Working Group leaders: Volker Mohaupt, Umwelt Bundes Amt Isobel.
Legal issues and compliance checking in WFD implementation SCG meeting 5-6 November 2008 Jorge Rodríguez Romero, Unit D.2, DG Environment, European.
THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (WFD)
European Commission activities
Guidelines to translate the intercalibration results into the national classification systems and to derive reference conditions Presented by Wouter.
WGC-2 Status Compliance and Trends
Concept paper on the assessment of WFD River Basin Management Plans
Results of the screening of the draft second RBMPs
Assessment of Member States‘ 2nd River Basin Management Plans
Presentation transcript:

WFD Stakeholder Meeting 2 February 2007 WFD Environmental Standards Rob Hitchen WFD Team, Defra

Environmental Standards/Conditions Environmental Standards and conditions are the physico-chemical and hydromorphological parameters that are in support of the achievement of good status (good ecological status for surface waters and groundwater status) Being developed by each MS but will be informed with the ‘intercalibration’ of biological classification between MS Good chemical status is defined at EU level via daughter directive on priority substances

Env standards/conditions [cont] Consistent UK approach for WFD - UK Environment Agencies (UKTAG) are developing harmonised classification tools Distinction between classification and objective setting - according to the Directive and CIS Guidance. Classification should be a technical and scientific exercise. Economic considerations are part of the objective setting stage (part of the River Basin Planning process)

Defra had agreed with other UK Administrations for: UKTAG to undertake a stakeholder review on the science underpinning the first tranche of environmental standards [COMPLETE – FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS MADE TO UK ADMINISTRATIONS AUGUST 2006] Each administration to consult on the final recommendations made by UKTAG together with a partial RIA on the costs and benefits associated with the proposed standards/conditions [SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE HAVE COMPLETED 2 MONTH CONSULTATION; REST OF UK HAVEN’T]

Defra have revised thinking on water-related consultations. As a result we propose: To combine the Defra consultations on the 2 tranches of WFD environmental standards into a single consultation. This would take place in summer 2007 and follow the UKTAG stakeholder review on the 2 nd tranche standards (spring 2007) To make the partial RIA prepared for the 1 st tranche of WFD standards public on the Defra website so it can feed into the Defra/WAG preliminary CEA exercise. It is not being consulted on but if stakeholders have views then they are welcome to make them Refine the partial RIA ready for the consultation this summer A formal classification instrument is consulted on after intercalibration completed (start 2008) which will set out the final classification for the first planning cycle

Advantages of combining into one single consultation on WFD standards this Summer Reduces the number of water related consultations Allows a more accurate estimate of costs/benefits and scenarios to be obtained from pCEA Allows the re-running of analysis to take account of latest Defra study on the apportionment of P

UKTAG final recommendations (1 st tranche) to the UK Administrations following stakeholder review Most significant changes for England are: Tightening of ammonia standard for most river types New WFD standard for P in rivers (beyond that used for UWWTD, n2k, SSSIs) New morphological conditions (to screen for deterioration) in rivers Standards for oxygen, salinity acidification in lakes

Recommended delay until 2 nd tranche for: P in lakes and N in TraC due to ongoing debate at EU level on intercalibration Specific pollutants

The Partial RIA on the first tranche of environmental standards It explores: -potential compliance costs and benefits associated with the proposed UKTAG standards/conditions. -monitoring and administration costs Comprises of: -Summary and Annex for each standard or condition Main purpose is to inform stakeholders and Ministers of potential costs and benefits of adopting the proposed standards. However, defining ‘good status’ is a scientific process

RIA explores options and scenarios Option 1 – based on ‘do nothing’ but assumes where an appropriate standard already exists (even if non regulatory) this is used for classify for WFD purposes Option 2 – based on final UKTAG proposals BUT! Under the WFD the introduction of the standards does not alone drive compliance costs (except for no deterioration obligation). Actual compliance costs and benefits are determined by the final objectives set for WBs and summarised in the RBMPs in 2009.

RIA - 3 broad scenarios to demonstrate the the impact of objective setting on costs/benefits For each of the 2 options: Scenario 1: no measures to achieve good status are applied in any water body where confident standards are failed (100% WB are set alternative objectives) Scenario 2: aim to achieve good status in 50% water bodies where confident standards are failed (50% WB are set alternative objectives) Scenario 3: aim to achieve good status in 100% water bodies where confident standards are failed (no alternative objectives are set)

Please note that….. It’s a Partial RIA considering the impacts of using the UKTAG standards/conditions in support of good status and NOT entire WFD implementation Represents a preliminary view of potential costs and benefits associated with the standards Scenarios indicate a range of costs/benefits. Its simplistic & assumes linear relationship Not 100% accurate; many assumptions – these will be clearly stated in each of the annex. Does not fully account for baseline (CAP reform, PR09, new development, climate change)

Please note that… [cont] It will evolve and incorporate the 2 nd tranche standards for the Defra consultation this summer and then be finalised to accompany the classification instrument consultation in early 2008 Many costs similar to estimates in WFD transposition RIA (2003) Final costs/benefits not known until RIAs associated with consultation on each RBMP Will be available shortly at

Next Steps Partial RIA, whilst work in progress, provides useful information for preliminary CEA which will in turn provide useful information (on scenarios, baselines etc) for the refinement of the RIA Take account of new Defra P apportionment study where apportionment to agriculture has been shown to be lower - 26% compared to 43% from Morse (1993) Examine also the apportionment for ammonia Close links between standards RIA (UK wide) and the revision of the overall transposition RIA (E&W). Both working to similar timescales In meantime, EA and pCEA to use UKTAG recommendations on the 1 st tranche of standards for river basin planning purposes