WWF s Water and Wetland Index

Transcription

1 WWF s Water and Wetland Index Summary of Water Framework Directive results June 2003 (with an update to September 2003)

2 This paper was elaborated by Lucia De Stefano (Water and Wetland Index Co-ordinator, WWF European Living Waters Programme) with contributions from the WWF s European Freshwater Team. This paper summarises a team work carried out from November 2002 until January 2003 in 17 EU Member States and Accession Countries. An update of the situation on 30 September 2003 is presented at the end of this document. If you wish to have further information about the project or receive an electronic copy of this paper, please contact: Lucia De Stefano, WWF European Living Waters Programme c/o WWF/Adena Gran Vía de San Francisco, 8 esc. D Madrid Tel luciads@wwf.es

3 WWF s Water and Wetland Index project A Rapid Tool to Identify the Strength and Weaknesses of Water and Wetland Management in Europe Summary of Water Framework Directive results NOTE TO READER: This report was published and released in June An update until September 2003 has now been carried out, and the findings can be found at the end of this report. 1 INTRODUCTION WWF s Water and Wetland Index (WWI) is a two-phase pan-european initiative to investigate the state of key freshwater ecosystems (phase 1 was completed in April ) and to provide a 'snapshot' baseline on the preparedness of governments to effectively manage their water resources, using the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) as a guide (phase 2 is on-going). The first phase (WWI-1) was carried out in 2000, corresponding with the approval of the WFD, to assess how effectively 16 EU Member States and Accession Countries monitored the state of their waters and how far they were from the good ecological status objective to be delivered by The WWI-1 results showed that countries had to start acting immediately, improving on their monitoring and management of freshwater ecosystems, especially in view of the 2015 deadline. At the end of 2002, eighteen months after the launch of the WWI-1 results and one year before the expiration of the first WFD deadline, WWF began the second phase of the Index (WWI-2), with the objective of assessing the response of national authorities to their most urgent freshwater problems as identified by WWI-1 using data from the OECD, EEA and country specific information and to the demanding requirements of the WFD. Figure 1. Map showing in light and dark grey the countries involved in the Water and Wetland Index analysis (phase 2). Results presented in this paper refer only to EU Member States and Accession Countries (in dark grey) 1 For more information about WWI-1 results, please visit 1

4 This paper presents the results of the WWI-2 survey that are directly related to the Water Framework Directive implementation process and that reflect the situation in 17 Member States and Accession Countries at 31 January Due to their specific legal autonomy, in Belgium the assessment was led separately for the Flemish and Walloon regions; in the UK for England/Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Therefore the total number of surveyed countries for the WFD part of the Index adds up to 20 countries/regions. Although the overall results of the WWI-2 will be launched in Autumn 2003, these WFD-specific results are being released now six months before the expiration of the first WFD deadline because they should contribute to a timely and effective implementation of the WFD at a national level, by identifying areas where countries have to date been successful and areas that should be improved without delay by Member States and Accession Countries. 2 METHODOLOGY The second Phase of the Water and Wetland Index (WWI) is aimed at the evaluation of Government's water policy, especially in relation to the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive; the application of Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) principles; and the quality of the programmes that are being implemented to respond to the most urgent freshwater problems in each country. The WWI survey was carried out using a questionnaire, completed by WWF National Offices, Partner NGOs 2 and independent consultants in 23 countries, including EU Member States, Accession Countries and other non-eu countries (see figure 1). When designing the questionnaire, special emphasis was given to activities and results that are reported in written documents, since reports are unquestionable evidence of on-going or completed processes and have a particular transparency value in light of the WFD public participation requirements. The analysis and the corresponding results are based on the information available to the public on 31 January 2003, as well as on interviews and written consultation of governmental and nongovernmental water stakeholders. As stated above, the results presented in this paper refer only to country s performance in relation to the implementation process of the EU WFD. The indicators used for this assessment were taken from the outcomes of the Water Seminar Series 3, three workshops organised by WWF and the European Commission in , where more than 300 individual water stakeholders identified key principles of water management. In relation to the WFD, the Water Seminars highlighted five general cross-cutting principles that should be applied at each stage for timely and effective implementation of Integrated River Basin Management and the Water Framework Directive: Timing, Participation, Capacity, Integration and Scale. 2 Voice/IPCC (Ireland), Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN, Portugal), Centre for Environmental Information & Education (CEIE, Bulgaria), ZEUS (Croatia), and Estonian Fund for Nature (EFN, Estonia). 3 For more information about the Water Seminars Series, please download Elements of Good Practice in Integrated River Basin Management. A Practical Resource for Implementing the Water Framework Directive from 2

