Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

DG ENV - “Support to Water Policy Fitness Check ” Part 2 – Effectiveness and Efficiency May 10, 2011.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "DG ENV - “Support to Water Policy Fitness Check ” Part 2 – Effectiveness and Efficiency May 10, 2011."— Presentation transcript:

1 DG ENV - “Support to Water Policy Fitness Check ” Part 2 – Effectiveness and Efficiency May 10, 2011

2 Agenda 1. Assessing Policy effectiveness 2. Assessing Policy efficiency 2

3 Assessing Policy effectiveness 3

4 4 Assessing policy effectiveness Effectiveness Have MS transposed EU water policies (and WFD in particular) into national law on time and correctly? Are MS implementing EU water policies (and WFD in particular) on time and correctly? What are the implementation challenges and barriers MS face? What are good practices in implementing EU water policies (and WFD in particular)? To what extent have intended objectives of EU water policies been achieved?

5 Have MS transposed the WFD into national law on time and correctly? The situation in 2007 (Commission implementation report) WFD transposition deadline was poorly met by EU15 (December 2003) EU12 progressed well by date of accession to EU Widespread shortcomings in transposition Article 4 on environmental objectives Article 4(7) on modifications and new developments which affect status of water bodies Article 9 on cost recovery (and related definition of water services) Article 14 on public participation Only three MSs appeared to have overall satisfactory transposition Many infringement cases launched by Commission throughout the years Some judgements by the European Court of Justice 5 Assessing policy effectiveness

6 Are MS implementing the WFD on time and correctly? (1/7) Environmental and economic analysis Most Member States have submitted reports on time and have put lots of efforts into these first analyses Two Member States have been condemned for failure to undertake the analyses for some all of their river basins Quality of reports and level of detail varies considerably All MSs needed to fill in data gaps to provide solid basis for 2009 River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) 6 Assessing policy effectiveness

7 Are MS implementing the WFD on time and correctly? (2/7) Assessment of ecological status of water bodies Achievements (selection) Ecological assessment methods and data have improved overall Assessment systems reflecting different stressors for most BQEs and water types now available Methods for intercalibration were developed Intercalibration successfully completed for several BQEs and water types Shortcomings (selection) Effort and long time required for development national assessment systems Different and partly incomparable systems used by MSs (due to biomonitoring traditions in MS) Effort and time required for intercalibration has been more than expected Results of ecological assessment were often not available in time for the first version of RBMPs 7 Assessing policy effectiveness

8 Are MS implementing the WFD on time and correctly? (3/7) Monitoring All Member States reported in 2007 on establishment of monitoring programmes, with the exception of Malta and Greece Overall good monitoring effort across Europe, with more than 107,000 monitoring stations reported However, still monitoring gaps in individual river basin districts or individual water categories The establishment of harmonised monitoring programmes remains challenge Design of monitoring programmes is extremely variable Adoption and quality of River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) (see next slides) 8 Assessing policy effectiveness

9 Are MS implementing the WFD on time? (4/7) Adoption of RBMPs – state of play late 2010 9 ● RBMP adopted (16) ● Consultation finalised, awaiting adoption (3) ● Consultation on-going or not started (8) ● By the end of 2010 RBMPs covered: ● 75% of EU territory ● 80% of EU population Source: EC presentation Assessing policy effectiveness

10 Are MS implementing the WFD on time? (5/7) Available draft RBMPs in September 2009 10 Assessing policy effectiveness

11 Are MS implementing the WFD on time and correctly? (6/7) RBMPs - quality and content Designation of water bodies as heavily modified or artificial (next slide) Extension of deadlines to achieve good status beyond 2015 Assessment of agricultural measures in draft RBMPs (2009-2010 study) Commitment to reduce impacts from agriculture within draft plans was difficult to judge as crucial information in the draft plans was lacking Links with measures nitrate action programs (Nitrates Directive) are not clearly described and often difficult to estimate Application of Article 9 on recovery of costs for water services / water pricing is not reported in many draft plans and remains challenging issue for 2010 Incoherent or inconsistent implementation (and the risk of unambitious MSs avoiding to take all necessary measures) 11 Assessing policy effectiveness

