[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |

Brussels, 22.3.2007

SEC(2007) 362

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying document to the COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 'Towards Sustainable Water Management in the European Union' First stage in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC [COM(2007) 128 final] [SEC(2007) 363]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 4

2. European Water policy 5

2.1. The Water Framework Directive 5

2.2. Groundwater 7

2.3. Priority substances 7

2.4. Intercalibration 8

2.5. Flood Risk Management 8

2.6. Thematic Strategy for the Marine Environment 8

2.7. Water Scarcity and Droughts 9

2.8. Other relevant policies 9

3. Implementation Results in Member States 10

3.1. Legal transposition 10

3.1.1. Legal requirements 10

3.1.2. Reporting and legal action by the Commission 10

3.1.3. Methodology for conformity assessment 10

3.1.4. Results of the conformity assessment 11

3.1.5. Open issues and next steps 13

3.2. Administrative arrangements (Art. 3) 13

3.2.1. Legal requirements 13

3.2.2. Reporting and legal action by the Commission 14

3.2.3. Methodology for compliance and performance assessment 14

3.2.4. Facts and figures from Member States' reports 15

3.2.5. Results of compliance assessment and performance checking 17

3.2.6. Open issues and next steps 20

3.3. Environmental and economic analysis (Art. 5) 21

3.3.1. Legal requirements 21

3.3.2. Reporting and legal action by the Commission 22

3.3.3. Methodology for performance assessment 23

3.3.4. Facts and figures from Member States' reports 24

3.3.5. Results of performance checking 25

3.3.6. Open issues and next steps 25

3.4. Reporting performance 25

3.4.1. Methodology for performance checking 25

3.4.2. Overview on reporting performance 25

4. Other implementation aspects 25

4.1. Common Implementation Strategy 25

4.2. Reporting and the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) 25

4.3. Cost benefit analysis of the Water Framework Directive 25

5. Conclusions and Outlook 25

ANNEX 1 : Overview of other relevant Community policies contributing to water policy

ANNEX 2: Progress of implementation of the Nitrates Directive

ANNEX 3: List of river basin districts identified in accordance with Article 3 (1) WFD

ANNEX 4: List of competent authorities identified in accordance with Article 3 (2) WFD

ANNEX 5: Empty performance assessment tables for Article 3

ANNEX 6: Empty performance assessment tables for Article 5

ANNEX 7: Non-exhaustive overview of assessment criteria for the preliminary designation of heavily modified water bodies (HMWB)

INTRODUCTION

The "Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy" or, in short, the EU Water Framework Directive[1] was adopted in 2000. The Water Framework Directive or WFD builds the foundation of a modern, holistic and ambitious water policy for the European Union.

The preparation and the negotiations of the Directive were difficult and the compromise achieved in 2000 received a sceptical welcome by some. However, the European Commission, the European Parliament and many Member States were convinced of the value of a new and integrated river basin approach to water management.

This Commission Staff Working Document provides background information on the first stage in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC and is an annex to the Communication from the Commission 'Towards Sustainable Water Management in the European Union'[2].

In accordance to Article 18 (3), this report provides a "progress in implementation based on the summary reports from the Member States" . Only in exceptional cases, additional information has been used to illustrate the situation. The intention of the report is to inform the EU institutions and the public on the WFD implementation. Moreover, the report aims at providing a feedback to the Member States on their current performance. Member States are encouraged to take these findings into account in the further national implementation, in particular the preparation of the river basin management plans. Following the publication of the report, the Commission services will engage in discussions with the Member States, in the context of the Common Implementation Strategy and bilaterally, in order to address some of the identified issues in more detail.

This document gives a snapshot of the situation of implementation in the Member States, based on reports due to be submitted in 2004 (for transposition and article 3) or 2005 (for article 5). In some Member States, the situation of implementation might have changed since then or will change in the course of the further preparations of the river basin management plan.

It is not envisaged to update this report before 2012 when the first comprehensive implementation report is required in accordance with Article 18 (1) WFD. However, the Commission services are working on the increased use of the "Water Information System for Europe"[3] (see section 4.2) which will allow a more timely and regular update of the information and the corresponding implementation progress.

European Water policy

The Water Framework Directive

The Water Framework Directive establishes a legal framework to protect and restore clean water in sufficient quantity across Europe. It has been hailed as a front runner in integrated water management in the world because it introduces a number of generally agreed principle and concepts into a binding regulatory instrument. In particular, it provides for:

- Sustainable approach to manage an essential resource: It not only considers water as a valuable ecosystem, it also recognises the economy and human health depending on it.

- Holistic ecosystem protection: It ensures that the fresh and coastal water environment is to be protected in its entirety, meaning all rivers, lakes, estuaries, coastal and ground waters are covered.

- Ambitious objectives, flexible means: The achievement of “good status” by 2015 will ensure satisfying human needs, ecosystem functioning and biodiversity protection. These objectives are concrete, comparable and ambitious[4]. At the same time, the Directive provides flexibility in achieving them in the most cost effective way and introduces a possibility for priority setting in the planning (e.g. through justified exemptions).

- Integration of planning: The planning process for the establishment of river basin management plans needs to be coordinated to ultimately achieve the WFD objectives. Whilst the WFD mainly describes water quality aspects for surface waters, it is a mandatory prerequisite to integrate water quantity planning aspects (mainly flood risk and drought management). Groundwater quantity aspects are already part of the WFD. At the same time, sectorial integration is essential, in particular with plans and programmes in the field of agriculture, rural and regional development, land use, navigation, hydropower and last, but not least, research.

- The right geographical scale: The natural area for water management is the catchment[5] area. Since it cuts across administrative boundaries, water management requires close cooperation between all administrations and institutions involved. This is particularly challenging for transboundary and international rivers. The Directive makes this cooperation mandatory within and between the Member States and encourages it with countries outside the EU[6]. Together with the above-mentioned planning aspects, this component ensures true horizontal and vertical integration.

- Polluter pays principle: The introduction of water pricing policies with the element of cost recovery and the cost-effectiveness provisions are milestones in application of economic instruments for the benefit of the environment. This will contribute to sustainable management of scarce resources.

- Participatory processes: In anticipating the Åarhus ratification of the EU, the WFD ensures the active participation of all businesses, farmers and other stakeholders, environment NGOs and local communities in river basin management activities.

- Better regulation and streamlining: The WFD and its related directives (see below) repeal 12 directives from the Seventies and Eighties which created a well intended but fragmented and burdensome regulatory system. The WFD creates synergies, increases protection and streamlines efforts.

The timetable for implementation is set out below. In most cases, Member States have an additional three months to report the progress in the implementation of a particular aspect to the Commission. Only for Article 3, the reporting deadline was six months after the date of implementation.

This report focuses on the first steps in the implementation, the legal transposition and the reports on Article 3 and Article 5 implementation. The next milestone is the setting up of the monitoring networks (cf. Article 8 and 15 WFD) for which Member States are required to report to the Commission by 22 March 2007. The progress of this reporting obligation can be followed through WISE. The Commission will summarise the implementation progress on the monitoring networks at the latest in December 2009.

In summary, the WFD introduces objectives and management which aim at creating a win-win situation between ecology and economy at the appropriate geographical scale and therefore truly achieving a sustainable and integrated water resource management.

Table 1: Timetable and deadlines in the Water Framework Directive (the reference date for each year is 22 December)

Year | Issue | WFD Reference |

2000 | Directive entered into force | Art. 25 |

2003 | - Transposition in national legislation - Identification of River Basin Districts and Authorities | Art. 23 Art. 3 |

2004 | Characterisation of river basin: pressures, impacts and economic analysis | Art. 5 |

2006 | - Establishment of monitoring network - Start public consultation (at the latest) | Art. 8 Art. 14 |

2008 | Present draft river basin management plan to public | Art. 13 & 14 |

2009 | Finalise river basin management plan including programme of measures | Art. 13 & 11 |

2010 | Introduce pricing policies | Art. 9 |

2012 | Make operational programmes of measures | Art. 11 |

2015 | Meet environmental objectives, first management cycle ends | Art. 4 |

2021 | Second management cycle ends | Art. 4 & 13 |

2027 | Third management cycle and last extension of deadlines ends | Art. 4 & 13 |

Groundwater

O n 12 December 2006, the European Parliament and the Council adopted the new Groundwater Daughter Directive[7] (2006/118/EC) in accordance with Article 17 WFD.

The Daughter Directive complements and specifies the WFD on some issues. First, it establishes EU-wide quality standards for nitrates and pesticides that must be met to comply with “good groundwater chemical status”. In addition, Member States will have to establish national standards (threshold values) for other pollutants on the basis of the substances of most concern for groundwater pollution on national, regional or local. Furthermore, the criteria for identification of a sustainable, upward trend and a starting point for trend reversal are further harmonised. Finally, it reinforces existing measures to prevent or limit inputs of pollutants into groundwater.