5 The WWI assessed the performance of 17 EU and Accession Countries (20 regions) against three of these principles: Timing, Participation, and Capacity. 3 RESULTS 3.1 TIMING WWF believes that an early start to WFD implementation is crucial to delivering credible results by For this reason, the WWI looked into how timely Member States and Accession Countries have started with transposition and implementation. Implementation strategy: need for structured and transparent plans. Since the approval of the Directive, Public Administration bodies in Member States and Accession Countries have started internal discussions through committees and working groups, which are increasing as implementation deadlines get nearer. At the end of January 2003, more than 75% of the surveyed countries claimed to have elaborated some type of document apart from the transposing law outlining their strategy to implement the WFD, although only half of them had made this document public (table 1). Surveyed country Public Not public No document Austria BE-Wallonia* BE-Flanders Bulgaria Estonia Finland France Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Poland Portugal Slovakia Spain Sweden UK-England/Wales UK-Scotland UK- Northern Ireland Table 1. Existence of documents outlining the country s implementation strategy and their availability to the public. * Only a Note d orientation In only 5 cases (Finland, France, Slovakia, UK-England/Wales and UK-Scotland) these strategies have been elaborated in committees or working groups with representatives of non-governmental water stakeholders. 3

6 Moreover, it is important to stress that in all the surveyed countries these plans cannot in any case be regarded as comprehensive strategies, since 30% do not even include a timetable for the implementation; and more than 60% do not include a preliminary estimation of the staff required for the implementation. As for estimation of implementation costs, most of the countries say that the analysis is on-going and that final results will depend on the regulations that will eventually be adopted for transposing the Directive. Transposition: taking all the available time. Member States and Accession Countries are using all the available time to issue and approve the transposing law. In January 2003 eleven months before the end of the official transposition period only 6 countries (BE-Flanders, Bulgaria, Greece, Portugal, Slovakia and UK-Scotland) out of 20 had completed the review of their legislation in light of the WFD requirements and had started the process for the approval of the transposing legislation; and only one country, Scotland, had already transposed the WFD into national legislation. Progress in the transposition process UK-Scotland B-Flanders Bulgaria Greece Portugal Slovakia Austria B-Wallonia Estonia Finland France Hungary Latvia Poland Sweden UK-England/Wales UK-N-Ireland Ireland Italy Spain Graph 1. Progress in the transposition process at 31 January =review of the existing legislation on-going or no information about the review state 2=review completed, elaboration of transposing law on-going; 3=review completed, law approval on-going; 4=review completed and transposing legislation approved. Within each category, countries are listed in alphabetical order The transposition process seems to be particularly late in Ireland, Italy, and Spain where at the end of January 2003, the legislation review was at an early stage - or there was no information about its state - and no transposition steps had been taken yet. WFD implementation tasks: Setting-up of River Basin Districts heads the race. As for implementation, all the countries claim to have started at least a review of their technical and administrative structure in relation to most of the WFD tasks and to have taken some actions for their implementation. The most advanced task is undoubtedly the identification of river basin districts: in January 2003, about 40% of the surveyed countries had completed and made public the review of their structure in relation to this issue and in almost 50% of the surveyed countries actions related to this task (e.g. creation of working groups, definition of River Basin Districts, etc) had already led to some results (e.g. publication of official documents on the subject). On the contrary, the less developed implementation task was the Water Pricing one: more than half of the surveyed countries had not started the review of their administrative structure and technical competence, while in the remaining countries this review was at an early stage. 4

