1. Environmental objective document –
SCG Meeting
19/20 May 2005
Environmental objective document –
State-of-play

2. WD Recommendations Continuation of drafting group
Finalisation of background document addressing the open issues and preparing a policy summary for next WD meeting
Workshop (organised by Drafting Group in 2005) on exchange of experiences and current thinking of MS on application of exemptions
No development of an interpretative guidance on exemptions

3. Process Dec. 04: Presentation at WD meeting,
Jan/Feb 05: Consultation of SCG members,
Comments received from DE, FI, FR, IT, SP, UK, NO, EEB/WWF, Eurelectric, Danish Agriculture
March 05: Comments presented to Drafting Group on 11 to decide upon next steps
May 05: revised document for presention to SCG

4. Key Comments Overall positive feedback, paper generally supported
Some open points addressed in document to be discussed
Some new key issues raised

5. Terminology Objectives (Art. 4 §1 and §2)
Specific objectives (AWB, HMWB)
Exemptions - Art. 4 §4 (extension of deadlines) - Art. 4 §5 (less stringent objectives) - Art. 4 §6 (temporary deterioration) - Art. 4 §7 (new modifications)
Minimum requirements (Art. 4 §8 and §9)

6. Key issues from consultation
scientific vs. socio-economic role
Exemptions (prioritised action, relationship between exemptions, less stringent objective, key terms)
HMWB issues
Use of Art. 4 §7 and 4 §8 § (new modifications, associated water bodies)
Other (scale, planning cycles, main pressures / Article 5 results, implementation of old directives, funding instruments

7. Key messages (1) Identification of key messages including:
Risk of failure of WFD objectives (2004) partially because non-implementation of other EU legislation
Socio-economic considerations should be taken into account in exemptions and CEA, NOT when defining status class boundaries
Exemptions integral part of objectives/planning and should be used to prioritise action in river basins and programme of measures
Exemptions could be applied in a stepwise approach (figure 1)

8. Key messages (2)

9. Key messages (2)
“Less stringent objective” represents the nearest quality one can get to “good status”
A harmonised, comparable and transparent approach for the application of the “exemptions” and the cost-effectiveness assessment should be carried out within river basin districts.
The appropriate scale of application of assessments may be different for different issues.

10. Key messages (3)
Step 1 ( ): EU harmonisation of criteria for status assessment
Step 2 ( ): Evaluation of the most cost-effective measures and a public consultation
Step 3 (2007 onwards): Monitoring of water quality.
Step 4 ( ): Set objectives including, if necessary and appropriate, application of exemptions following public participation.

11. Next Steps 12 May: circulation of final draft 19 May: SCG meeting
26/27 May: German workshop
10 June: incorporation of comments from SCG and workshop
20/21 June: presentation – final discussion on WD meeting