EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERALENVIRONMENTDirectorate C - Quality of Life, Water & AirENV.C.1 – Water

Brussels, May 2015

MEETING OF THE STRATEGIC CO-ORDINATION GROUP FOR THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (WFD) COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY (CIS)

7 MAY 2015 FROM 10:00 TO 18:45

IN CENTRE ALBERT BORSCHETTE, ROOM 2D, BRUSSELS

A meeting of the Strategic Co-ordination Group (SCG) of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) for the Water Framework Directive (WFD) was held on 7 May 2015. The following Member States participated in the meeting: AT, BE,CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, RO, SE, SK, and UK. In addition a delegate from NO and representatives of CEEP, CEFIC, CEMR, CONCAWE, EAA, ECPA, EIC, EEB, EUROPE-INBO, EUWMA, EWA, NAVI TG, UEPG, WWF EPO, DG ENV and DG ECFIN attended the meeting. A full list of meeting participants is provided in Annex 1.

Copies of the invitation, agenda, meeting documents and presentations given are available for download from CIRCABC:

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/66fa8bf0-42cd-4655-aa01-d1655067554f

1 – Welcome and introduction

The Co-Chair Jean Paul Lickes (JPL) welcomed the delegates to the meeting together with Commission (COMM) Co-Chair, Nicola Notaro (NN).

2 – Approval of the agenda and minutes of the last SCG meeting

JPL noted that under “other issues” there will also be information about the European river prize. With this addition the agenda was adopted.

On the minutes of the last SCG, the following points were made:

FR noted that on p4 a heading is duplicated. NO stated that on p3 it was only asking if the advocate general’s view was different. BE stated that on p2, water services are broader than waste water treatment and

drinking water supply, but it did not agree with the COMM interpretation.

With these amendments, the minutes of the last meeting were approved.

3 – Water and Marine Directors’ meeting preparation

LV gave a presentation on the forthcoming Water and Marine Directors’ meeting on 26-27 May 2015 in Riga, taking place in the new National Library. Several delegations are not yet registered and the deadline for this is 12 May, so delegates were urged to do this. The presentation reviewed the draft agenda (provided on CIRCABC) and provided practical details for those attending the meeting.

1

LU reminded delegates of the Water Directors' (WDs) meeting on 25-27 November in Luxembourg City. There is a provisional agenda, with the WDs meeting on 25th, a joint meeting of water, marine and nature directors on 25-26, and on 27th a joint water/marine directors meeting. The objective is to foster exchange between the directors on common issues and objectives of the directives.

FR stated that WD meetings should be systematically with the nature directors and the LU initiative is welcome. At the marine SCG, the LV presidency asked FR to present on nature in the joint session. JPL replied that this will be taken into consideration in future planning.

4 - Legal and implementation issues regarding Water Directives

- SCG acknowledgement of the written report

NN drew delegates' attention to the short document and invited comments.

SE asked for information on open cases under points 3, 4 and 8. NN stated that the cases on water services are closed following the decision on the DE case. On the other cases, there are many so if there are specific concerns, requests concerning these should be sent and colleagues will respond.

DK asked about the pilot procedure. NN replied that there are about 10 pilots open and the issues reflect the assessments undertaken. The key priorities identified by the pilots include diffuse pollution from agriculture, hydromorphological modification and the use of exemptions. It is important to note that the pilot procedure is a dialogue with Member States (MS) which may or may not result in infringement procedures and this will also depend on developments in the 2nd River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs).

UK asked for clarification of the word “saisines”. NN replied that this means that the case has been brought to the ECJ.

FR asked for more information on the Nitrates Directive, what issues are being dealt with in non-conformity cases and also what are the next steps on the DE preliminary reference on status degradation. FR considers that the COMM position is different to that approved in the guidelines. NN replied that for all 7 ND cases, non-conformity refers to incomplete transposition. These are usually country specific problems. On the DE preliminary reference, the opinion published by the Advocate General is in line with COMM’s view, but there is no date yet for the final ruling.

5 - Commission activities (information points)

a) European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)

Erriko Velissaratos (DG ECFIN) gave a presentation. Overall there has been a lack of investment in Europe, with a particular gap since the start of the financial crisis. The investment package of €315 billion was presented in July 2014 and has three pillars: to mobilise finance; to manage finance in the real economy; and to improve the investment environment. EIB will invest €63 billion to cover the riskier parts of the investment to make co-investment more attractive. For each billion EIB invests, four more billion will come from third party investors (private or public), hence a leverage of five times, delivering an overall €315 billion. The investments will be in the form of long-term loans and related financial

2

instruments. It is also hoped that MS funds and EU Structural Funds will be used in co-ordination with EFSI funds.

How will EFSI be organised? There will be two important bodies. A Steering Board, composed of COMM and EIB, will define the investment guidelines (consistent with the eligibility criteria set out in the Regulation). The decisions on specific investments will be made by an Investment Committee composed of independent experts that will decide on individual projects based on the guidelines. The decisions will need to be endorsed by the EIB governing bodies. The Regulation is still being adopted, with some differences remaining between COMM, Council and EP.