7 Review vs main WFD implementation tasks 3,0 progress in review 2,5 2,0 1,5 1,0 0,5 0,0 RBD P&I Measures RBMP Economic Monitoring W. Price Graph 2. Average progress in review of countries administrative structure and technical competence to prepare for the implementation of the following WFD tasks: setting up of River Basin Districts (RBD); identification of Pressures and Impacts (P&I); definition of Programme of Measures (Measures); elaboration of River Basin Management Plans (RBMP), analysis of Economic Use of water (Economic); definition of Monitoring Programmes (Monitoring), definition of Water Pricing policy (W. Price). Figures in the y axis refer to WWI scoring scale (maximum score is 3, i.e. all the countries have completed the review in relation to the relevant WFD implementation task) Turkey and the WFD, a timely start Turkey, in line with its efforts to adopt the European Community Acquis, has already started preliminary activities to adapt its water legislation and administrative structure to the challenging WFD objectives. In 2001 a project ("Implementing the WFD in Turkey") for assisting the Turkish Government in the transposition and implementation of WFD began under the coordination of the Turkish Ministry of Environment and with the financial support of The Netherlands (MATRA Fund). The aim of the project is to foster collaboration among institutions and organisations responsible for water management in Turkey to reach a participatory and integrated approach in water management planning. The project will also help to define the river basin districts, and formulate a pilot river basin management plan that will be replicable in other basins in Turkey. Source: Turkish Ministry of Environment 3.2 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Article 14 of the WFD requires Member States to encourage the active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of the Directive, in particular in the production, review and updating of the river basin plans. WWF believes in line with the Public Participation Guidance Document of the WFD Common Implementation Strategy that this active involvement must be built from the very beginning of the implementation process. This means informing interested parties in order to seek their participation, distributing them consultation documents related to the WFD implementation tasks and involving them not only in the implementation but also in the definition of these tasks. In other words, it means capacitating interested parties to be active and valuable partners in the WFD implementation process. An acceptable level of information. The WWI survey looked for evidence of how country s authorities proactively inform non-governmental water stakeholders in the number of information tools (web pages, leaflets, etc.) that are being used for this purpose and in the existence of targeted information events (e.g. seminars, workshops, etc.) organised by the authorities. This analysis showed 5

8 that about half of the countries have a good or fair number of opportunities (table 2 and 3), while in other cases authorities urgently need to improve on their role as pro-active providers of information. Moreover, during the analysis it was pointed out that, even where there is a sufficient number of opportunities, there is a need to ensure that the information flow is continuous all along the WFD implementation process, organised in an efficient manner and presented as much as possible in a way that is understandable to public with non-technical background as well. Surveyed country Targeted information events Surveyed country Targeted information events Finland Slovakia France Estonia Ireland Greece UK-Engl./Wales Poland UK- N-Ireland Portugal UK-Scotland BE-Wallonia Austria Italy BE-Flanders Latvia Bulgaria Spain Hungary Sweden Table 2. Level of information to non-governmental water stakeholders, based on the existence of targeted information events organised by the countries authorities. =good; =fair; = poor; =very poor; within each category, countries are listed in alphabetical order Surveyed country Number of Information Tools Surveyed country Number of Information Tools BE-Flanders UK-Engl./Wales France Estonia Ireland Greece Portugal Poland UK-Scotland Slovakia Austria UK- N-Ireland Bulgaria BE-Wallonia Finland Italy Hungary Latvia Sweden Spain Table 3. Level of information based on number of tools (e.g. web page, leaflets, info days, etc.) used in each country by the Authorities to proactively inform non-governmental water stakeholders about the Water Framework Directive. =good; =fair; = poor; =very poor; within each category, countries are listed in alphabetical order When assessing public participation as a whole, the survey concluded that so far most of the countries have limited their public participation activities mainly to information only. Indeed, the level of satisfaction of information to non-governmental water stakeholders is moderate: in 40% of the surveyed countries information is considered as quite adequate or adequate, while adequacy drastically drops when speaking about consultation (15% quite satisfied) and public involvement (10% quite satisfied). A committee for active involvement of actors. In only almost half of the countries there is some kind of forum for public participation at a national level. The average composition of these committees is: 6