12 Are MS implementing the WFD on time and correctly? (7/7) RBMPs - quality and content HMWBAWBTotal RBD Scheldt in France26 % 12 % 38 % RBD Scheldt in Walloon Region (Belgium) 35.4% 15.2%50.6% RBD Scheldt in Brussels Capital Region (Belgium) 67 % 33 % 100 % RBD Scheldt in Flemish Region (Belgium) 50% 27.5 % 77.5 % RBD Scheldt in the Netherlands 34 % 62.5 % 96.5 % 12 The designation of water bodies as heavily modified and artificial in the Scheldt river basin district HMWB: heavily modified water body AWB: artificial water body Assessing policy effectiveness

13 Is implementation consistent across MS? Respondents to the survey (Public water authorities and Stakeholders) were asked to assess whether there are substantial divergences between Member States in defining and implementing the key concepts of the EU Water policy 13 Assessing policy effectiveness

14 What are the main implementation challenges? RBMPs - barriers to timely adoption Delays in environmental and economic analysis and ecological assessment of water bodies (technical problems) Difficulties in getting the new river basin authorities (or coordination forums) operational (administrative problems) Lack of cooperation among regions among central government and regions among water management authorities and other public authorities Lack of political priority or ambition (political problems) 14 Assessing policy effectiveness

15 What are the main implementation challenges? Respondents to the survey (Public water authorities and Managers) were asked to identify what are the main difficulties encountered when implementing national policy based on water directives 15 Assessing policy effectiveness

16 What are the main implementation challenges? Respondents to the survey (Stakeholders) were asked to identify what are the most common reasons of failing to implement the EU water policy in time and adequately 16 Assessing policy effectiveness

17 Assessing Policy efficiency 17

18 18 Assessing policy efficiency Efficiency To what extent do MS cooperate within international river basin districts and to what extent do authorities cooperate within MS? To what extent does the implementation of EU water policies lead to/foster cooperation? Does the available funding meet the existing needs? Is there evidence for unnecessary administrative burden? To what extent does this cooperation bring added-value? Does it improve the efficiency of EU water policies?

19 To what extent do MS cooperate within international river basin districts and to what extent do authorities within MS cooperate? Transboundary cooperation in international river basins: Most advanced for the Danube, the Elbe, the Meuse, the Odra, the Rhine and the Scheldt Many are due to pre-existent governance set-ups For other trans-boundary river basins Often bilateral agreements in place; some work, others do not Most of them are only partially redirected towards WFD implementation ● Cooperation between authorities within MS ● In some MS good cooperation during process of drafting RBMPs: e.g. the Netherlands ● In other MS insufficient or cumbersome cooperation between authorities: e.g. Italy and Spain Transboundary cooperation in international river basins: Most advanced for the Danube, the Elbe, the Meuse, the Odra, the Rhine and the Scheldt Many are due to pre-existent governance set-ups For other trans-boundary river basins Often bilateral agreements in place; some work, others do not Most of them are only partially redirected towards WFD implementation ● Cooperation between authorities within MS ● In some MS good cooperation during process of drafting RBMPs: e.g. the Netherlands ● In other MS insufficient or cumbersome cooperation between authorities: e.g. Italy and Spain 19 Assessing policy efficiency

20 To what extent does the implementation of the EU Water Policy lead to/foster cooperation? Respondents to the survey (Public water authorities and Stakeholders) were asked whether the implementation of the EU Water policy led to/fostered cooperation between the different administrative units in Member States, and among Member States in trans- boundary basins 20 Assessing policy efficiency