On the basis of these clear rules, Member States will have to assess the groundwater environment with the monitoring programmes that have just become operational and, where necessary, establish programmes of measures to be included in the WFD River Basin Management Plans.

Priority substances

The Water Framework Directive establishes a new regime for prevention and control of the chemical pollution of surface waters, the “combined approach”. This approach must be applied at EU and at Member State level.

At EU level, a limited number of chemical pollutants have been identified as being a significant risk to the aquatic environment throughout the EU due to their widespread use and their high concentrations in rivers, lakes and coastal waters. These are defined under the Water Framework Directive as “priority substances”. There is also a sub-set of “priority hazardous substances” for which more stringent environmental objectives apply because of their high persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity.

The European Parliament and the Council adopted a first list of 33 priority substances in 2001 (Decision 2455/2001/EC[8]). This Decision became Annex X to the Water Framework Directive.

Following the agreement on priority substances, Article 16 of the Water Framework Directive requires the Commission to bring forward proposals for environmental quality standards for these substances and measures to progressively reduce inputs of priority substances into water, while for priority hazardous substances the requirement is cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses over a 20-year period.

The Commission has already introduced a wide range of existing or forthcoming EU measures to control emissions of priority substances, such as the Directive 96/61/EC on integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC), the Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides[9], and the REACH Regulation[10] for reforming chemicals policy. Additionally, the Commission has made over 30 proposals for emission controls over the past years[11]. If, in the future, sufficient evidence is provided that additional measures are needed at Community level, the Commission will consider this.

On 17 July 2006, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Daughter Directive on environmental quality standards for the priority substances[12] which is currently undergoing the co-decision procedure. The proposed Directive addresses environmental quality standards, the identification of priority hazardous substances and the repeal of existing directives dealing with the chemical pollution of water from the Eighties.

I ntercalibration

In addition to the above-mentioned pieces of secondary legislation, the Commission has the right and obligation to adopt certain implementation measures on the basis of Committee procedure[13]. In 2005, the Commission initiated the adoption of the network of intercalibration sites[14]. The intercalibration is the process to compare the national ecological assessments systems and to ensure that the ambitions of the Member States are at similar levels and consistent with the WFD. In other words, the intercalibration will demonstrate that “good ecological status”, the heart of the WFD, means the same in all EU Member States. This process is still ongoing and the Commission aims at publishing the results in late 2007[15].

Flood Risk Management

The Commission proposed a Directive on the assessment and management of floods in January 2006[16]. The proposed legislation intends to complement the WFD as regards flood risk management, and focuses on prevention, preparedness and protection measures. Close coordination with the WFD is foreseen, in particular as regards the plans which will be prepared in synchronisation and coordination with WFD river basin management plans. It is expected that the proposal will be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in mid-2007 at the earliest.

Thematic Strategy for the Marine Environment

The Commission proposed a Marine Strategy Directive as part of the EU Marine Strategy in October 2005[17]. The Commission proposal for a directive aims to achieve good environmental status of the EU's marine waters by 2021 and thereby extending the protective scope of the WFD into the open sea. It will establish European Marine Regions on the basis of geographical and environmental criteria. Each Member State, in close cooperation with the relevant other Member States and third countries within a Marine Region, will be required to develop Marine Strategies for its marine waters. The principles and approaches of the proposed Marine Framework Directive are consistent with the Water Framework Directive.

It is expected that the proposal will be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in 2008.

Water Scarcity and Droughts

Measures to reduce risks of water scarcity and mitigate the impacts of droughts are already included in the WFD, e.g. the quantitative status for groundwater or the efficient use of water resources through water pricing policies. However, the Commission intends to present a more comprehensive analysis and coordinated actions on Community level to address these increasing problems. A technical document[18] has already been finalised and an in-depth analysis is ongoing identifying the magnitude of the problems linked to water scarcity and drought and the size of the residual gaps in the implementation of EU existing policies.

The Commission intends to present a Communication on this issue in summer 2007.

Other relevant policies

In addition to the above-mentioned policies, there is a significant number of policy areas and EU legislation which contribute to water protection and thereby to the achievement of the WFD objectives. A short summary will be provided here without necessarily being exhaustive. A more detailed overview is compiled in Annex 1. In addition, the Impact Assessment[19] on the recent Commission proposal on priority substances gives more detailed information specifically on Community-wide pollution control measures.

There are several other pieces of water and public health legislation , which are the essential backbone for the WFD. In particular, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC), the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC), the Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC repealing 76/160/EEC) and the Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC) should be mentioned. The full implementation of these directives is an indispensable requirement for the achievement of the WFD objectives.

Similarly, several other pieces of environment legislation , in particular, e.g., the Directive on integrated pollution prevention and control (96/61/EC); the Habitats and Birds Directives, the pesticides and biocides legislation, the Mining Waste Directive and the Seveso and Environmental Liability Directives, to name a few, are essential for sustainable water protection.

The contribution that other EU policies are making towards sustainable water management needs to be strengthened. The most significant Community policies in this respect are agriculture, fisheries, regions and cohesion, transport, energy, chemicals, competition, external relations and research. Over the past years, significant successes have been achieved which are documented in various documents[20]. However, there remains further work to enhance the integration of the WFD into these other policies if the objectives were to be achieved in time.

More details can be found in the Annex 1.

IMPLEMENTATION RESULTS IN MEMBER STATES

Member States have been able to fulfil nearly all of their reporting obligations to date which demonstrates that the timelines in the directive are realistic. Some Member States though, in particular Italy and Greece, had serious delays in submitting the reports. However, the timely submission of the reports does not say anything about their quality.

The following sections provide an overview of the information reported and present a summary of the compliance assessment and performance checking results, for the three main reporting steps to date, i.e. the transposition, the designation of river basin district and competent authorities (article 3) and the environmental and economic analysis of the river basin districts (article 5).

Legal t ransposition

Legal requirements

A Directive must be transposed into national legislation in order to fully gain its legally binding nature. Article 24 of the WFD lays down this provision and sets the deadline for transposing at 22 December 2003. For the 10 Member States joining the European Union on 1 May 2004 and the two acceding on 1 January 2007, the date of accession was the deadline for transposition of the Directive.

Reporting and legal action by the Commission

Whilst all new Member States (including Bulgaria and Romania) transposed the Directive in time, most EU15 Member States had not transposed the Directive as required. Consequently, the Commission launched in 2004 eleven legal infringement cases for “non-communication” (against Belgium, Germany, Finland, France, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom).

In five cases, applications to the European Court of Justice had to be submitted and the Court ruled against these Member States (Belgium (C-33/05), Luxemburg (C-32/05), Germany (C-67/05), Italy (C-85/05) and Portugal (C-118/05)). The cases against Luxemburg and Italy are still open. All other cases have been resolved by now.

In the meantime, a preliminary analysis of the Greek transposition revealed that the transposition had been only partially completed. Thus, a “non-conformity” case was opened in 2005 and application to the Court (C-426/06) has been submitted. On 8 March 2007, a Presidential Decree was adopted which will still have to be assessed.

For the countries of the European Economic Area (EEA), the formal inclusion into the EEA Agreement has been delayed significantly. The preparations are now complete and the formal process should be completed in 2007. Norway has in the meantime, transposed the WFD into national law which was adopted on 15 December 2006.

Table 2 provides an overview of the transposition situation.

Methodology for conformity assessment

The assessment of conformity was carried out in several stages. A comprehensive analysis was commissioned by the Commission to produce “concordance tables”. This analysis was completed for the 10 new Member States which joined in 2004 and for nine EU15 Member States[21]. For the remainder of the Member States, this thorough analysis was not performed yet[22] and will be carried out as soon as possible. An overview of the available in-depth assessments is provided in Table 2.

Furthermore, and taking the external assessments into account, the Commission services made a preliminary screening evaluation for all EU27 Member States on where the most significant shortcomings in the transposition of the WFD are found. This first overview analysis on the conformity focussed on the articles 4 (environmental objectives), taking into account the relevant definitions (in article 2) and annexes (in Annexes II and V), article 9 in conjunction with the relevant definitions (cost recovery) and article 14 (public participation). These provisions are at the core of the WFD and confer rights of the individual[23] which must be appropriately reflected in the national law(s)[24]. Moreover, the conformity of other provisions was also briefly evaluated. As a result, the Member States’ transposition was classified into three groups:

- Major shortcomings in the articles 4, 9 or 14

- Other significant shortcomings in these and other articles

- Other open issues

This grouping allows the Commission to identify and address the most significant problems first. Furthermore, this grouping facilitates the communication of the analysis.