9 Government representatives 46% Regional/local representatives 13% Scientists 13% Water Users 17% NGOs 5% Others 6% Although the existence of these committees is very positive, the survey has shown that their functioning is not always satisfactory for reasons that vary from country to country, e.g.: - Committees normally have a very strong majority of representatives of the Public Administration, who therefore have full control on decisions - Meeting frequency is often irregular - Environmental NGOs are not always represented - Linkage between the representatives in these committees and the represented basis needs to be improved As a general comment, it was stressed that the structure and functioning of these committees must be assessed in light of the WFD and, whenever necessary, re-designed to adapt them to the demanding public participation requirements of the WFD. This is particularly needed in those countries where these committees existed prior to the WFD coming into force. Financial support to Interested parties. At present in no country are there specific grants to financially support the participation of non-governmental stakeholders in WFD informative or participatory activities, although there are a few positive examples of governmental funding to information events organised by stakeholders (e.g. Ireland). This could be due to the fact that Governments consider that public participation should start later on or to the fact that financing activities to increase the capacity of interested parties is of no concern. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to see that in more than half of the surveyed countries there is some type of financial support for non-governmental stakeholders attending participatory events related to freshwater management (non-wfd specific). However, often this applies only in some cases and to travel expenses only, while work time is not paid two positive exceptions to this rule are Belgium- Flanders and England/Wales, at least in specific councils and fora. This clashes with the lack of human and financial capacity of stakeholders in all the surveyed countries, which can be a bottleneck in the implementation of the public participation process. 3.3 CAPACITY IN RELATION TO WFD IMPLEMENTATION At present, all the countries surveyed are working on defining the legal framework for the implementation of the WFD, including the assignment of responsibilities to the existing bodies or the creation of new agencies and authorities. In the opinion of WWF, the adequate human capacity of the implementing bodies is crucial for the success of the WFD at a national level. For this reason, the WWI assessed the existence and content of analysis of the existing human capacity and plans for its improvement. Assessments on-going but not public. The majority of the surveyed countries claim that they have assessed the existing capacity (staff number and skills) of at least some of the Authorities responsible for the WFD implementation. However, the results of this assessment have not been made public so 7

10 far in any of the countries. Regarding staff costs and according to the available information, so far only Scotland has assigned a specific budget to the WFD implementation, while other countries have either stated that the implementation effort will be included in general budgets of the existing managing bodies (e.g. France, Portugal) or that they will make available a specific budget once the cost evaluation is completed (e.g. England/Wales and Northern Ireland). Accession Countries are often ahead of Member States in this assessment due to the legal requirements of the accession process. However, it seems that attempts to improve their capacity often clash with the limited financial resources that are available for water management since in most of the cases no budget is assigned to the plan for improving the existing capacity. Need for more and WFD-trained staff. In general, WWF and other consulted stakeholders praise the efforts made by the existing staff in national Ministries to face the important workload brought about by the WFD but they point out that additional and WFD-trained staff seem to be urgently needed in many cases. However, very few countries have or plan to have a specific budget for improving their capacity and this may very likely frustrate the on-going efforts. WWF and other consulted stakeholders believe that public participation - one of the biggest challenges of the WFD - is one of the fields where resources and training is particularly needed. A true and satisfactory public participation, indeed, will require resources and skills that are not available at the moment and that need time to be created. Moreover, in a number of countries (e.g. Austria, England/Wales, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Portugal) WWF and other consulted water stakeholders are concerned about the poor involvement and training of local authorities as this may jeopardize the successful implementation of the WFD on the ground. Capacity of the Interested Parties. As for the interested parties to be involved in the WFD implementation, the majority of the surveyed countries claim to have at least partially identified stakeholders to be involved in public participation activities. However, in no case is this analysis public and in very few countries (30%) this allegedly includes an assessment of their needs in terms of training and human capacity in order to be valuable partners in the WFD implementation process. This is particularly important in Accession Countries, where public participation and non-governmental associations of citizens still have a quite short tradition. 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The overall picture given by the WWI survey on 31 January 2003 shows that there is a flurry of activity in all the countries in order to meet the demanding legal deadlines of the Water Framework Directive. However, this activity is not always as structured and transparent as needed. WWF praises the existence of some kind of implementation plans in several countries but expects the development and the release to the public of more comprehensive ones, including estimation of implementation costs and allocation of the corresponding budgets. On 31 January 2003 only one out of the 20 surveyed countries had completed the transposition of the WFD into the national legislation, while the other countries were at different stages of the process. Most of them were still at the beginning of the transposition, reviewing the existing legislation and preparing the transposing one. This means that in January 2003 many countries still had a long way to go for the completion of the transposition. Since achieving consensus is a time-consuming process, WWF doubts that all the countries will be able to meet the transposition deadline with an adequate level of transparency and public participation. 8

