1. WGB Activity on Information exchange and research needs
Activity leaders: ES – Manuel Menendez
NL – Gerard Broseliske
– Marc de Rooy

2. Outline Introduction Results of the questionnaire Steps to follow
Objectives
Way of working
Results of the questionnaire
Steps to follow

3. Objectives of the activity
Identification of issues that need further elaboration in the WFD process
Identification of key issues with relevance for EU-level and prioritisation
Identification of knowledge gaps that need further research
Mandate endorsed by the WD in Amsterdam
Activity leaders Spain and The Netherlands (Manuel Ménendez, Gerard Broseliske and Marc de Rooy)

4. Working method ‘Light process’ in order to gain time
(don’t wait until all Article 5 reports are submitted)
Involve existing initiatives where possible
(e.g. the HarmoniCA conference)
Install a Sounding Board as first quality check, and involve M.S. at important steps
Sounding Board: DE, EC, ES, FI, FR, JRC, NL, UK
Involvement of WGB during the process
Final products to be endorsed by SCG and WD

5. Schematic: Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 All issues Issues with EU relevance
First identification of research needs during workshop in April
Input from research community (what has been done already?)
Check ‘long list’
Identification of EU- relevance
During workshop in April
All issues
Issues with EU relevance
(policy issues and research needs)
Research needs
Issue collection via questionnaire (Jan.-March ’05)
Further elaboration during 2nd half of 2005
Endorsement by SCG and WD
List to be endorsed by SCG and WD
June 2005
December 2005

6. Questionnaire
Drafted by activity leaders on the basis of the IMPRESS guidance document
Comments by Sounding Board and WGB
Finalisation and sending off to MS, CC and EFTA countries on January 19th (30 in total)

7. Information obtained with the questionnaire:
What are the most important driving forces and pressures that prevent a good status?
What obstacles did countries face in the process of producing an Article 5 report, and what obstacles do they expect to face in the future?
What issues (both driving forces, pressures and other obstacles) would merit an international approach?
What issues would need extra research?

8. Return (score at May 12th)
24 of the 25 Member States
Portugal is missing
Return from Belgium only concerns Flanders
Return from France only useable qualitatively
2 EFTA countries
Norway and Iceland
No Accession countries
Both Bulgaria and Romania missing
Total return 26

9. Driving forces and pressures
Is the topic of concern to your country?
If yes, add an indication of the weighting (1= less important – 5= top priority)
Indicate water category concerned
Percentage of countries reporting an issue; score of 70% and higher marked orange
Average weighting once a topic was reported; score of 3 and higher marked green
In individual return; weighting 4-5 marked yellow

10. Driving forces and pressures Results

11. Driving forces and pressures Agriculture
Issue of concern to many countries; up to 88% in rivers and 80% in groundwater
High average weightings, from 3.7 groundwater to 3.4 in rivers.
Confirmed by the PoM, where 24 of 25 countries reported agriculture to be a topic

12. Morphology Flow management and river management (general terms): 64%
Specific issues higher, up to 92% for ‘physical alteration of the channel’.
Weighting is high, several issues at 3.0, and up to 3.2.
High score is confirmed by question on PoM: 20 countries indicate measures

13. Driving forces and pressures Households
Broadly reported, up to 92% for ‘municipal wastewater’
Weighting is lower, none reaches at 3.0, though several rank 2.9
Topic also mentioned often in the PoM question: 22 out of 25

14. Driving forces and pressures Industry
No scores higher than 70%. High scores: Chemicals, Pulp paper and boards, Non Ferrous metals.
Only high weightings were few countries reported. Other higher weightings: Chemical industry, Iron and steel, Food processing industry.
Individual countries report high weightings for specific sectors

15. Other issues High scores for ‘landfill and waste’ and ‘transport’
Average weightings low, but might be high in individual cases. Exception: ‘climate change’.
Issue reported in PoM: atmospheric deposition (including long distance air pollution)

16. Driving forces and pressures Reduction in flow
Abstractions for agriculture and for drinking water supply broadly reported, but lowly weighted

17. Concluding remarks on this section
Hardly issues with prevalence for a certain EU region
Exception: reduction in flow in Mediterranean region.