Results of the conformity assessment

The assessments have revealed significant and widespread shortcomings in the transposition. In particular the “environmental objectives” (Article 4) have been transposed poorly. Overall, 19 Member States[25] appear to have major shortcomings. In particular the lack of proper transposition of Article 4, the objectives and exemptions, and in particular the conditions in which and how to apply them, are often not in conformity. Furthermore, the transposition of the article 4.7, the authorisation for new modifications and developments which affect the water environment (e.g. new hydropower plants or new industry allocations in pristine areas) are often not transposed and thereby are creating legal uncertainty for project developers. Moreover, the several national laws fall short to introduce the cost recovery obligations (Article 9) and the related definition of "water services" which is crucial for the application of cost recovery. Some Member States fail to transpose properly the obligation regarding public participation (Article 14). Only three Member States appear to have an overall satisfactory transposition (Austria, Malta and Portugal). However, this has to be verified in a more in-depth analysis. For other Member States, there are, based on the screening assessment, some open issues which require clarification.

See Table 2 for a more detailed overview.

Table 2: Overview of key results of conformity assessment of transposition.

MS | Transposition date | Infringement linked to transposition | Consultant report available | Overall result of initial conformity analysis | Transposition of key provisions |

+ | Initial transposition analysis has not identified significant non-conformity or these appear to be minor |

+/( | Initial transposition analysis has identified missing elements or non-conformity issues that require further analysis |

( | Initial transposition analysis has identified missing elements or non-conformity issues that appear to be major |

Notes :

All infringement cases are non-communication cases except 2005/2226 against EL which is non-conformity.

Infringement cases for EL, IT and LU are still opened. The rest of the non-communication cases are closed.

For Bulgaria it was not possible to make a complete conformity analysis at this stage. An amendment of the water law has been adopted in 2006 and the information available indicates that this may overcome some of the shortcomings identified in the analysis of the previous transposition legislation.

Open issues and next steps

The results of this first analysis are discouraging since they reveal serious shortcomings in many Member States. The Commission will now explore all possible options for addressing these issues decisively. As a first step, the Member States falling into the group 1 of possible non-conformity with articles 4, 9 and 14 will be targeted as a first priority in 2007. The Commission will also consider supporting activities in the context of the Common Implementation Strategy or bilaterally to provide feedback and support to the Member States which are willing to address the identified issues.

Administrative arrangements (Art. 3)

Legal requirements

The first step in the practical implementation was to set up the administrative arrangements. The purpose for setting up these administrative arrangements is to "ensure that the requirements of the Directive for the achievement of the environmental objectives established under Article 4, and in particular all programmes of measures are coordinated for the whole of the river basin district" (Article 3, paragraph 4). To this end, Article 3 provides for a number of concrete actions, in particular:

- the identification of river basin districts within the national territory (paragraph 1);

- the assignment of groundwaters and coastal waters to the nearest or most appropriate river basin district (paragraph 1);

- the establishment of the appropriate administrative arrangements including the identification of an appropriate competent authority (paragraph 2). If more than one competent authority is designated for a river basin district, one competent authority shall be designated as a coordinating body in order to ensure coordination with all other authorities (Annex I, point (v)). Member States are able to make use of existing national or international bodies as competent authorities (paragraph 6);

- the establishment of international river basin district between Member States (paragraph 3) and an endeavour to establish an international river basin district where the hydrographic boundaries extend beyond the territory of the European Community (paragraph 5);

- the administrative arrangements must be put in place by 22 December 2003 and a report must be sent to the Commission by 22 June 2004 (paragraph 7, 8 and Annex I).

Should Member States change any of the above-mentioned administrative arrangements, they are required to notify the Commission about such changes within three months of the change coming into effect (paragraph 9).

Reporting and legal action by the Commission

Most EU25 Member States submitted the report in time or shortly after the expiry of the deadline. In addition, Bulgaria and Romania submitted reports on a voluntary basis in 2004 already[26].

Furthermore, coordinated reports for some international river basins have been reported (for the Odra, Elbe and Danube international river basin districts) which included the respective information on administrative arrangements also for Croatia and several non-EU Member States (e.g. for countries sharing the Danube River Basin District[27]).

Norway has also submitted a report regarding Article 3 implementation on the 1 January 2007 since their national law transposing the WFD entered into force on the same day.

The Commission launched infringement cases of "non-communication" against Belgium (case A2004/2303), Denmark (case A2004/2304), France (case A2004/2306), Greece (case A2005/2033), Italy (case A2004/2307), Malta (case A2004/2308), Poland (case A2004/2309), Spain (case A2004/2305) and Sweden (case A2004/2310) since they failed to submit any report in time. All cases, with the exception of Spain, have been resolved, most of them already in 2004, and closed in the meantime.

For Spain, the formal designation of river basin districts has not yet been completed. In accordance to the water law, a Royal Decree should set up the administrative arrangements. This Royal Decree has entered into force very recently and the Commission is currently analysing its contents. In the meantime, the Commission keeps the non-communication case (A2004/2305) open to ensure that the Article 3 provisions are formally put in place in Spain.

Denmark, Poland and Portugal have modified their administrative arrangements following the submission of the original report. The changes have been notified to the Commission in time and have been considered in the compliance assessment.

No cases of "non-conformity" or "bad application" have been launched to date[28].

Methodology for compliance and performance assessment

For the purpose of compliance checking and for communicating the results, the Commission developed an assessment methodology which consists of several steps:

1. Screening assessment

2. In-depth assessment

3. Performance indicators

The screening assessment is based on a check list which enables the systematic and comprehensive overview on the completeness, clarity and quality of the Member State report. The check list was based on the reporting guidance[29] and structures the assessment reports into key issues. For Article 3, the key issues were the designation of river basin districts, the identification of competent authorities, the national administrative set and coordination, the international coordination (where relevant) and the data submission. Screening assessment reports were produced for all Member States which provided the necessary overview. However, the findings of these reports were not meant to be conclusive on whether the implementation of Article 3 is consistent and compliant with the directive.

In order to determine whether there are cases of "non-compliance", the Commission carried out an in-depth assessment in cases where the screening assessments indicated more serious shortcomings.

Moreover, the Commission developed a methodology for presenting the relative performance of the Member States on the basis of the screening reports. These performance indicators aim to present the relative completeness and quality of the implementation between the Member States. They do not reflect an indication whether the Member State implementation is fully compliant. However, they will provide a good and easy to communicate overview for the EU. On one hand, the indicator identifies those Member States which presented a better report and could therefore be used as example for others. On the other hand, they identify the "distance to target" for those Member States scoring lower.

The performance indicator is based on a simple scoring system in which a number of points are attributed for each question. The questions are built on the reporting guidance and are answered with the help of the screening report. The questions are grouped for the above-mentioned key issues. The total number of points is added and the total divided by the maximum number of available points in order to calculate a score between 0 and 100. Where certain questions are not relevant for a Member States (e.g. regarding international cooperation for Member States which do not share a river basin with another country) the total scores are normalised. The assessment template to derive the performance indicators is enclosed (see Annex 5).

It should be noted that incomplete or unclear reports will result in lower scores. Thus, the performance indicators may not reflect the real level of implementation but also whether the Member States' efforts have been reflected in a clear and complete way in the paper report. In order to take account of this aspect, an additional indicator for reporting performance has been developed (see 3.4).

In order to improve this situation further and enable a more comparable assessment of the reports the "Water Information System for Europe" is under development (see section 4.2).

Facts and figures from Member States' reports

The implementation of Article 3 is largely complete across EU27. This has resulted in the establishment of 110 river basin districts (RBDs) across the EU. For each of these RBDs, river basin management plans will have to be finalised by December 2009. These RBDs are presented in the overview map available at http://water.europa.eu.

Since 40 river basin districts are international, there is a total of 170 national or national parts of international river basin districts (see list in Annex 3). The international river basin districts cover more than 60% of the territory of the EU making the international coordination aspects one of the most significant and important issue and challenge for the WFD implementation. The list of RBDs and is provided in Annex 3.

The size of the RBDs varies considerably from very small ones below 1,000 km2 to the largest one, the Danube with over 800,000 km2. Obviously, the international RBDs are generally larger. The average size of national parts of national RBDs is about 25,000 km2 while the average size of national part of international RBDs is about 50,000 km2.

[pic]

Figure 1: Size distribution of River Basin Districts.

The set up of competent authorities (CA) is also very divers across the EU. All combinations have been found, including:

- one competent authority for one RBD,

- one competent authority for several RBDs and

- several competent authorities for one RBD.

The reasons for the different approaches are the differences in the national legal and institutional framework regarding water management[30], in using existing administrative structures and in the distribution of competences of water management within the governments[31].

The list of competent authorities is provided in Annex 4.

No Member State has designated an international body as competent authority for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. However, in most cases, international bodies have been charged with the task of coordinating the implementation of the countries sharing the international RBD and to produce an internationally agreed overview report to complement the national reporting to the European Commission.

The situation with co-operation with non-EU Member State is less developed (with the exception of cooperation with Third countries in the Danube or the Rhine basins).

The WFD also introduces the ambition to share spatial data by using geographical information systems (GIS). Most Member States have provided such GIS data and this has been used to produce the maps included in this report. In addition, the Commission will be able to provide other overview maps (e.g. on main rivers and lakes) and use these data for a more effective compliance checking in the future[32]. In addition, 25 Member States have voluntarily, and in addition to their official report, submitted electronic data, including GIS, to the WISE prototype in order to help establish this new electronic reporting tool.