DE asked whether the leverage and multipliers applied are based on experience. This is of interest, e.g., in getting projects started that would not otherwise be fundable. EV noted that when EIB capital was previously increased, this resulted in a leverage of 18, so a leverage of 15 is possible and there are a number of avenues by which this leverage can occur.

BE asked about funding of Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRMs) which do not generate money, so how would loans be paid back? EWA also noted that in water sector there is no cost recovery, so it is not clear how loans would be repaid. FR also sought more information on how EFSI will impact on water infrastructure.

EV noted that specific types of investment are not yet clear as the guidelines are yet to be developed. Investments in water projects do not provide a return, so how can they be eligible? EFSI loans allow infrastructure to be built early before the moneys are collected and these can be paid back over time. So, the loans are consistent with publicly funded infrastructure with repayment from public funds.

BE pointed out that EU money is already used for water infrastructure, so what is the difference? EV replied that this is not clear as the specific future financing rules are yet to be finalised. It is hoped that some additional projects (especially those more risky) will be financed.

NN noted that investments in the water sector are not always a loss, not least that WFD Art. 9 requires cost recovery. NN asked EV where EFSI loans will be checked to ensure investments are consistent with EU policy, i.e. that investments on the ground do not have a negative impact on water protection. EV stated that the final check will be made by the Investment Committee which will act according to the Steering Board guidelines. COMM is represented on the Steering Board and so COMM will need to ensure consistency with EU objectives. Investment platforms will be important and these could focus on investments in specific areas, but these are likely to be initiated at MS level, and supported by EIB. NN noted that the quantity of information will be large and it may also be difficult to assess individual projects with the information available. So if MS colleagues have concerns about individual projects, they can alert COMM. However, it is ultimately the responsibility of MS authorities that approve the project to ensure consistency with EU law.

EWA noted there is cost recovery under the WFD, but analysis shows this is often not the case in practice, but this is being improved.

EV concluded by stating that projects can be submitted already as the EIB has expertise and can already address technical questions. EIB is open for business.

3

b) Commission Communication on WFD and Floods Directive (FD) and 4th European Water Conference

Alberto Parenti (COMM) (AP) reported on the conference. This drew on the COMM Communication on the state of implementation of the WFD and FD, accompanied by two Staff Working Documents (SWDs), including country specific annexes. There are also consultant's reports on the PoMs for all MS. These documents can help in finalising RBMPs due this year, including where measures do not seem to be sufficient to address major pressures.

Jorge Rodriguez Romero (COMM) (JRR) noted that the conference report has been finalised and will be uploaded on the website, which includes links to documents, presentations, recordings, etc. The conference had 458 participants and more than 500 followed on line through the webcast.

c) Update on the Peer Review Mechanism

Yannick Pochon (OIEAU) (YP) gave a presentation. The peer review mechanism targets practitioners from River Basin Districts (RBDs). The aim is for peer review missions to enable direct learning of experience and developing recommendations. There is also the facility to organise workshops on specific topics. The Secretariat was created in September 2014 and a manual of procedures was developed with MS input, validated at the last SCG. This was followed by a call for expressions of interest for both peer review visits to basins and to be peer reviewers. In summer 2015 the first peer review will start. There are 55 potential reviewing experts from 14 MS and 14 basins from 8 MS requesting reviews. Specific subjects are identified for each river basin and these will be matched to specific expertise of reviewers. So, there is considerable interest from basins and the level of participation is already good. There is a need for some additional expertise from reviewers, such as on economics and groundwater. This might also be the focus for workshops.

NO asked about the deadline for further expressions of interest. YP stated that responses should be as soon as possible as there are around 5-6 places remaining.

DE asked whether all experts have had feedback. YP stated that once expressions of interest are received, basin authorities are asked to develop terms of reference for the peer review and then experts are proposed to those authorities. Only then are peer review experts contacted. 13 of the 14 basins have terms of reference, so experts will be contacted soon.

FR is supportive of peer reviews. In future more FR basins will be willing to take part. FR has a particular form of basin governance including different stakeholders. The committees are interested in exchange of experience. However, there is also concern that sharing of problems could lead to legal action. YP stated that under the mandate it is clear that it is a voluntary exchange of information between MS and is not to be used by COMM for infringement proceedings. COMM confirmed this. COMM is not part of peer reviews and it is up to the basin authority if reports are made public. However, publication would enable results to be shared more widely between MS.

SE asked about co-ordination with other peer reviews under other Commission DGs. YP stated there is no information on other peer review mechanisms. JRR noted that there are other peer reviews, but DG ENV does not see needs for co-ordination, but if delegates are aware of such needs, they should contact COMM.

