Water Framework Directive - The Common Implementation Strategy
The implementation of the Water Framework Directive is a complex process that raises a number of challenges for all involved parties. A Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) has thus been put in place in order to develop a common understanding of the WFD, explore synergies and assure a harmonised and coherent implementation across Member States.
The output of the CIS to date is 13 guidance documents on how to best implement the Directive's provisions.
What is the EEB doing?
The EEB 1) participates in the CIS, 2) assesses the quality of national implementation, and 3) builds capacities with its members in order to improve the quality of implementation on the ground.
The EEB has released a number of reports to assess, inform and improve national implementation, in particular:
- EEB/WWF report “Tips and Tricks” published in 2004, assessing CIS guidance documents and providing environmental NGOs with possible actions.
- EEB report advising on the implementation and application of the WFD at EU level.
- EEB/WWF report assessing the implementation and application of the WFD at national level in 2004, thereby building NGO capacities and increasing pressure on EU Commission and Member States for increased ambition.
- EEB/WWF report reviewing the first assessment of Europe’s water required by Article 5 of the WFD (see below).
The EEB currently participates in a number of activities under the CIS process, including:
Intercalibration
Intercalibration (IC) is an important obligatory activity under the WFD, which aims to harmonise the understanding of ‘good ecological status’ across the 25 Member States (MS). It also aims to harmonise the results of national assessment systems (not the methods) so they are comparable and consistent with the normative definitions in the WFD, (i.e. with what the Directive says ‘good ecological status’ should be). This process, therefore, sets the level of ambition of the WFD implementation.
Intercalibration entails one of the most important and technically challenging parts of the implementation process. Due to significant gaps in methods and data, currently the IC work is focusing on just a few quality elements and parameters: benthic invertebrates for rivers, phytoplankton and chlorophyl A for lakes, and chlorophyl and benthic invertebrates for the coastal waters. Other quality elements are also addressed in most GIGs, but boundary-setting for them will not yet be possible. Many national methods are still under development and will not be ready during 2006. So far, transparency and availability of data has been a major problem.
The EEB, with the help of its member RSPB, is carrying out an independent expert study to assess quality of the intercalibration.
Figure 1. The Ecological Status Bar (Courtesy: Peter Pollard)
Article 5 analysis and WFD economics
Article 5 of the WFD asks, for each river basin, a characterisation of the different water bodies, an assessment of the pressures and impacts of human activity, and of the risk of failing the environmental objectives by 2015. It also asks for a detailled socio-economic analysis of each river basin, for an assessment of the current cost-recovery of the water services provided to the various uses in the basin, and for an assessment of the pricing system in place. This analysis will provide the first basis for developing the programme of measures.
This key aspect of WFD implementation is closely followed by the EEB and its members. A questionnaire assessing the quality of what is comonly called Article 5 Reports was sent in 2005/2006 by the EEB and WWF. A seminar was also organised in early 2006 to increase NGOs’ capacities in WFD economics.
A version of the questionnaire sent and briefing notes are available here. |