Results of compliance assessment and performance checking

Overall, the results are satisfactory and all Member States have established the necessary structures and administrative arrangements. However, there is a significant difference between the Member States and some may still have to address some shortcomings to ensure that the administrative structure deliver the results under the WFD. In comparing the EU15 to EU10, it is noticeable that, on the basis of the assessment criteria, the new Member States have implemented the Article 3 in a more appropriate way. This may have to do with the fact that the new Member States had to align themselves with the Community acquis as part of the accession process. They seemed to have taken this opportunity to take the WFD as a guide for reforms. The EU15 Member States were more often struggling to re-direct their national set-ups which often had been in place for decades to meet the new challenges.

The relative performance of the Member States is presented in Figure 2. In order to explain some of the shortcomings in some Member States, a more in-depth analysis in being made subsequently per key issue.

[pic]

Figure 2: Performance indicator per Member State regarding the implementation of the administrative set-up – Article 3 WFD – including the EU-27 average (based on the assessment of Member States' reports). *The scores for BG and RO are based on preliminary assessments.

The designation of river basin districts has mostly taken place on the basis of hydro-geographic boundaries. Only some smaller exceptions were found were some Member States have unilaterally decided to attribute smaller (sub-)river basins which drain in international river basin districts to a different national river basin district (e.g. Germany – Oderhaff).

The grouping of smaller river basins into a river basin district has been also applied in a meaningful way in those countries where there are many small catchments that often drain directly into the sea (e.g. in the UK) or where many islands occur (e.g. Greece). Only for Italy, the current grouping of river basins into river basin districts appears to be illogical and not necessarily in line with the WFD intentions. River basins which drain into the Tyrrhenian and Adriatic Seas have been grouped together. This is the case for the northern, central and southern Apennine river basin districts. Furthermore, all small river basins were grouped into large districts, with the exception of the Serchio which is much smaller than the other management units. Another concern is that the Serchio river basin district appears to divide the northern Apennine river basin district into two separate pieces, with the result that the Ligurian river basins are not contiguous with the rest of the northern Apennine RBD. No explanations have been provided for these decisions.

Most Member States have identified their international river basin districts and established some form of international cooperation. In some cases, the RBD map (see http://water.europa.eu) highlights some RBDs as international which have not been officially notified by the Member States. This was done on the basis of information available to the Commission and is often the case where a very small part of the RBD is crossing the border (e.g. Adour-Garonne and Ebro) or where the neighbouring countries have not coordinated the boundaries of the cross-border river basins (e.g. Tornionjoki-Finland and Bothanian Bay-Sweden). The Commission is now seeking to clarify these issues bilaterally with the Member States concerned.

The assignment of groundwaters to a river basin districts did not create many obstacles and most Member States have applied the same boundaries to groundwater as for the surface waters in the RBDs. However, not all Member States have explicitly confirmed that this was their choice but rather not provided any separate data for groundwater boundaries which led to the assumption that the RBD boundaries should be applied. Recent feedback from the Member States indicate that some may revisit this choice during the preparation of the river basin management plans on the basis of the implementation of Article 5 (characteristics) and 8 (monitoring). This would be acceptable if it leads to a more effective implementation of the directive and if it is notified to the Commission (cf. Article 3, paragraph 9).

Similar observations have been made with the attribution of coastal water strips to appropriate RBDs. All Member States, where this is relevant, have implemented this step and no major issues have been identified. The only aspect which has been handled differently in different Member States is the consideration of territorial waters for which the scope of the WFD applies to chemical status (see Article 2, paragraph 1). It is assumed that the coastal areas which have been communicated as part of the Article 3 reporting will be extended to the territorial waters in the later implementation process when and where the issue becomes relevant. This issue should be clarified with the Member States in the run up to the river basin management plan.

The diversity in setting up the competent authorities has been highlighted above. At this stage, the main criterion for compliance assessment is whether the responsibilities, in particular for river basin management and reporting, have been clearly assigned. This is the case nearly everywhere although it is difficult to judge on how some of the more complex distribution of responsibilities will deliver in accordance to the directive. Only for Italy, the responsibilities for preparing one river basin management plans for the currently identified RBDs are unclear. This is confirmed by the fact that the reports submitted in the context of Article 5 are uncoordinated documents from different authorities within one RBD. The information provided on coordination mechanisms was often general and limited. In most Member States, there are implementation structures which involve a variety of authorities and public bodies. The set up ranges from clear and simple situations to a complex structures which can only be fully understood by understanding the national perspective. From the information provided, it is difficult to judge whether the more complicated arrangements will actually deliver the WFD implementation in a (cost-)effective way.

The aspect where the most serious shortcomings have been identified is in relation to international coordination . The most advanced arrangements for international river basins exist for the Danube, the Elbe, the Meuse, the Odra, the Rhine and the Scheldt. For these transboundary rivers, multilateral agreements are in place and international commissions are coordinating the national efforts in the WFD implementation for the entire basin. Obviously, there are differences in the approach, ambitions and mechanisms between these six river basin commissions. However, there is an information exchange mechanism in place between the different river commissions which results in sharing good approaches and learning from each other.

The Commission is working and supporting (also financially) these international efforts, in particular in the context of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River since it promotes application of the WFD in the new Member States and non-EU Member States sharing the Danube catchment.

For other transboundary river basins between Member States , there are often bilateral agreements in place which work to a larger or lesser extent and which only partially are now re-directed towards the WFD implementation. The information provided by some Member States is not conclusive[33], in particular in the case of bilateral cooperation between Bulgaria and Greece, Italy and Slovenia, Portugal and Spain and Finland and Sweden.

For river basins that Member States share with non-EU Member States , there are some significant open issues to resolve. The most positive example is the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) in which all non-EU Member States are politically committed to implement the WFD in the Danube within the timelines foreseen in the directive. More difficult is the cooperation between the Baltic EU Member States (EE, LV, LT and PL) and Russia, Belarus and Ukraine on one hand and the cooperation between Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey on the other. The Commission requested and received a mandate from the Council to open negotiations for these transboundary waters in order to have a more solid basis for cooperation[34].

The submission of data was largely satisfactory. The directive introduces the intention to share spatial data with the assistance of geographical information systems (GIS). This is an area where the Commission and the Member States have to gain experiences to share such data efficiently and in the quality necessary. In addition, harmonisation and common approaches are necessary but will only become available with the implementation of the recently agreed INSPIRE Directive[35]. Further improvements are still necessary in order to develop an efficient and streamlined reporting system which fulfils various purposes. The ongoing preparations for the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) are aiming towards achieving this.

Open issues and next steps

WFD requires Member States to set up the appropriate administrative arrangements in order to apply effectively the provisions of the Directive and achieve its objectives. However, the WFD provides flexibility for each Member State to decide how to best set up these administrative arrangements according to their own reality and needs. The implementation of WFD Article 3 does not necessarily entail a change in the distribution of competences among administrations within Member States, nor the creation of new river basin district administrative bodies. What in any case is necessary is to create the adequate co-ordination mechanisms in order to effectively deliver the WFD obligations.

The guiding principle for establishing the administrative arrangements must be that the environmental objectives under Article 4 are being achieved. Hence, it is currently only possible to check the compliance of the provisions from a formalistic point of view. In the future, the Commission may have to revisit the compliance check if and when the objectives are not being met and there is indication that the administrative arrangements may be one cause for this.

With the exception of Italy, most of the open issues in relation to the article 3 implementation can be addressed through an open and constructive feedback, support and cooperation mechanism through the Common Implementation Strategy. The Commission will engage in bilateral contacts with the Member States to this end. In particular, this is the case in order to clarify open issues on international cooperation and identification of international river basin districts.

Environmental and economic analysis (Art. 5)

Legal requirements

The second step in practical implementation of the Directive was to undertake an environmental and economic analysis by December 2004, the so-called “Article 5 analysis”. This analysis provides a baseline on which to build the river basin management plans and the recovery of costs of water services. This analysis was, in a way, the transition point of Member States' water management towards applying the WFD.

Article 5 requires that ' each Member State shall ensure that for each river basin district or for the portion of an international river basin district falling within its territory:

- an analysis of its characteristics,

- a review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and on groundwater, and

- an economic analysis of water use

is undertaken according to the technical specifications set out in Annexes II and III and that it is completed at the latest four years after the date of entry into force of this Directive.'