11 At the time the survey was completed, most of the countries had started the review of their administrative and technical structures to adapt them to the WFD requirements, first among which is the identification of River Basin Districts. WWF praises this early start but stresses the importance of not considering the WFD implementation as a step-by step process, since compliance of the successive legal deadlines is not in any case a guarantee of delivering satisfactory results (e.g. good ecological status) by From the point of view of WWF, WFD implementation tasks must be regarded as activities to be developed in parallel and carefully considering inter-relationships among them, in order to avoid bottlenecks and contradictions. In particular, WWF urges countries to immediately stop further deterioration of the ecological and chemical status of freshwater ecosystems, and to start measures for improving the ecological and chemical quality of water bodies, since ecosystems need time to respond to restoration and protection measures. According to the survey results, country s efforts to inform stakeholders is uneven but, in general, quite adequate. WWF urges countries to continue proactively informing and, in those countries where information was found to be insufficient, to improve the situation as soon as possible. Indeed, correct and timely information is the basis for an effective active involvement of the public, which in turn is crucial for the delivery of the WFD objectives. As for consultation and public involvement, the survey results pointed out that transparency and participation processes should be improved and applied to the whole implementation process, and not only after the approval of the transposing legislation or in the development of River Basin Management Plans only. Indeed, this goes against the WFD CIS Guidance Document on Public Participation. Provisions for active involvement of the public consist in many cases in committees for public participation. WWF praises the existence of such committees, but urges Member States and Accession Countries to ensure that their composition and functioning is suitable to deliver the WFD objectives. This must be taken into account in all the countries but with special attention in those countries where these committees existed already before the WFD approval, since they need to adapt their institutional capacity to deal with the new competences arising from the challenge of achieving the WFD ambitious objectives. As for the assessment of the existing human capacity in the Public Administration, in most of the cases the surveyed countries claimed to have carried out or are in the process of carrying out an analysis of their human and technical resources. WWF urges Governments to speed up completion of these assessments, which should consider not only central bodies but also regional and local authorities. Countries should design and implement as soon as possible measures aimed at filling gaps in terms of number and skills of the existing staff if they do not want to jeopardise the success of the whole implementation process. Indeed, in many cases the WFD represents for the implementing bodies additional work on top of their normal activities and require skills that, in some cases, are not part of the traditional background of the existing staff (e.g. water economics or public participation). In other words, it is crucial that the new tasks brought about by the WFD are not simply assigned to existing Administration bodies or structures without carefully verifying that they are able to deliver real results and not only administrative compliance of the WFD requirements. Provisions for having capacitated non-governmental partners are still in quite an early stage: the analysis of the interested parties mentioned in Article 14 of the Directive are incomplete and only very limited measures have been taken to ensure that they are capable of being valuable and active partners in the implementation process. WWF urges Governments not to underestimate the big challenge of public participation and to earmark sufficient financial and human resources to ensure its success. 9