4

d) Bathing water (BW) report and guidance document

Els de Roeck (COMM) (ER) reported that the 2014 BW quality report will be published on 20 May. It shows a slight improvement. For the 2015 season, the 2016 report will fully cover the revised BW directive as all transitional periods will have been completed. Technical and monitoring issues have been raised and it was decided to draft guidance on these issues, which is being discussed with MS and should be adopted by WDs by the end of 2015.

e) December 2014 Workshop on coordinated implementation of Water, Marine, Nature and Biodiversity policies: outcomes and next steps

JRR referred to two documents provided to delegates on the December 2014 workshop and the preparatory group for the follow-up workshop in November 2015. This is an open process and other MS can join the preparatory group. The document includes some ideas for the agenda of the meeting. The idea is for parallel sessions on different issues. The aim is to produce a short conclusions document with some political messages on the policy links, financing and future outlook. The intention is to produce ahead of the meeting a guide to the policies to help inform participants of policies they are less familiar with.

DE noted that better co-ordination between policies is a theme of the REFIT of the nature directives. JRR stated that the session on synergies between the policies is important, but it is separate from the nature REFIT.

FR stated that the initiative is a promising step as a cross-cutting approach is important for the future. No matter what happens with the REFIT, current legislation will be in place for several years, so identifying synergies is important, e.g. to make more efficient use of resources.

UK stated that the workshop was very helpful. It is important to make sure discussion at directors meeting is at the right level.

f) Green Week 2015: Nature – our health, our wealth (3-5 June 2015)

NN gave a presentation and reminded delegates that the focus is on nature, linked to REFIT. A document provided to delegates highlights the sessions most relevant to water. It is necessary to register online and the website provides more information.

g) Strategic approach to pharmaceuticals in the environment

JRR reported that a roadmap will be published soon and information will be gathered to complement a consultant report published in 2014. A public consultation will be held in late 2015 or early 2016. Therefore, work will not be concluded this year. The work will include a preliminary assessment of costs and benefits of potential options. There are relevant initiatives in some MS, and if there are others it would be useful to receive information on them.

LU stated that on 27-28 May a conference will take place which looks at WWT approaches in MS, etc., and delegates are welcome.

UK welcomed the work, but is concerned that the only opportunity stakeholders have had to contribute was a workshop in 2014 and a report is still not produced. Stakeholders and MS need to contribute. JRR regretted that the workshop report is not yet available. However, this

5

does not mean the process will be rushed. There will be a public consultation to enable proper input by all interested parties.

NL agreed with UK and raised the issue of data gathering and the link to the watch list. JRR noted that there need to be several ways to gather data to ensure sufficient information.

FR highlighted that the issue is a priority in FR and there are a number of innovative research projects in FR to address these pollutants.

h) Preparation of the assessment of 1st Flood Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) and 2nd RBMPs

Thomas Petitguyot (COMM) (TP) gave a report on the approach that will be taken to assess the plans under WFD and FD that MS will have to submit in March 2016. This will be a joint process for both directives, also co-ordinated with the assessment of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The aim is to develop a progress report on what MS have done since the first cycle and to assess the effectiveness of the actions taken with regard to the objectives of the directives. The analysis will be an important contribution to the WFD review in 2019. COMM recognises that MS are being asked for significant reporting data and the aim is to use these data effectively.

One objective is to have an assessment which is also cross-cutting looking at how the different elements of the WFD were used to address the key pressures on water bodies (WBs). In doing this, it is important to look at the synergies between directives. A call for consultant support will be launched during the summer. The COMM Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the European Environment Agency (EEA) will be closely involved. MS and stakeholders should be consulted in the process and this will be explained further at the next SCG. The next CIS work programme is expected to deliver outputs that will inform the assessment.

DE supported increased involvement of MS in the assessment and asked how SCG will be involved. TP stated that COMM will present the overall method to be used at the next SCG, but there are also specific points that individual WGs could discuss.

UK stated that the experience for the first cycle was that it was detailed, but also that the methodology evolved. Would the intention be to do a pilot first to test the approach? TP stated that COMM will look at feedback from first cycle in order to concentrate on what is most important. There will be different tools to develop and some of them may be tested early in the process.

i) JASPERs Networking Platform Workshop on the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in projects – Brussels 9-10 June 2015

Lourdes Alvarellos (COMM) (LA) informed delegates of the workshop which will examine projects focusing on exemptions under WFD Art. 4.7, covering hydropower, navigation and floods. The target audience includes planning authorities, river basin authorities and permitting authorities. Delegates are encouraged to distribute information on the workshop.

FR asked if there will be a written report. LA confirmed that there will be minutes.

EWA asked if water supply and sewage infrastructure is included. LA stated that they are not. MS suggested the three sectors, but other issues could be considered in a future workshop.

6

6 – Water reuse initiative

a) Update on Commission activity (information)

b) Development of a CIS guidance within WG Programme of Measures (PoM, discussion)

TP informed delegates that an Impact Assessment (IA) support study and results of a public consultation had been published. The study explores the problems of insufficient reuse of treated waste water. COMM has looked at the possibility of different actions to promote reuse. At the March WG PoM meeting options were presented on a possible legal instrument. There were two areas to consider – a management framework and quality standards (especially for agricultural irrigation due to the link with the internal market). The WG showed clear support for addressing minimum quality standards. On a management framework, there were divergent views. It is also important to note that in a wider context COMM is developing a revised circular economy proposal and water reuse actions are expected to be included within this.