The analysis of the characteristics includes for surface water bodies the identification of rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters and the identification of heavily modified water bodies and artificial surface water bodies. Furthermore, for each surface water category, the relevant surface water bodies within the river basin district shall be differentiated according to type (Annex II.1.1). In addition, for each surface water body type characterised in accordance with section 1.1, type-specific reference conditions shall be established (Annex II.1.3);

The review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters includes an estimation of significant point source pollution, diffuse source pollution, water abstraction, water flow regulations and morphological alterations (Annex II.1.4). For groundwater, this concerns diffuse sources of pollution, point sources of pollution, abstraction and artificial recharge (Annex II.2.1). Water bodies being at risk of failing the environmental quality objectives should be identified (Annex II.1.5 and Annex II.2.1). For those bodies identified as being at risk of failing the environmental quality objectives, further characterisation shall, where relevant, be carried out to optimise the design of both the monitoring programmes required under Article 8, and the programmes of measures required under Article 11;

The economic analysis of water use shall contain information in sufficient detail for the calculation of recovery of costs of water services and information to make judgements on the cost effective combination of measures in the programme of measures in 2009 (Annex III).

According to Article 15(2), Member States shall submit summary reports of the analysis required under Article 5 within three months of their completion. According to Annex II, for those bodies identified as being at risk of failing the environmental quality objectives, further characterisation shall, where relevant, be carried out to optimise the design of both the monitoring programmes required under Article 8, and the programmes of measures required under Article 11. Furthermore, according to Annex V.1.3.1, the results of the monitoring shall be used in combination with the impact assessment procedure described in Annex II to determine requirements for monitoring programmes in the current and subsequent river basin management plans;

In addition to the requirements of Article 5, Member States were also required to establish a register of Protected Areas in accordance with Article 6 by 22 December 2004. This register shall include all bodies of water identified under Article 7(1) and all protected areas covered by Annex IV of the Directive. This register will be kept under review and up to date (Article 6(3)).

Reporting and legal action by the Commission

While many Member States submitted one national report covering all river basin districts on their territory, several Member States submitted one report for each river basin district. In total, more than 90 reports[36] were submitted by Member States, excluding relevant background documents.

Eight Member States of EU25 have submitted their Article 5 report in time and nine additional Member States have sent their report within three months after the deadline of 22 March 2005. Italy and Greece have submitted their report later than one year after the deadline.

Bulgaria and Romania have submitted their reports on a voluntary basis in March 2005. Updated and more detailed reports are available but have not been used for this compliance assessment. Moreover, the Croatia, Republic of Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina have finalised Article 5 reports as part of their implementation work in the Danube and provided them informally to the Commission. Norway has indicated that preparations for a full implementation of Article 5 are underway and that a report will be submitted in March 2007.

In additional to the national or regional Article 5 reports, eight international river basin districts (Danube, Rhine, Elbe, Odra, Scheldt, Meuse, Ems and Eider) produced a coordinated international Article 5 report.

Regarding the Article 5 reports, the Commission started legal action on "non-communication" against Spain (case A2005/2316), Portugal (case A2005/2318), Greece (case A2005/2317) and Italy (case A2005/2315). The cases against Greece and Italy are still unresolved.

In addition, some NGOs have filed a series of related complaints against 11 Member States. These complaints focus on the poor implementation of the economic aspects of the WFD and in particular the definition and implementation of "water services" which is a key term in relation to the provisions on cost-recovery. The Commission Services are in the process of enquiry with the Member States regarding these complaints.

Methodology for performance assessment

In line with the assessment of Article 3, the Commission developed a stepwise methodology to assess the Article 5 reports. This included a screening assessment and performance indicators. An in-depth assessment will be carried out in 2007. Again, the screening assessment is based on the reporting guidance[37] and structures the assessment reports into key issues. For Article 5, the key issues were the analysis of characteristics, human impacts on surface waters and groundwater and the economic analysis. The requirements of Article 6 on a register of protected areas were also included in this screening assessment.

Per key issue, several relevant sub-questions have been identified, which cover the several aspects of the environmental and economic analysis[38]. Screening assessment reports were produced for all Article 5 reports submitted to the Commission. The scale of these assessments is the river basin district, also in case a Member State submitted one report for more river basin districts within its territory.

Again, the findings of these reports were not meant to be conclusive on whether the implementation of Article 5 is consistent and compliant with the Directive. In order to determine whether there are cases of "non-compliance", the Commission is currently carrying out in-depth assessments for specific topics. In the framework of the Common Implementation Strategy (see section 4.1) some in-depth analysis has already been carried out, for example on hydromorphology and on groundwater.

In line with the performance indicators for Article 3, the Commission developed a methodology for presenting the relative performance of the Member States regarding Article 5. These indicators do not reflect the water status in Member States, nor the compliance with WFD objectives, but they aim to present a comparison of the relative completeness and quality of the implementation between the Member States.

The performance indicator is based on a simple scoring system in which a number of points are attributed for each question. The questions are built on the reporting guidance and are answered with the help of the screening report. The questions are grouped for the above-mentioned key issues. The total number of points is added and the total divided by the maximum number of available points in order to calculate a score between 0 and 100. For each Member State providing separate reports for their river basin districts, these were assessed and the scores were averaged to obtain a national score. Where certain questions are not relevant for a Member States (e.g. regarding salt water intrusion for a landlocked Member State) the total score is normalised. The questionnaire for deriving the performance indicators for Article 5 is enclosed (see Annex 6).

It should be noted that, overall, high scores go to Article 5 reports providing complete information – and thus indicating that the Member State or specific RBD has a strong information base for the implementation of the Directive. An achievement of the maximum score is considered a minimum requirement for successful implementation.

Facts and figures from Member States' reports

A document endorsed by the Water Directors on the principles and communication of results of the first analysis under the Water Framework Directive in June 2004[39] sets out the general approach envisaged by the WFD. The document is mainly based on the first experiences of the pilot river basins. From the Member States' reports submitted in 2005, it shows that considerable effort was put in the first environmental analysis. The results have created an EU wide information basis which did not exist before. This analysis can therefore be regarded as an "opening balance" or "starting point" for the WFD implementation.

Characteristics of river basin districts

Water bodies should be coherent sub-units in the river basin district to which the environmental objectives of the directive must apply. Hence, the main purpose of identifying water bodies is to enable the status to be accurately described and compared to environmental objectives. Throughout the EU, more than 70,000 surface water bodies have been defined (ca. 80% are river water bodies, 15% lakes and the remaining 5% coastal and transitional). This does not include data for Denmark and Greece either because they were not available or not clear.

As regards the size of the river water bodies , it is difficult to provide information at European level as average length has not been provided by all Member States and river basin districts. In any case, large differences exist between countries and even within countries for different river basin district or regions. Available examples of average of river water body lengths range from a few km (e.g. Ireland) to more than 80 km (German Länder Baden-Württemberg). A rough indication of the size distribution can be calculated as well by dividing the total number of water bodies by the total surface. This provides an estimated average drainage area per river water body[40] of ca. 93 km2 for the whole EU[41], with large variations among Member States, from an average of 19 km2 per water body in Ireland to nearly 312 km2 in Latvia (see Figure 3).

The size of the groundwater bodies range is most Member States between 300 km2 and 1000 km2. Denmark and Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands and Sweden have identified small groundwater bodies in comparison to the other Member States. The average size of groundwater bodies is 900 km2 (see Figure 4).

Smaller water bodies might better address the ecological variation in a certain area, as larger water bodies might imply less administrative burden. However, no conclusion can be drawn at this moment on the influence of the size of the water body on achieving the environmental objectives of the Directive or the administrative consequences.

[pic]

Figure 3: Average drainage area per river water body 40

Notes for Figure 3:

1) Denmark, Italy and Bulgaria reported unclear data for river water bodies.

2) Finland and Greece did not report number of river water bodies.

[pic]

Figure 4: Average size of groundwater bodies

Notes for Figure 4:

1) Based on data from WISE except for Bulgaria, Malta, Poland, Romania and Slovenia, for which values were calculated by dividing the total surface of the country by the number of groundwater bodies.

2 ) Finland and Greece did not report number of groundwater bodies.

3) Italy reported unclear data.

Under certain conditions, Member States may designate a body of surface water as artificial or heavily modified . Artificial water bodies can be for example ponds or canals. Heavily modified water bodies are for example enlarged rivers for navigation or reservoirs.

All Member States have made use of this provision, but the percentage of heavily modified or artificial water bodies varies enormously between Member States (see Figure 5 and map per river basin district at http://water.europa.eu). There are four Member States with more than 50% of their water bodies provisionally identified as heavily modified or artificial: the Netherlands, Belgium, Slovak Republic, Czech Republic and parts of Estonia and the UK. In the Netherlands, the percentage of natural water bodies is 5%. With the exception of these first four, EU Member States have on average provisionally identified around 16% of their water bodies as heavily modified and artificial. Ireland and Latvia have provisionally identified less than 2% of their water bodies as heavily modified or artificial.

The guidance documents on identification of water bodies and on heavily modified water bodies[42] have been widely used in the water body identification process.

In general, heavily modified and artificial water bodies are clearly associated with densely populated, urbanised areas as well as low-lying or mountainous regions. Averages per Member State may show strong variations across river basin districts. Also on a local scale, considerable variations may occur. This is often caused by a concentration of human activity, such as navigation and hydropower.

When interpreting the data, one should bear in mind the differences of methodologies and assessment criteria which may lead to differences in ambition. A non-exhaustive overview of assessment criteria used in some Member States for the preliminary designation of HMWBs is provided in Annex 7.