12 In summary, WWF urges Member States and Accession Countries to: - Elaborate and release to the public comprehensive implementation strategies, in line with the transparency and participative spirit of the WFD. - Ensure that the transposition process, quite delayed in most of the countries, is completed with the necessary and crucial consensus given by public participation. - Progress in the WFD implementation tasks taking into account the links between them, as opposed to following a step-by-step process, which is only apt for administrative compliance but not for delivering real results in terms of good ecological status - Improve on information provisions, which should deliver in a pro-active way timely, comprehensive and understandable information to stakeholders and to the public in general - Use transparency and participation principles during the whole implementation process, and not only after the approval of the transposing legislation or in the development of River Basin Management Plans only. - Where they don t exist, create stakeholder committees where Public Administration representatives and non-governmental stakeholders can work together for the achievement of the WFD goals. Where they do exist, ensure that these fora are capable of dealing with the new competences brought about by the WFD. - Speed up the on-going assessment of the human capacity of the Administration in light of the WFD requirements, keeping in mind that simply assigning new competences to old bodies without carefully assessing their real capacity to deal with the new responsibilities will seriously jeopardise the WFD implementation process. - Earmark sufficient financial and human resources for new aspects of water management introduced by the WFD such as public participation. - Urgently set up measures for capacitating the interested parties mentioned in Article 14 of the WFD. This includes informing and training them, as well as ensuring that they have enough human and financial resources to be active partners in the WFD implementation process. 10

13 WWF s Water and Wetland Index project Update on relevant WFD issues (30 September 2003) In September 2003, WWF National Organisations, partner NGOs and consultants in the countries involved in WWI were asked to give an update on some relevant issues discussed in WWF s Water and Wetland Index Summary of the WFD results (i.e. state of transposition, efforts to improve information provision, opportunities for public consultation on WFD-related documents, publication of an implementation strategy, estimation of implementation costs, state of the river basin districts definition), as the WFD paper had given a snapshot of the situation on 31 January Moreover, in September 2003 information on additional aspects of the WFD implementation process (i.e. participation of NGOs in the Pilot River Basins where the Guidance Documents of the Common Implementation Strategy are being tested, inclusion of the no-deterioration clauses in the transposing laws) was requested in order to widen the scope of the survey. The update was completed by: Austria, Belgium (Wallonia and Flanders), Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain 4, UK-England and Wales, UK-Northern Ireland 4 and UK-Scotland. In Summer 2003, WWF received (upon request) also some data from the European Commission about the number of open infringement cases against EU Member States in relation to 15 water-related Directives (see note 6). These data are reported at the end of this update. 1 TRANSPOSTION PROCESS Between February and September 2003, only Flanders (Belgium) and Austria have completed the transposition process through the approval of new water laws in summer Scotland already transposed the WFD into the national law in January 2003 as the Water Environment Water Service Act. Meeting the formal deadline does not necessarily imply that the transposing law can be considered as complete and satisfactory. For instance, while WWF Belgium holds the Flemish new water law to be a good transposition of the Directive, WWF Austria undertook a legal study that concluded that the transposition of the WFD in Austria is incomplete. Thus, a complete transposition requires not only issuing a new water law but also modifying a number of existing laws directly related to the achievement of the WFD objectives. After January 2003, five of the surveyed EU countries (France, Greece, Spain, UK-England & Wales, UK-Northern Ireland) have made public the draft transposing laws. Based on the current state of the process for legislation approval, it is likely that these countries will complete the transposition by 22 December 2003 as required. While France, Greece and the UK were quite ahead already in January 2003, Spain has significantly progressed in the WFD transposition process in very few months. Unfortunately, this was done by 4 For Spain and UK- Northern Ireland, the situation is updated to end of October