21 To what extent does this cooperation bring added-value? (1/2) Respondents to the survey (Public water authorities and Stakeholders) were asked whether the cooperation between the different administrative units in Member States, and among Member States in trans-boundary basins have brought/will bring added- value to the followings: 21 Assessing policy efficiency

22 To what extent does this cooperation bring added-value? (2/2) Respondents to the survey Public water authorities) were asked what are the main reasons besides enhanced cooperation 22 Assessing policy efficiency

23 Does the available funding meets the existing needs? (1/3) ● Funding problems in many MS for different parts of EU water policies ● EU funding has been available for some water policies for many years ● EU Cohesion policy has given considerable financial support to investments – Criticism on how well the funds are targeted – Given the scale of investment needs this support is insufficient in many new MS – In centralized countries (e.g. Bulgaria) decisions on investments are made at national level and often not adapted to local needs – Sometimes large-scale technological options, are favored over cheaper, less-technology oriented and small-scale alternatives ● Rural development funding under CAP important for farm-scale investments ● Requirement for co-financing can limit application of both cohesion and rural development funds Assessing policy efficiency 23

24 Does the available funding meets the existing needs? (2/3) Respondents to the survey (Public water authorities) were asked whether funding under the schemes is used to finance the implementation of the EU water policy 24 Assessing policy efficiency

25 Does the available funding meets the existing needs? (3/3) Respondents to the survey (Public water authorities) were asked to what degree do availability of and access to funds constrain the implementation of the EU Water Policy Directives and policy covering water scarcity and drought 25 Assessing policy efficiency

26 Is there evidence for unnecessary administrative burden? Preparing the first RBMP was challenging because it was a first. Future updates should require fewer resources, provided that the process is streamlined: Streamlining water management The level of detail required for reporting may not be necessary Having to update the plans in the absence of feedback from EC (on the first submissions) adds administrative burden 26 Assessing policy efficiency

27 Is there evidence for unnecessary administrative burden? Respondents to the survey (Public water authorities) were asked whether the administrative costs* allocated for the implementation of the EU water policy are proportionate to the objectives to be achieved * additional cost for the national/regional administrations due solely to the implementation of the EU Water Policy 27 Assessing policy efficiency

28 Is there evidence for unnecessary administrative burden? Respondents to the survey (Public water authorities and Stakeholders) were asked to rate the administrative burden* stemming from the implementation of EU Water policy * additional administrative activities and compliance costs for the industry and the agriculture due solely to the implementation of the EU Water Policy 28 Assessing policy efficiency

29 Copyright © 2011 Deloitte Consulting CVBA/SCRL. All rights reserved. About Deloitte Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, a Swiss Verein, its member firms and their respective subsidiaries and affiliates. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu is an organisation of member firms around the world devoted to excellence in providing professional services and advice, focused on client service through a global strategy executed locally in nearly 140 countries. With access to the deep intellectual capital of approximately 150,000 people worldwide, Deloitte delivers services in four professional areas, audit, tax, consulting and financial advisory services, and serves more than 80 percent of the world’s largest companies, as well as large national enterprises, public institutions, locally important clients, and successful, fast-growing global growth companies. Services are not provided by the Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Verein and, for regulatory and other reasons, certain member firms do not provide services in all four professional areas. As a Swiss Verein (association), neither Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu nor any of its member firms has any liability for each other’s acts or omissions. Each of the member firms is a separate and independent legal entity operating under the names “Deloitte”, “Deloitte & Touche”, “Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu” or other related names. A leading audit and consulting practice in Belgium, Deloitte offers value added services in audit, accounting, tax, consulting and corporate finance. In Belgium, Deloitte has more than 2,200 employees in over 16 offices across the country, serving national and international companies, from small and middle sized enterprises, to public sector and non- profit organisations. The turnover reached 252 million euro in the financial year 2005-2006. For more information, please visit the Belgian member firm’s website at www.deloitte.be.


Download ppt "DG ENV - “Support to Water Policy Fitness Check ” Part 2 – Effectiveness and Efficiency May 10, 2011."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google