JRC is organising a scientific/technical workshop on 25-26 June on the development of the EU minimum quality requirements. A list of invited experts has been produced and delegates were asked to comment on this by 19 May.

In addition, on the management framework, COMM has listened to concerns about a legal instrument, so the aim is first to develop guidance, covering links to WFD Art. 5. It is proposed to involve WG PoM in its elaboration, drawing on the work already undertaken. The aim is to complete a document for WDs for June 2016.

DE stated that including water reuse in the circular economy package is exciting, but what would be the role of the European efficiency platform? DE has concerns about hard regulation and would welcome further explanation on the role of guidance. TP replied that, on the circular economy package, it is too early to make any announcements. It may also be a way to make a link with issues such as efficient use of nutrients.

ES noted that it has its own regulation with standards to protect health. It is important to note that there are problems in taking forward water reuse. It is not free – there are treatment costs, distribution costs, etc. Reusing water also reduces water return to water courses and its availability for other uses. So there is a need to look at it on a case-by-case basis. In particular, ES does not want a legal instrument that would complicate the national situation.

FR expressed disappointment that COMM is not proposing a Regulation in 2015 as many had expressed support for this. COMM should set out ambitious standards for water reuse and so avoid problems in the internal market.

CZ stated that it is important, in developing minimum requirements, to consider good practice in countries like Israel that reuse water. CZ had recently a workshop with participation of experts from Israel and can provide information from this.

AT expressed support for the proposed twofold approach and, supported by BE and DE. stated that it is not yet clear what direction guidance might take, but a one size fits all approach should be avoided. The starting point in different MS is different. UK agreed with

7

AT. In the UK the main focus is on maintaining flows. As the situation varies across the EU, UK would be concerned that legally binding measures could be disruptive.

RO asked about the timetable for developing the proposal.

MT supported the production of non-binding guidance.

EWA stated that it is also important to consider the question of legal ownership of the water, which is complicated.

TP replied that reuse is an opportunity for many MS. On developing quality requirements it is important to focus on what the water is used for (e.g. for different crop types). Similarly guidance will address the variation in circumstances and build on good practice in countries inside and outside Europe. Indirect use is part of the perspective and refilling aquifers is important. Public trust is vital and EU standards based on good science will be important in delivering this.

DE stated that soil protection measures need to be considered as loss of fertility from reused water is important. A Regulation would need to guarantee this. TP replied that while soil protection is important, this specific issue may be better addressed at MS level.

TP clarified that COMM is still exploring the best route to take forward reuse quality requirements. It is also clarifying the scope of guidance on the management framework and will consult with WG PoM on this.

UK responded that its experts are not convinced that WG PoM is the right forum to address this. Rather, something dedicated is needed.

7 – Working Groups, Expert Groups and other CIS activities (outcome of working group meetings held in February, March and April 2015)

a) SCG acknowledgement of the written reports from WGs ECOSTAT, Groundwater, Chemicals, PoM, Floods and Agriculture

NN invited comments on the reports of the WGs provided to delegates.

RO noted that the ECOSTAT report states that information on intercalibration of methods has been transferred to the JRC database and MS can contribute. Is this voluntary or mandatory and how will be it used? The report also states that national typologies can be updated with the next RBMP cycle, but it is not clear if this will be continued in the next CIS WP. NN noted that the mandate of the WG is still under discussion. The database at JRC is not mandatory, but if data are not provided, JRC cannot provide data to experts/GIGs. On the 2 nd

cycle, the deadline for comments has passed, so please comments as soon as possible.

SE noted the ECOSTAT report, p3, 1.6, refers to NO and IT, but this should be SE and IT.

NO stated it is happy to host the ECOSTAT workshop and meeting in October (12-13 for workshop, 14-15 for the meeting).

DE stated that, with regard to the Chemicals WG, the prioritisation process of the watch list should be transparent. Helen Clayton (COMM) stated that the intention is to share the documents, but this is just a question of delay in making these available.

8

BE noted that the Water Accounts WG report states that further work will take place in EIONET, but it is not clear what EOINET will do and what will be done within the CIS. NN noted that the reference to EIONET is more about what it intends to do in any case.

b) WG Economics

- Draft Guidance for assessing the recovery of Environmental and Resource Costs in the context of the Water Framework Directive

Marija Simunovic (COMM) reported that the WG met in February and discussed two documents:

- Guidance on cost recovery (environmental and resource costs)

- Resource document on affordability/disproportionate costs

On the latter, it was agreed that the resource document would not be sent to the SCG and WDs for endorsement, but would be used, instead, as the basis for the proceedings of a future workshop on affordability/disproportionate costs that DE was proposing to organise.

On the guidance on cost recovery, the draft presented in February received many comments and was revised and circulated to the WG on two subsequent occasions. Some substantial issues still need to be addressed as set out in the document provided to delegates. So SCG was asked for views on how to take this forward.

DE confirmed that colleagues from Lower Saxony are planning to support a workshop on affordability/disproportionate costs. DE sees the topic as important, but the draft guidance concentrates mainly on Art.9 WFD and DE does not agree with this. Instead work should encompass other issues such as Art.5. AT agreed and FI also stated that the document was not ready.