A further in-depth assessment will focus on specific areas and reasons for high percentages of heavily modified or artificial water bodies.

[pic]

Figure 5: Percentages of provisionally identified Heavily Modified Water Bodies ( ■ = HMWB), Artificial Water Bodies ( ■ = AWB) and Natural Surface Water Bodies ( ■ = Natural SWB) per Member State (based on data reported by Member States).

Notes for Figure 5:

1) Finland and Greece: percentage of HMWB, AWB and natural SWB not reported.

2) Italy reported unclear data.

Pressure and impact analysis and risk assessment for surface and groundwater

Figure 6 shows the percentage of surface water bodies at risk of failing WFD objectives in the Member States. A map showing the surface water bodies at risk per river basin district is available at http://water.europa.eu.

[pic]

Figure 6: Percentage of surface water bodies at risk of failing WFD objectives per Member State - ■ = 'at risk', ■ = 'insufficient data', ■ = 'not at risk' (based on data reported by Member States).

Notes for Figure 6:

1) Finland, Sweden, Greece and Italy: no risk assessments reported for surface water bodies.

2) Slovak Republic: data for risk assessment do not cover all surface water bodies. Water bodies not assessed have been allocated to the 'insufficient data' category.

An average of 40% of surface water bodies in EU have been identified as being at risk and around 30% as not being at risk of failing to achieve the environmental objectives by 2015. For the rest of surface water bodies (around 30%), the result of the risk assessment is not conclusive due to insufficient data. This lack of data is more important in the case of coastal and transitional waters.

[pic]

Figure 7: Percentage of groundwater bodies at risk of failing WFD objectives per Member State - ■ = 'at risk', ■ = 'insufficient data', ■ = 'not at risk' (based on data reported by Member States).

Notes for Figure 7:

1) Finland, Greece and Italy: no risk assessments reported for groundwater bodies.

2) Germany , Sweden, France and Lithuania: data for risk assessment do not cover all groundwater bodies. Groundwater bodies not been assessed have been allocated to the 'insufficient data' category.

Figure 7 shows the result of the risk assessment for groundwater bodies. A map showing the groundwater bodies at risk per river basin district is available at http://water.europa.eu. An average of 30% of groundwater bodies in EU have been identified as being at risk and around 25% as not being at risk of failing to achieve the environmental objectives by 2015. For the rest of groundwater bodies (45%), the result of the risk assessment is not conclusive due to insufficient data.

The result of the risk assessment in many countries shows high percentages of water bodies identified as at risk of failing to meet the WFD objectives by 2015. These high figures can be attributed to a number of reasons. First, the WFD establishes new environmental objectives addressing pressures and impacts that were not considered in previous water policies, for example hydromorphological changes. Second, the limited information on how some of these newly addressed pressures actually impact the aquatic ecosystems may have led in general to a precautionary approach, contributing to an increase in the percentage of water bodies identified as at risk or under the insufficient data category. In addition to that, at the moment the risk assessments were carried out, a precise operational definition of the WFD water status classes was not available, and this fact may have also played a role in increasing the uncertainty of the results for a significant number of water bodies.

Finally, Member States have often not taken into account in their risk assessment the environmental measures that were already in the pipeline and that can have an influence on the achievement of the WFD objectives. Most of Member States based their risk assessment on current impact data and did not take into account the further implementation of environmental legislation and the prediction of economic trends up to 2015.

From the information in the Article 5 reports it is difficult to extract detailed information on which pressures and impacts cause the high number of water bodies at risk. Only 12 Member States have reported information on the relative importance of different pressures and impacts for surface waters. Only 5 Member States have provided complete information on the following main pressures: point source pollution, diffuse source pollution, water flow regulations/morphological alterations and water abstraction (see Figure 8).

[pic]

Figure 8: Level of information provided by Member States on pressures.

From the available information, it can be concluded that point source pollution, diffuse source pollution and water flow regulations/morphological alterations are important pressures. Water abstraction is on average said to be a less important pressure.

Chemical pollution and priority substances

As part of the Article 5 analysis, Member States had to complete an assessment on pressures (i.e. an inventory of significant point and diffuse sources) and impacts (e.g. an assessment of exceedances of national or international environmental quality standards) for priority substances of Annex X WFD and pollutants of Annex VIII WFD. This analysis is important for the preparation of the programme of measures, but also very relevant for the implementation of Article 16 and the related Commission proposal (see section 2.3). One of the main findings of the review of the Member States’ reports is that information on chemical substances such as priority substances and other dangerous substances varies considerably in Member State Article 5 reports and is often very incomplete. Based on the available information, the following preliminary conclusions can be drawn:

- A significant number of Member States did not provide information on whether the risk to surface water bodies was with respect to chemical status, i.e. the impact analysis was lacking or inappropriate. Where an assessment of compliance with EQS has taken place, the levels of EQS vary considerably between Member States.

- Regarding information requested on chemical pollutants such as lists of relevant substances at the national / RBD level, most Member States have no systematic mechanism in place to identify additional pollutants which are of significance for water protection in their country.

- Inventories of significant pollutants emitted and pollutant loads have often not been provided. This point and the point above are even more surprising since many Member States identify relevant pollutants and compile inventories in the context of implementation (or infringement procedures) related to Directive 76/464/EEC (now consolidated and replaced by 2006/11/EC).

- A significant number of Member States did identify gaps in their monitoring programs for chemical substances which should be addressed in the next few years.

- Given the absence of appropriate inventories, the development of methodologies to estimate pressures from diffuse sources is another key issue which was not addressed in many cases either.

In summary, the current implementation of chemical pollution and priority substances is inappropriate and inconsistent with other legislation that is already in place. The Commission services will make an in-depth assessment to evaluate the country-specific shortcomings in more details and take appropriate action thereafter. Furthermore, the Commission proposal on environmental quality standards already includes components (e.g. the proposal for an inventory or the harmonisation of EQS) which would clarify some aspects and strengthen the implementation in this area.

For groundwater, a large part of the identification of water bodies at risk was related to diffuse sources of pollution and quantitative pressures. The importance of quantitative pressures in some Member States is confirmed in the first interim report on Water Scarcity and Drought[43].

Quantitative pressures causing a groundwater body being at risk are especially a problem in Member States which are highly dependent on groundwater for their water resources. For example in Cyprus, more than 75% of the water bodies is identified as 'at risk', while groundwater aquifers are still being over-pumped and salt intrusion by sea water is observed. A similar situation has been observed in Malta and several other coastal regions.

The main driving forces behind the above-mentioned predominant pressures are agriculture, navigation, hydropower, flood protection and industrial and municipal waste water discharges. This conclusion is based on the results of a questionnaire sent out to the Member States in 2005 and published in the CIS report 'Key Issues and Research Needs under the Water Framework Directive'[44]. The importance of specific driving forces related to hydromorphological pressures are identified in the 2006 screening assessment on heavily modified water bodies[45].

[pic]

Figure 9: Percentage of Member States indicating a driving force related to hydromorphological pressures as significant. This figure is based on an in-depth assessment in 2006, for which the Article 5 reports of only 20 Member States were taken into account 45 . This was due to a lack of data in the other Member States or the lack of availability of other reports.

Overview of the status of European waters: some preliminary conclusions and interpretations from the Article 5 environmental analysis

The information in the Article 5 reports shows differences in the importance of different pressures between EU15 and EU12 Member States. In general waste water discharges are less important in EU15 than in the new EU12 Member States. On the other hand, agriculture appears as most relevant in some EU15 Member States. Hydromorphology is considered significant all over EU27.

Agriculture is strongly dependent on clean water. Unfortunately, certain agricultural practices lead to a number of significant problems in waters. The improper use of nutrient and pesticides results in diffuse pollution that has become the number one water quality problem, in particular in those regions where point source pollution has been successfully tackled. In Annex 2, information can be found on the state of play of the implementation of the Nitrates Directive, which aims to reduce and prevent nitrate pollution from agricultural sources.

The other top pressures emerging from the WFD analysis are so-called hydromorphological alterations. This term summarises all structural and physical modifications including river regulation, channelisation, damming, regulation of water flow and level, embankments and so on. Some of these alterations are so significant that an alternative category of heavily modified water bodies had to be created. Through the WFD, it is now clearer than before that the heritage of the industrialisation of the past 200 years considerably degraded European waters which used to be healthy ecosystems. Although we should not forget the benefits of the development of navigation , hydropower , agriculture , urbanisation and dams for water supply, the main drivers causing this degradation, there is a risk that significant water system degradation and biodiversity loss will continue in the future with infrastructure developments that are implemented without fully taking account of the EU environmental legislation.

Another often identified pressure was point sources, mainly from industrial and municipal waste water . Some Member States from EU12 have identified them as significant. This is in line with the transitional periods that most new Member States have for the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive and the IPPC Directive.