14 reducing the public debate on the subject. Indeed, not until July 2003 was any legal analysis of the transposition process made publicly available, and although the draft law was presented to the press in September, it will be officially discussed in the National Water Council only in November Moreover, the Spanish Government plans to approve the transposing law using legislative processes that implies a very reduced debate in the Parliament. In other countries (B-Wallonia, Ireland, Italy, Portugal), on 30 September 2003 there was neither a draft law available or clear information on when the transposing law will be issued, although in most of the cases Governments ensured that they will meet the December deadline. This situation is quite worrying since the need to meet the 22-December 2003 deadline will very likely have negative effects on the quality of debate on the content of WFD transposition laws. In the surveyed EU Accession Countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia), where the final deadline for transposition is their accession into the European Union (2004 or 2007), the work on transposition is progressing in view of such deadline. However, some of the countries (Estonia, Hungary and Latvia) are quite advanced in the process and plan to complete the transposition process by December In September 2003, draft decrees transposing the WFD were being discussed by in the relevant ministries in Hungary, Estonia had already a quite advanced Water Law, and, a framework law had already been approved in Latvia. 2 PROGRESS IN INFORMATION PROVISION Since January 2003, there has been some progress in the provision of information in relation to the WFD in most of the countries. This includes the organisation of or active participation of representatives of the Public Administration in information events (France, Portugal, Spain), the upload into official web pages of information about the WFD (France, Poland, Portugal, Spain), the holding of stakeholders meetings (France, Spain, UK-England and Wales, UK Scotland), the issue of information or consultation documents (Ireland, UK-England and Wales, UK-Northern Ireland), and the start of translation into the national languages of information material (Hungary, Poland). Moreover, Greece, as part of its activities for the EU presidency, organised an international Water Week where issues of the WFD were also addressed. In Austria, B-Wallonia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Italy and Slovakia there have been no significant information activities or events to increase the degree of proactive information to water stakeholders. 3 PUBLIC CONSULTATION OF DOCUMENTS Since January 2003, in all the countries except for B-Wallonia, Italy, Portugal and Slovakia there has been some document related to the Water Framework Directive sent out for public consultation. This is undoubtedly a positive development, although the quality of the public consultation arrangements in some of the countries still needs to be improved. As an example, in Greece stakeholders were provided with the draft transposing law only upon request and, during the consultation, there were several versions of the same law circulating, which generated confusion among stakeholders. As another example, the third Northern Ireland WFD consultation document was send out early in October 2003 with the response date on 24 November, which falls far short of the recommended government guidelines of 12-week consultation periods. 12

15 4 ELABORATION OF A PUBLIC, NATIONAL WFD IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY After January 2003 no country has published a strategy for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. However, the Irish Government has made public the Managing Our Shared Waters, a discussion document prepared jointly with Northern Ireland authorities to lay out a strategy on how the two countries would liase on cross border river basins. In Greece, the publication of a call for tenders for the drafting of a national WFD implementation strategy is expected before the end of ESTIMATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION COSTS Since January 2003, only England and Wales has estimated and made public the costs of the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. Northern Ireland has published a partial regulatory assessment of costs to the public sector, businesses and the voluntary sector. A full assessment is expected after the end of the third consultation period, which concludes on 24 November In France, the costs estimation process is being performed at level of Agence de l Eau and a synthesis of these costs will be elaborated in DEFINTION OF THE RIVER BASIN DISTRICTS The definition of River Basin Districts should be completed by 22 December Although in January 2003 this issue was one of the most advanced ones, in September 2003, less than 50% of the surveyed countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, and Poland) had already completed this process. In the UK (England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland), the process is quite advanced since the river basin district designation has been or are being consulted with stakeholders and their final definition seems to be very near in time. 7 PARTICIPATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL NGOs IN PILOT RIVER BASIN TESTING The Guidance Documents of the Common Implementation Strategy of the Water Framework Directive are being tested in a number of pilot river basins 5. In most of the surveyed countries, the testing of the Guidance Documents in pilot river basins is delayed and the involvement of environmental NGOs is still scarce. In Ireland, France, Poland and Portugal there have been no formal contacts with environmental NGOs in the framework of these pilot exercises. In Belgium, Greece, Italy, Spain, environmental NGOs have been contacted so far by the Authorities, but works have not yet started and, in the case of Greece, Italy and Spain, the role of these stakeholders still need to be clarified. The UK is a positive exception in this field. The pilot exercise in the Ribble river basin counts with a strong and constructive participation of environmental NGOs and, in particular, of WWF-UK. 5 Cecina (Italy), Guadiana (Portuguese side), Júcar (Spain), Marne (France), Mosel-Sarre (France, Germany, Luxembourg), Odense (Denmark), Oulujoki (Finland), Neisse (Czech Republic, Germany, Poland), Pinios (Greece), Ribble (UK), Shannon (Ireland), Scheldt (Belgium, France, The Netherlands), Somos (Hungary), Suldalsvassdraget (Norway) and Tevere (Italy) 13