RO also stated that the document should address issues other than Art 9 and there should be sharing of best practices.

Concerning the guidance document on environmental and resource costs, BE agreed that the document guidance is not ready to go to WDs. It is too narrow in its focus on Art 9.4 and too theoretical.

WWF agreed that the content is not ready for approval. On the scope, cost-recovery was not included due to comments/instructions received. To proceed, it is necessary to be clear as to the scope of the document.

NN noted that WG Economics has changed the scope of its work twice from what the WP and SCG agreed; this approach needs to be thought through.

NO noted that there seems to be an assumption that all environment and resource costs can be monetised, but this is not always the case.

FR stated that the issue of appropriateness of cost recovery was not addressed by the WG as this is a political issue. NN stated that the issue is not about adequacy, which is political, but identification of means and methods for recovery.

9

ES noted that the issues are complex, but are of great interest. What is the purpose now of the document as 2nd cycle plans are already being approved? There does not seem to be a need to hurry the document.

NN concluded that the document is not urgent, but the added value is limited as there is already the 2004 information sheet on the assessment of the environmental and resource costs. As WDs will discuss the overall WP, they should also discuss what work on economics should take place. So NN suggested that WG Economics does not continue work on the document, but decisions are made after WDs have set overall priorities.

Delegates agreed for WDs to do this.

EWA suggested that the guidance is urgently needed. NN noted that the presence or absence of EU level guidance is irrelevant to the legal obligations. MS have to implement the cost recovery requirements of Art. 9. WWF agreed with this point. However, several MS were not clear on the issue and thought the guidance would be useful.

NN stated that WDs can agree to conclude the development of guidance in the next WP. It is important to note that if there is no CIS guidance, COMM could produce its own guidance.

EWA gave a presentation on value and price perception and transparency. Value is perceived. Prices should be transparent. Costs to be recovered include operational and maintenance costs. There are also environmental and resource costs. These are large, but in no country are these included beyond a few percent of total costs. The EEA report on cost recovery noted the lack of harmonisation. MS report full or high level of costs recovered, but tariffs are highly variable, so the cost recovery rates are questionable. Ensuring real costs are understood and recovered would allow proper infrastructure to be developed and maintained.

NN replied that work on cost recovery is important, but it is important for WDs to clarify how to take it forward. There is no legal basis for harmonisation, or even for full cost recovery. COMM will continue to focus on this issue.

c) Water Accounts

- Draft Guidance on Water Balances

Elisa Vargas Amelin (COMM) (EV) gave a presentation on the status of the guidance. The drafting group started working in 2014. Several versions have been produced and circulated for comments. EV thanked MS, grantees and consultants for their efforts and contributions. There are no major open issues, but comments can still be sent by 12 May so a final version can be presented to WDs for endorsement.

DE stated that the document seemed to have arrived out of the blue and it is not clear how it is to be applied. NN replied that there have been five versions of the guidance circulated and there have been opportunities to be involved.

AT stated that water balances are important. AT would like the EEA to continue with the differentiated approach as it does not want a single method to be developed as this would give rise to disproportionate costs. NN replied that, considering differences across the EU, COMM is not of the view that a one-size-fits-all approach is desirable.

NN concluded that the document can be transmitted to WDs for endorsement.

10

d) WG DIS

- Finalisation of the WFD reporting tools for 2016

Joaquim Capitão (COMM) (JC) gave a presentation and noted that the testing phase of the reporting schemas is ongoing. The WG has discussed comments received so far. Two main issues that have arisen have been on simplification and on consistency between substantive reporting and spatial data reporting. A consistency check with the INSPIRE Directive has led to the movement of some issues within the schemas. Another issue is being able to report on progress other than overall status change. COMM made a proposal to address this and comments are being sought from the WG. A revised version will be presented to the next SCG. A detailed breakdown of the next steps was presented. It is expected to have a final version of the schemas and guidance documents by the end of June and software ready by the end of October. EEA will provide training in early November for those using the tools.

UK asked for confirmation on the deadline for written comments on the indicators paper. UK also raised the challenge of reporting status change due to changes in monitoring procedures. JC stated that the deadline on the indicators paper is the end of May. On the difficulty of comparisons of status, this has been discussed and it is an issue. Hence, in asking MS to indicate progress, they are asked to state if this is real or a change in measurement. DE noted that WG DIS has discussed this issue and is confident it can be addressed.

BE asked if it would be better to send a note requesting a list of co-ordinators to SCG rather than WG DIS. JC noted that currently when someone needs to report something, the EIONET helpdesk is contacted. There is then a problem finding out who the responsible person is to allow access, so the idea is that there is a co-ordinator for reporting in each MS who sends the email asking for specific individuals to have access. A draft list and request for names can be sent to WG DIS, copying into an email the SCG. It is up to the MS to decide who the co-ordinators will be.

FR stressed that delays on reporting cause problems. There is also an imbalance between what is expected of MS and the tools provided for this. JC stated that revising the schemas and developing tools has taken time and it is not possible to move faster. JRR also noted that it was never the intention that the tools were not to be amended as that was the purpose of the testing phase. The new reporting system will be much better for MS, COMM and EEA. After June, MS can already start structuring their data ready for reporting in November.