In some parts of Europe, mainly in the South, the abstraction and use of water exceeds the natural recharge capacity. Often the main water use is irrigation. It is likely that such situations of water stress are getting worse as a consequence of climate change. This additional pressures and the need for management of water demand was not always indicated in the Article 5 reports.

Despite these overall worrying perspectives, there are some positive trends. The reform of the Common Agriculture Policy increasingly promotes practices with less undesirable impacts for the environment. As diffuse sources of water pollution, particularly from agriculture, will dominate future water policy, further steps could be taken in the next CAP review. Infrastructure projects (e.g. on navigation or hydropower) assess the environmental consequences in advance and introduce mitigating factors (e.g. fish ladders and minimum ecological flow for hydropower). Implementation of current and future EU legislation, will address many of these issues (e.g. the proposed directive on the sustainable use of pesticides[46]). Finally, EU funding mechanisms for 2007-2013 offer plenty opportunities to address the identified problems[47].

Economic analysis

Most Member States provided incomplete reports on the Article 5 economic analysis. Therefore it is difficult to draw conclusions on the results of implementation across the EU.

[pic]

Figure 10: Level of information provided by Member States on sectors to be covered in cost recovery of water services.

Regarding the sectors to be covered for cost recovery, the sector of households was addressed most often, followed by industry and then agriculture (see Figure 10). However, half of the Member States have not supplied information at all on cost recovery for the main sectors agriculture, households and industry. Because of the lack of information, it is not possible to give an average on the percentage of cost recovery across the EU. Member States that have provided information on households have indicated a cost recovery rate of services for households between 70 and 100%. For industry, the Member States providing information reported a cost recovery rate between 40 and 100%. For agriculture the cost recovery rate is reported to vary between 1 and 100%.

[pic]

Figure 11: Level of information provided by Member States on types of costs taken into account in the economic analysis.

Regarding types of cost taken into account in the cost recovery analysis, most Member States having supplied information on cost recovery have not taken into account environmental and resource costs (see Figure 11).

Most Member States where not able to clearly identify water services. Few Member States have provided clear assessments of the baseline scenario for the implementation of the WFD. This renders the further economic assessment of the costs and benefits of the measures difficult.

International coordination

It is clear that the highest level of international co-operation in the implementation of Article 5 has been achieved in the international river basin districts which have submitted a joint international report to the European Commission.

The areas where international co-operation has been attempted are the characterisation and risk assessments. In contrast, very little information is available concerning international co-operation on the economic analysis.

In more than ten international river basin districts transboundary surface water bodies are identified. In half of these transboundary groundwater bodies are identified. The typology has been harmonised in very few cases, whilst in some other cases the typology was elaborated at national level, followed by comparisons at international level.

Similarly, the risk assessments were often carried out at national level, but some attempts of subsequent comparison and harmonisation have been made.

Results of performance checking

Overall, the quality of the Article 5 analyses varies considerably across the EU and also between river basin districts within a Member State. There are some Member States with overall high score in the performance assessment. A high score on a certain key issue does not automatically mean that the implementation is compliant or consistent with the Directive. The overall score for Article 5 is shown in Figure 12. For countries providing individual reports for river basin districts, the range of scores of individual reports is indicated.

[pic]

Figure 12: Performance indicator per Member State regarding the overall implementation of the environmental and economic analysis – Article 5 WFD – including the EU-27 average (based on the assessment of Member States' reports). For each Member State providing separate reports for their river basin districts, the black lines indicate the range of the different river basin districts. For UK and PL, there is no difference in the score of the different river basin districts for the subject of this chart. *The scores for BG and RO are based on preliminary assessments.

On the analysis of characteristics of each river basin district, most Member States appear to perform well (see Figure 13). This includes the delineation of surface water bodies and ground water bodies and the preliminary designation of heavily modified water bodies and artificial water bodies. This includes as well the differentiation of rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters.

[pic]

Figure 13: Performance indicator per Member State regarding Article 5 – analysis of characteristics - including the EU-27 average (based on the assessment of Member States' reports). For each Member State providing separate reports for their river basin districts, the black lines indicate the range of the different river basin districts. For NL, UK and PL, there is no difference in the score of the different river basin districts for the subject of this chart. *The scores for BG and RO are based on preliminary assessments

Member States performed much weaker on the key issue of Article 5 pressures and impact analysis and risk assessment for surface waters (see Figure 14).

[pic]

Figure 14: Performance indicator per Member State regarding Article 5 –– pressures and impact analysis and risk assessment for surface waters - including the EU-27 average (based on the assessment of Member States' reports). For each Member State providing separate reports for their river basin districts, the black lines indicate the range of the different river basin districts. For UK there is no difference in the score of the different river basin districts for the subject of this chart. *The scores for BG and RO are based on preliminary assessments.

The same can be seen from the chart on performance on impacts of pressures and impact analysis and risk assessment for groundwater (see Figure 15). This figure shows again a large variation in performance between Member States, mainly related to the level of detail of information provided.

[pic]

Figure 15: Performance indicator per Member State regarding Article 5 –– pressures and impact analysis and risk assessment for groundwater - including the EU-27 average (based on Member States' reports). For each Member State providing separate reports for their river basin districts, the black lines indicate the range of the different river basin districts. For UK there is no difference in the score of the different river basin districts for the subject of this chart. *The scores for BG and RO are based on preliminary assessments.

For both groundwater and surface water, the methodologies for the risk assessments are not necessarily comparable across Member States. Differences have also been identified among river basin districts within the same country. This makes it difficult to judge whether Member States have a similar ambition and whether the implementation is consistent with the Directive.

The economic analysis was the weakest part of the Article 5 reports (see Figure 16). On the basis of the information provided as described in paragraph 3.3.4, a comparable performance analysis could only be made on a few topics for which most information was available, being the sectors for which the level of cost recovery has been supplied, an overview of the socio-economic importance of water uses in the RBD in relation to the significant pressures and a summary of the work completed to establish a baseline scenario. The Commission will investigate this further in an in-depth analysis.

[pic]

Figure 16: Performance indicator per Member State regarding Article 5 –– economic analysis (Italy and Greece have scored zero points in the performance assessment of the economic analysis). This performance chart is based only on three questions related to the economic analysis (is information on the level of cost recovery provided, is there an overview of socio-economic importance of water uses in relation to pressures and is a baseline scenario established?) and therefore is not related to all requirements in Annex III. For each Member State providing separate reports for their river basin districts, the black lines indicate the range of the different river basin districts. For NL, PL and UK there is no difference in the score of the different river basin districts for the subject of this chart. *The scores for BG and RO are based on preliminary assessments.

Regarding protected areas , most Member States have established the register. Only, Sweden and Cyprus have provided no information on a register for protected areas and Denmark, Germany and Estonia have provided this information partially.

Open issues and next steps

The Article 5 reports show that the percentage of water bodies for which the risk assessment was not conclusive (presented in this report under the category ‘insufficient data’) is very high for most Member States. In addition, detailed information on the types of pressures leading to the identification of water bodies at risk was often not provided and a complete risk analysis per water category is in most cases missing. This illustrates the need to refine the risk assessments in the coming months and years, in particular taking into account the information collected through the monitoring programmes during 2007 and 2008. This refinement in the identification of the water bodies at risk of failing to meet the WFD objectives is considered crucial in order to build up a solid basis for the development of the river basin management plans and the programmes of measures in 2009.

In this sense, the information available on the status of development of biological monitoring methods in many Member States is particularly worrying. This information has been collected informally through specific workshops held in Brussels in April 2006 and in Ispra in January 2007, and through a questionnaire circulated among the experts represented at the Ecological Status Working Group. It shows that there are still important gaps in the development of the assessment methods at Member State level for some of the biological quality elements. This situation brings in uncertainty on to what extent the monitoring networks will bring in complete and comprehensive information on the status of water bodies. It should be recognised that the investment in monitoring can be extremely cost-effective as it can help taking well-informed decisions in the programme of measures, preventing investing potentially higher amounts in the wrong places.

The delineation of groundwater bodies has been discussed among the Member States in order to follow common principles[48], taking experiences made by the Pilot River Basin network into account. It has been stressed in this respect that the scale of the groundwater bodies will have implications on monitoring and on qualitative and quantitative management. This strengthens the need to refine the water body delineation in the period before the publication of the first river basin management plan.

The information on pressures and impacts on groundwater will need to be complemented in the light of the requirements of the new Groundwater Directive (see section 2.2) as a more detailed evaluation of pressures and impacts will be required for the establishment of groundwater threshold values, trend identification and prevent/limit measures.

For several aspects of the characterisation and the impact analysis, the methodologies need to be refined and made more comparable, if not harmonised. This is particular relevant for the identification of water bodies, the designation of heavily modified water bodies and analysis of water bodies at risk.

The economic analysis of most Member States are incomplete and is therefore one of the biggest shortcomings in the WFD implementation so far. This concerns in particular the definition of water services, and the information for the calculation of recovery of costs of water services, particularly information on environmental and resource costs and information on sectors to be affected by cost recovery.