16 8 NO DETERIORATION (OF CURRENT WATER STATUS) CLAUSES The WFD (Articles 1, 4.1 (a) and (b)) obliges Member States to refrain from actions that would lower the ecological, chemical or quantitative status of any water body. This includes not only the new standards set by the WFD, but also all existing water standards provided or required by other EU legislation. This is normally known as the no-deterioration duties of the WFD. So far, only four out of 17 surveyed countries (Austria, B-Flanders, Spain, UK-Scotland) have directly or indirectly defined - either in their approved law or in their draft law - the date from which the nodeterioration duties will start to apply. This is December 2003 for Austria and Spain; July 2003 for Flanders (the Flemish Parliamentary Act on Integrated Water Policy, approved in July 2003, refers to the no-deterioration of the actual status of surface and groundwater); and year 2006 for UK- Scotland, where the non-deterioration clause will be activated only after the characterisation of water bodies in On the contrary, in Greece, England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, the draft law does not mention the no-deterioration clauses. In the other surveyed countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia), either there is no draft law available yet or the issue is still under discussion. 9 LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST EU MEMBER STATES The Water Framework Directive provides EU Member States and Candidates Countries with a powerful tool to better manage their waters. However, since the approval of the Bathing Water Directive in 1976, Member States have had a wide range of legal instruments to preserve the good status of their water resources. Thus, requirements for making a good use of freshwater ecosystems, come from far, which means that Member States are not starting from scratch to achieve a good chemical and ecological status of their waters by 2015, as requested by the WFD. For this reason, lack of time can not be used in the future as an excuse to justify delays in the fulfilments of the WFD objectives. Given the importance of the correct and timely enforcement of all the WU legislation, WWI considered the level of compliance of Member States with 15 water-related Directives 6, to have an overview of the use that Member States are doing of the EU legal instruments existing prior to the WFD approval. Although WWF is fully aware of the limitation of figures in giving a detailed view of the level of commitment of countries in relation to the enforcement of EU legislation, it believes that statistical data about the number of open infringement cases in relation to key water-related Directives give an interesting picture that is worth to be published. Graph 3 shows the number of infringement cases at the stage of reasoned opinion or later that were open in July 2003, which refer to 15 EU Directives (see footnote 6) whose good implementation is crucial for the success of the Water Framework Directive. 6 Bathing Water (76/160/EEC), Urban Wastewater (91/271/EEC), Nitrates (91/667/EEC), Drinking Water (80/778/EEC, 98/83/EC), Surface Water (75/440/EEC), Dangerous Substances (76/464/EEC), Fish Water (78/659/EEC), Shellfish Water (79/923/EEC), Protection of Groundwater (80/68/EEC), Major Accidents (96/82/EEC), Environment Impact Assessment (85/337/EEC), Sewage Sludge (86/278/EEC), Plant Protection Products (91/414 (EEC), Habitats (92/43/EEC), Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (96/61/EEC). 14

17 Open infringements Number of open infringements Non communication Non conformity Bad application 0 A B D DK EEL F FI I IR LNL EU Member State P SUK Graph 3. Number of open infringement cases at the stage of reasoned opinion or later in July 2003 (data about 15 waterrelated Directives). Source data provided by the Directorate General Environment, European Commission. 15