8 – The Common Implementation Strategy Work Programme (WP) (2016-2018): Presentation + roundtable discussion

Jan Brooke (NAVI TG) (JB) gave a presentation in a personal capacity on coastal and transitional water bodies, which she stated are not sufficiently addressed in the current WP. Around 70% of transitional and 50% of coastal WBs are below Good Status. However, the lack of attention to these WBs may be due to issues of perception, size, understanding, complexity, links to MSFD, etc. It was suggested that there be a workshop to clarify what elements in status will be addressed by upstream measures and what will not, links to MSFD, etc., and so work out what needs to be taken forward within the CIS on these WBs.

After the presentation, NN referred delegates to the discussion document provided to them and the seven questions it contains, inviting comments on each of the questions. These

11

minutes set out each of these questions and summarise the comments made in relation to each question in turn.

Q1. These objectives [of the current WP] are broad and allow the CIS to work on both long and short term tasks. They are also relevant for the assessment of the 2nd RMBPs and 1st FRMPs and the preparation of the WFD review. Do you agree that they could be considered as the standing CIS objectives after adapting their content to take into account the 2019 WFD review and maybe after reformulating the third one with more open language?

Many delegates expressed agreement with Q1 (including CY, DE, DK, RO, WWF). The UK agreed, but stated there should be more focus, including on 2nd cycle assessment, 3rd cycle preparation and WFD review. NL also agreed, but stated that the objectives should include better co-ordination within COMM. FR also agreed, but asked if the CIS could expand to cover other water directives such as UWWTD. ES stated that there should be some analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the CIS and the fact that there are directives not included is a weakness.

On the issue of other water directives, NN noted that the paper notes the desirability of a CIS that covers all water policies. The current separation is not due to DG ENV unit structure. It is because of the history of the directives and their formal Committees. There is also a need for greater co-ordination at national level.

Q2. Would you agree that the next CIS WP for the WFD should focus more on best practice exchange, on the use of existing tools and experience-sharing and less on the development of new guidance/technical tools? Would you agree that, in the case of the FD, which is still in the first cycle, consideration should be given to whether to develop guidance documents on aspects of the implementation of the Directive?

Several delegates (BE, DE, DK, FI, LU, NL, UK) stated that there should be a focus on exchange of experience and not on production of further guidance. However, some delegates, while noting the emphasis on best practice, stated that some further guidance (e.g. on economics) may be needed (AT, FR, MT, WWF). SE specifically stated that CIS guidance 4, 10, 20 will need updating. UK added that a navigation guide to existing guidance would be helpful. CY and RO clarified that while work on the WFD should now focus on the sharing of best practices, work on the FD still requires the production of guidance. FI stated that future work should include collection of data to support the review of the WFD.

Q3. Do you agree that the next CIS WP should run until 2018? Do you agree with the priorities listed [in the document] for the next WP? Is there anything missing or anything that should be reinforced or dropped?

NN clarified that the list of issues in the paper was developed by consulting each WG, but carrying forward any issue would not mean that particular WG would continue in the next CIS. The priorities are a synthesis of points arising from the WGs, rather than suggestions from COMM.

Some delegates raised the importance of a strategic approach to pharmaceuticals and NN noted that it is included in the list of possible priorities.

Delegates asked about progress in implementing the current WP and NN noted that a paper was provided which has a table which shows the progress each WG has achieved.

12

DK agreed with the list in the document and proposed two more – development of a catalogue of agriculture-related measures being applied in MS and a catalogue of EU funding mechanisms that can be applied for water measures.

DE and CY noted there will be a need to work further on water reuse.

BE, ES and RO stated that the list is too long and needs prioritisation. Further, BE stated that it is not clear why work on exemptions would be limited to Art. 4.7. ES stated that priorities should take account of the timetables for implementation of the WFD.

SE stated that important issues need taking forward in relation to the FD, such as source risk reduction, climate adaptation and identification of when measures work against each other.

MT agreed with the list, but suggested inclusion of tools to support water efficiency, innovative stakeholder engagement tools and work on droughts.

LU stated that it is important that there is not too much work for each WG.

UK stated that in considering priorities it would be useful to compare these against a matrix of gaps to be addressed. It would also be better to focus on fewer things and do them well.

NL stated that it would like to add a topic on uncertainty as this would help address management in the real world.

FR broadly agreed with the list, but prioritisation is important. Issues that will need to be addressed include hydromorphology and climate adaptation. Further work on agriculture is important, but this may need to be broader than the CIS. FR also agreed with a need to work more on transitional and coastal waters.

AT stated that it is a priority to have exchange of practice and there is a need for further work on pollutants which threaten WB status, especially nutrients in transitional and coastal waters.

NO stated that priority areas of work are: coastal waters; hydromorphology; cost effectiveness and cost/benefit; and approaches to handling alien species. Issues for workshops and sharing experience are: using exemptions; harmonising basic and supplementary measures; communicating progress; and scaling of WBs.