18. Other obstacles Data (18 countries) Knowledge gaps (13) Resources (8)
International Co-ordination (7)
WFD process (7)

19. Data formats different agencies differ
Other obstacles Data
Lack of data, especially in the field of hydromorphology, biology and economics
Data formats different agencies differ
Level of aggregation very diverse
Some countries report it also as problem in the future, others regard the problem it to be solved in the future

20. Other obstacles Knowledge gaps
Insights and tools to estimate the current status of the water system are lacking
Interactions between different water systems are poorly known
Difficulties with impact assessment and models lack to calculate the effect of pressures
Insight in reference conditions and good status lack, and thus insight in the objectives
Difficulties with measures assessment
Issues are expected to stay in the future

21. Other obstacles Resources
Difficulties in finding sufficient financial and human resources
Issue is expected to be bigger in the future (16) than it has been up to now (10)

22. Other obstacles International co-ordination
Approaches, evaluation methods, and data formats differ from country to country, and need co-ordination or harmonisation
Upstream-downstream relationships
Some issues can hardly be solved at national level, and would merit international regulation

23. Other obstacles WFD process
Difficulties with ‘atypical water systems’
Lacking methods for defining typologies, criteria for definition of reference conditions, assessment criteria for the risk assessment
The long term perspective of the WFD is difficult to insert in ‘day-to-day’ politics
National debates on the implementation
Harmonisation of WFD with other policies

24. WFD Key Issues summarized 1
Agriculture “biggest issue”
Morphological issues also important (relates to hydropower, flood defence, building of reservoirs and agriculture)
Pollution from “households” (municipal wastewater) broadly reported
Pollution from “industry” in individual countries
“other sources of pollution”: “diffuse sources”, “transport”, “long range transport of air pollution”, and “historic pollution” issues of concern
Climate change is considered an issue; effects not well understood

25. WFD Key Issues summarized 2
Data availability, data formats and the level of aggregation of data
International level also “upstream-downstream”
Communication about the WFD implementation
Several knowledge gaps

26. Research Water resources management Groundwater management
Knowledge on physical processes
Knowledge on ecological processes
Monitoring
Pressure impact relations
Data management
Measures assessment
WFD policy questions
Policy assessment
Socio economic issues

27. Observations during HarmoniCA conference
Three concerns from a researcher that attended the discussion:
Limited user awareness of research programme
User perception that research outputs are of little use
Researchers have no mechanism for delivering to users

28. Possible way out “Change the system” Handover existing results FP7
Funding in two phases (research and making results operational)
Handover existing results
LIFE
Link to the CIS process

29. Driving forces and pressures Key messages (after WG B discussion)
Agriculture is main topic, morphology also important. Both already covered in CIS activities
Municipal wastewater might need extra attention
Industries might gain from system of information exchange
Long range transport of air pollution issue not covered under CIS
Several issues would gain from integration with other policy areas

30. Other obstacles Key messages (after WG B discussion)
Many countries face difficulties related to data. Actions at the level of M.S. and international river basin districts are needed to overcome these. Some are already covered by WG A (intercalibration) and WG D (reporting).
Specific interest is given to ‘how to present outcomes of the art. 5 reports in WFD context’. Partially covered by activity on environmental objectives.
Issues regarding international co-ordination – especially with non-EU countries – deserve further investigation in CIS
Several knowledge gaps were identified. This issue will be further investigated in the 2nd phase of the Key Issues activity (to be finalised in November 2005)

31. Draft conclusions to be agreed upon by the WD
The document is welcomed
The results can be published and widely disseminated
The SCG will be asked to prepare proposals for integration of outstanding issues in the CIS process.
WD encourage the continuation of the process of positive collaboration between CIS and research communities

32. Next steps Possibility to send written comments until June 3rd
Finalisation of Phase 1 (key issues) during WD meeting
Further activity on Phase 2 (research) during 2nd half of 2005, finalisation at WD London

33. Thank you M.dRooy@riza.rws.minvenw.nl