Towards the river basin management plans, further steps have to be set in international cooperation. For cooperation between some Member States, the arrangements and the implementation are still inadequate. This also concerns enhanced coordination and cooperation with the relevant non-Member States, with the aim of achieving the objectives of the WFD throughout the river basin districts partly outside the EU.

As climate change impacts could enhance the risk of non-attainment of the objectives of the WFD, further steps are also needed to include climate change as an additional pressure on the EU waters. Already now, it is clear that all hydrological processes are affected by climate change. Variables of primary importance in water management, such as river discharges and water levels in rivers, lakes and ground and soil moisture are determined by the climate driven precipitation, evaporation and snowmelt. Long term trends in precipitation have already been observed in many regions.

Reporting performance

Methodology for performance checking

In addition to the assessment of compliance and the performance of the Member States in relation to the provisions of the WFD, an additional category was analysed, the reporting performance. This assessment takes into account whether the reports provided by the Member States allowed for a timely, comprehensive and clear assessment of the implementation progress. The assumption is that if a poorly drafted report arrives with significant delays, the Commission will not be able to analyse the situation appropriately and fairly.

Thus, the assessment criteria are:

- submission date of report(s) (in time or extent of delay);

- clarity and completeness of report;

- in case implementation is not complete, gap analysis and identification of follow up.

The detailed assessment templates are enclosed in Annexes 5 and 6 (administrative performance tables).

In particular, the completeness and the clarity of the report will facilitate the assessment and ensure that the Member States are evaluated in a comparable way and that consistency with the Directive can be demonstrated.

For the purpose of this report, the results of the reporting performance for the Article 3 and the Article 5 submissions were combined and a total score was calculated. In comparison to the other scoring system above, the reporting performance is a reflection of the Member States’ efforts for the particular report. The score does not say anything about the quality of the implementation. However, it may provide a valuable feedback and may help to improve performance for future reporting.

Overview on reporting performance

The results show significant differences between Member States. Since the reporting guidance had not harmonised the reporting in time, there were considerable differences in the quality and the level of detail of the reporting.

[pic]

Figure 17: Indicator per Member State regarding its reporting performance and the EU-27 average (based on Member States' reports).

There are several Member States with a good performance and which can provide an example of “best practice” for others. There are certain correlations between the reporting performance and the quality assessments for Article 3 and 5 above. Some of the poorer performing Member States in the implementation assessment have also provided the reports late and in a quality that made the compliance assessment difficult. Assuming that the implementation is more advanced in reality, these Member States can achieve much better results in the compliance assessment if they provide better and more timely reports in the future.

Other implementation ASPECTS

Common Implementation Strategy

Already during the final negotiations on the Directive, the Member States and the Commission had the idea to continue working closely together during the implementation. This was the result of the experiences from previous directives in the water field where, often after many years of implementation, differences of opinion and interpretation of the concepts of the directives led to uneven implementation across Member States and in some cases to infringements procedures launched by the Commission.

Consequently, in May 2001, the then EU Member States, Norway and the Commission agreed to engage in a Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) for the Water Framework Directive[49]. The overall objectives of the CIS are to:

- Promote coherence and comparability;

- Develop common understanding and common approaches;

- Carry out joint efforts and activities;

- Limit risks of bad application;

- Share experience and information;

- Improve the information management.

The key activities in the joint work programmes fall in the categories: information sharing, development of guidance on technical issues, information and data management, application, testing and validation in pilot river basins and raising awareness and information of the public.

The first focus until 2002 was the development of a set of guidance documents. Following their finalisation, the work programme was reviewed and the organisation re-structured in 2003. Updates of the work programmes were agreed in 2004 and 2006 with the current one covering the period from 2007 to 200949.

To date, the CIS process has produced numerous results including, e.g.[50]:

- 15 published Guidance Documents[51];

- Several technical reports, other supporting documents and training products;

- Experience reports from pilot river basins[52];

- Leaflets and brochures in all Community languages and a CD-ROM;

- Regular newsletters[53];

- Workshops and awareness raising events.

In addition, the CIS has created a network of over 1000 experts from over 30 countries and 25 pan-European stakeholders and other organisations who are providing input into the EU documents and are regularly informed about the progress in all Member States. Thus, the CIS provides the platform for capacity building.

For the period 2007-2009, six permanent working groups and several other ad-hoc groups will focus on a significant number of activities to support the preparation of the river basin management plans.

In conclusion, more than five years experiences with the Common Implementation Strategy have produced significant positive results. It has been established an essential part of a proactive cooperation process in order to prevent poor implementation and promote best practices.

Reporting and the Water Information System for Europe (WISE)

Reporting from the Member States to the Commission is part of the implementation of EU legislation. It will allow the Commission to fulfil its role as “guardian of the treaty” by ensuring consistent and comparable efforts by all Member States. This process of compliance checking includes the assessment of consistency of national implementation with the Community directives and comparability of minimum ambitions and efforts between Member States.

Furthermore, the Commission is required to report to the other EU institutions on the implementation progress, in particular to the European Parliament (see Article 18 WFD). These published reports also provide information to the public in order to allow a transparent and democratic scrutiny of Community action.

In the past, the reporting of water legislation has been a burdensome and inefficient process, both for the Commission and the Member States, which has not produced the required results[54]. As a consequence, a long term vision and concept for reporting on water was developed, first amongst the leading EU institutions and bodies (mainly DG Environment, Eurostat, Joint Research Centre and the European Environment Agency) and then in close consultation with the Member States. The resulting Concept Paper outlined the following long term objective:

“The European Commission (DG ENV, Eurostat and JRC) and the EEA are committed to continue the development of a new, comprehensive and shared European data and information management system for water, including river basins, following a participatory approach towards the Member States, in order to have it operational as soon as possible and to implement it, including all the various elements set out in this document, by 2010.”

On the basis of this concept paper, the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) was developed. Due to the short deadlines in the WFD and the ambitious work programme, the new approach was introduced step by step as part of a transition period. For the first reports under the WFD, this meant that they still had to be done in the “old” style. This resulted for Article 3 and 5 in more than 25000 pages of paper documents in most Community languages all structured in a different way and providing a different level of detail.

However, in parallel to the official reporting, the development of WISE was pursued and the Article 3 and 5 reporting was used to build a prototype on which the later information system can be based. This prototype was filled with electronic data on the basis of informally agreed reporting sheets. As a result of this development process, it will be possible to switch entirely to electronic reporting from the next reporting step onwards. The upcoming Article 8 reporting on monitoring networks due in March 2007 will be solely done through WISE. This will significantly simplify and streamline the reporting burden whilst increasing the efficiency of the subsequent compliance assessment.

This success was only possible due to the strong, coordinated and joint leadership role of the EU bodies and the cooperative and proactive attitude of the Member States. To date 25 and 15 Member States submitted electronically, and in addition to their formal reports, Article 3 data and Article 5 data, respectively. Some of these data are used to provide information to the public through the new WISE web portal (http://water.europa.eu).

The current assessment on compliance is built on the original, official paper-based reports submitted by the Member States. Due to the timelines, the electronic WISE submissions for Article 3 and 5 were only used partially, if at all. The main difficulties in assessing the paper-based reports were, in particular:

- the data aggregation for statistics and indicators was limited due to the different formats, units and levels of details provided by the Member States;

- the comparison of information was difficult or not meaningful due to different reference points and approaches in the Member States;

- the extraction of relevant information was burdensome, time consuming and cost-intensive;

- the information in the reports may already be outdated since certain areas were indicated as work in progress;

- the data management and allowing access to the public was inefficient;

The switch to a purely electronic-based system will resolve many of these points. Furthermore, the long-term concept for the implementation of WISE will provide additional opportunities for streamlining reporting and improving compliance assessment. The Commission and the European Environment Agency are committed to work closely with the Member States to fully set up WISE by 2010.

Cost benefit analysis of the Water Framework Directive

The costs and benefits of the implementation of the WFD have been much debated. The Commission committed itself to study these aspects during the implementation process. In 2006, an exploratory cost-benefit analysis was commissioned to look at the work that had been carried out on Member State level, the available methodologies and examples, in particular in relation with agriculture. The study is still ongoing and the final workshop is planned for April 2007. Some preliminary conclusions are:

- More than 150 relevant studies have been compiled and another 25 studies were identified which are currently in progress. However, most of them only cover a very particular aspect on either costs or benefits. Only few comprehensive cost-benefit studies on water management are available;

- Only three Member States (the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and France) have carried out more comprehensive national work of costs and benefits of the WFD implementation. Some are currently working on the issue or intending to do so at a later stage and for six Member States there appears to be no information available at all. Only two Member State have looked at the administrative costs associated with the WFD implementation;

- There are many methodological difficulties and data gaps, in particularly on the benefit side that prevent the preparation of a pan-European cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, it is difficult to carry out a full cost-benefit analysis since the costs of implementation will depend on the level of ambition of the programme of measures which will only be known in 2009 follo