FI stated that work should emphasise coherence between directives and a long-term vision is needed. The point under ECOSTAT on innovative approaches is also important.

WWF emphasised: the need to work on hydromorphology; the link between flood measures and restoration; agriculture; exchange on non-deterioration (depending on ECJ ruling); eflows in wetlands; coastal and transitional WBs.

NAVI TG shared the concern on hydromorphology. This is not just a question of co-ordination across WGs, but also of initiation of work. It also supported a focus on Art 4.7 and integration of WFD and transport policy.

EWA asked about the correct forum for discussing the public procurement directive. NN stated that COMM would see who is working on this.

13

Q4. What could be done to improve the coordination across WGs but also with the CIS of the MSFD and other water related directives?

Several delegates (FR, RO, SE, UK, NAVI TG) agreed on the need for improved co-ordination across the WGs and with other directives. FR stated that it is important to build on the conclusions of the December workshop. It would also be good for COMM to have common staff attending all three SCGs. NN noted that COMM does ensure consultation between staff from different units. UK supported further policy integration and integration of other disciplines in WGs (e.g. economics in WG Chemicals). NAVI TG noted that while better links with the MSFD might improve consideration of coastal waters, this would not address the problem of transitional waters as these are not included within the MSFD.

Q5. Would you agree with the above approach for the SCG under the next CIS WP?

Several delegates (FR, DK, LU, WWF) agreed with the proposed approach. FR and LU emphasised the importance of SCG focusing discussions on strategic issues and not allowing it to be lost in technical issues.

Q6. As regards the WG Agriculture, what would be the best approach considering that the current set up is not delivering the expected improvements on integration?

FR stated that agriculture is important, but there is frustration on what has been achieved to date. NL noted that the problem is not co-ordination, but that agriculture is a difficult problem to solve within the CIS. DK commented that discussions in the WG are often coloured by fixed positions. DE noted that it is important for the CIS to tackle problem issues. UK agreed that there are limitations on what the WG can achieve, but it has found the exchange of best practice useful.

Several delegates (DE, DK, LU, WWF) supported continuation of WG Agriculture. DK and WWF stated that continuation of the WG is important because it sends a political message. In contrast SE stated that the issue was too political. BE recognised the difficulties and that there is no clear solution.

Q7. Would you agree that the three last-mentioned WGs be disbanded and that any follow up work be taken up, if necessary, in the SCG (as described in Q5 above), in existing WGs and/or other structures such as EIONET for water accounts)?

LU stated that before considering the number and nature of the WGs, the priorities should be set. BE agreed. FI stated that there is a need to focus on what is important and that science-policy interaction is important within the process. DK stated that once priorities are known, WGs that are not needed should be disbanded.

UK stated that in deciding on the number of WGs it is important to take account of the resources of MS to participate. It will be important for work on eflows, water accounts and economics to continue, but this need not be within the existing WG structure. FR also stated that there is still more work to undertake on economics. WWF also supported further work on eflows and economics. SE stated that WG Economics could be retained or merged with its counterpart under the MSFD.

DE stated that WG PoM does not need to remain in place in its current form. LU stated that WG PoM should be maintained, but possibly merged with eflows. RO stated that it preferred a separate WG PoM. SE suggested WG PoM should focus on exchange of experience. NAVI

14

TG noted that WG PoM is difficult as it covers many issues. This might be improved by use of parallel technical sessions.

RO stated that ECOSTAT has too many tasks, so there is a need to prioritise. One suggestion already raised at SCG in this regard is to create a separate hydromorphology WG. WWF stated it would support creation of such a WG.

BE stated that whatever the priorities and structure, efficient working methods are important, such as having documents for meetings provided sufficiently in advance.

AT noted that the WDs meeting will discuss these issues and NN clarified that the aim was for WDs not to repeat the discussion at this SCG. Hence the paper would be reworked for them. To assist in this, delegates were invited to send further comments in writing by 14 May. WDs will then conclude on how to take the process forward. The new WP should be agreed before the end of 2015.

8 - Other issues

a) DROP project

NN referred delegates to a paper on this project which concerns adaptation and governance.

b) European River Prize

NN referred delegates to two papers and invited them to spread information about the prize through their networks.

c) Workshop on Diffuse pollution sources

INBO noted that the annual INBO conference is this time focused on diffuse pollution and the aim is to exchange experience on this. A note about the conference is on CIRCABC and participation was invited.

d) Next SCG meeting: 28-29 September 2015

NN informed members that the next SCG meeting is on 28-29 September 2015.

15

Annex 1: List of participants

MEMBER STATES PARTICIPANTS

Austria Egon BäumelKarl Schwaiger

Belgium Catherine LatourVeronique Van den Langenbergh

Croatia Danko BiondićSanja Genzić JuriševićElizabeta Kos

Cyprus Yianna EconomidouMaria Philippou

Czech Republic Ladislav Faigl

Denmark Steen Pedersen

Estonia Rene Reisner

Finland Juhani Gustafsson

France Nicolas RouyerEmmanuel SteinmannPatrick Weingertner

Germany Axel BorchmannSteffen Ochs

Hungary Zsuzsanna Steindl Kerekes

Ireland Donal GrantAndrew Fanning

Latvia Laura Klimbe

Lithuania Vytautas Kalpokas

Luxembourg Jean-Paul Lickes (Co-Chair)Hélène MargueAnne-Marie ReckingerLuc Zwank

Malta Michael Schembri

Poland Przemyslaw Gruszecki

Romania Elena Tuchiu

Slovak Republic Božena Jacko LysákováKatarina Kucarova

16

Spain Victor Manuel Arqued Esquía

Sweden Anneli HarlénBarbro Näslund-Landenmark

The Netherlands Gerrit NiebeekDiederik van der Molen

UK Helen AinsworthBranwen Rhead

STAKEHOLDERS PARTICIPANTS

CEEP - European Centre of Employers and Enterprises providing Public services

Bianca Drogosch

CEFIC - European Chemical Industry Council

Steven Van de Broeck

CEMR - Council of European Municipalities and Regions

Eva Baños de Guisaola

CONCAWE - The European Oil Companies' Association for Environment, Health and Safety in Refining and Distribution

Mike Spence

EAA - European Anglers Alliance

John Cheyne

ECPA - European Crop Protection Association

Stuart Rutherford

EIC – Euromediterranean Irrigators Community

David Hernandez Gomez

EEB – European Environmental Bureau

Leonardo Mazza

EUROPE-INBO -International Network of Basin Organisations

Yannick Pochon

EUWMA – European Water Management Association

Esther Boer

EWA – European Water Association

Károly Kovács

17

UEPG – European Aggregates Association

Sandrine Devos

WFD Navigation Task Group

Jan Brooke

WWF EPO – World Wild Fund European Policy Office

Martina Mlinaric

CANDIDATE COUNTRIES & EFTA

PARTICIPANTS

Norway Anders Iversen

EUROPEAN COMMISSION PARTICIPANTS

Directorate-General for the Environment (DG ENV)

Lourdes Alvarellos (Water Unit)Lucia Bernal-Saukkonen (Water Unit)Joaquim Capitão (Water Unit)Helen Clayton (Water Unit)Els De Roeck (Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit)Balazs Horvath (Water Unit)Helen Jolly (Water Unit)Pavel Misiga (Head of Water Unit)Nicola Notaro (Co-Chair and Deputy Head of Water Unit)Alberto Parenti (Water Unit)Juan-Pablo Pertierra (Water Unit)Thomas Petitguyot (Water Unit)Jorge Rodriguez Romero (Water Unit)Marija Šimunović (Water Unit)Markos Sofroniou (Water Unit)Elisa Vargas Amelin (Water Unit)

Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN)

Errikos Velissaratos

OTHERS PARTICIPANTS

Commission consultant Andrew Farmer

18

IEEP – Institute for European Environmental Policy

WG Groundwater Johannes Grath

19

Annex 2: AgendaEUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERALENVIRONMENTDirectorate C - Quality of Life, Water & AirENV.C.1 - Water

Brussels, 04 May 2015ENV-SCG07080515

MEETING OF THE STRATEGIC CO-ORDINATION GROUP FOR THE WFD COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

7 MAY 2015 FROM 10:00 TO 17:30

8 MAY 2015 FROM 09:00 TO 13:00

IN CENTRE ALBERT BORSCHETTE, ROOM 2D, BRUSSELS

DRAFT REVISED AGENDA VERSION 4

Agenda items Report by

1 – Welcome and introduction COM

2 – Approval of the agenda and minutes of the last SCG meeting COM

3 – Water and Marine Directors' meeting preparation LV/LU

4 – Legal and implementation issues regarding Water Directives

- SCG acknowledgement of the written report COM

5 – Commission activities (information points)

a) European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)

b) Commission Communication on WFD and Floods Directive and 4th European Water Conference

c) Update on the Peer Review Mechanism

d) Bathing water report and guidance document

e) December 2014 Workshop on coordinated implementation of Water, Marine, Nature and Biodiversity policies: outcomes and next steps

f) Green Week 2015: Nature – our health, our wealth (3-5 June 2015)

g) Strategic approach to pharmaceuticals in the environment

h) Preparation of the assessment of 1st FRMPs and 2nd RBMPs

COM

6 – Water reuse initiative COM

20

a) Update on Commission activity (information)

b) Development of a CIS guidance within WG Programme of Measures (discussion)

7 – Working Groups, Expert Groups and other CIS activities (outcome of working group meetings held in February, March and April 2015)

a) SCG acknowledgement of the written reports

b) WG Economics

- Draft Guidance for assessing the recovery of Environmental and Resource Costs in the context of the Water Framework Directive

c) Water Accounts

- Draft Guidance on Water Balances

d) WG DIS

- Finalisation of the WFD reporting tools for 2016

COM

COM

COM

8 – The Common Implementation Strategy Work Programme (2016-2018): Presentation + roundtable discussion

COM

9 – Other issues

a) DROP project

b) Workshop on Diffuse pollution sources

c) Next SCG meeting: 28-29 September 2015

COM

INBO

21