EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERALENVIRONMENTDirectorate C - Quality of LifeENV.C.1 – Clean Water

Brussels, November 2017

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

08 NOVEMBER 2017 FROM 15:00 TO 18:30

09 NOVEMBER 2017 FROM 09:30 TO 13:00

CENTRE ALBERT BORSCHETTE, ROOM 1B, BRUSSELS

A meeting of the Strategic Co-ordination Group (SCG) of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) for the Water Framework Directive (WFD) was held on 8-9 November 2017. The following Member States participated in the meeting: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, and UK. In addition, delegates from IS, NO and TR, and representatives of CEFIC, CONCAWE, EAA, ECPA, EEB, EIC-FENACORE, EURAQUA, EurEau, EURELECTRIC, Eurometaux, EUWMA, EWA, INBO, NAVI TG, UEPG, Wetlands International, WWF EPO, and DG ENV attended the meeting. A full list of meeting participants is provided in Annex 1.

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

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/2a0efbbf-25f2-415d-93b4-b56254c98859

1 – Welcome and introduction

Commission (COM) Co-Chair Bettina Doeser (BD) welcomed the delegates to the meeting together with the new Co-Chair, Karl Schwaiger (AT) (KS).

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

KS asked for approval of the agenda, which was approved without amendment. On the minutes of the last SCG, IT requested changes to item 5b and 6a. With these changes, the minutes were approved.

On matters arising, NL noted a point that questionnaires on the assessment of RBMPs would be circulated, but they have not been received and also asked about the timing of the release of the EEA report. BD replied that the questionnaires are still being developed and will be shared. The EEA report will be made available at around the same time as the first COM assessment of the RBMPs, around the end of year or January.

CZ asked about the reference to the dashboard and a request for MS to check this. BD replied that this will be made available along with the draft template.

1

3 – Activities of the Working Groups and Ad-hoc Task Groups

Deliverables foreseen for endorsement by Water Directors:

a) Ad-hoc Strategic Group: Guidance on Natural Conditions

DE reminded SCG that WDs had asked for an examination of the use of natural conditions under WFD Art. 4.4. A first draft collection of case studies provided by Member States, and a first draft of an overarching policy paper were submitted to WDs in Malta. Both documents had been revised and updated. With regard to the collection of case studies, those seen as relevant to illustrate some of the key points had been maintained in the revised collection of the case studies.

In discussion of the main paper, delegates supported submission of it to WDs, although some comments on content were raised.

CZ noted that at the WDs meeting COM stated that the document will be non-binding, but is it called ‘guidance’? Also, the document does not describe exemptions under Art. 4.5 adequately. Raimund Mair (RM) (COM) replied that the document is a technical document but not CIS guidance. RM clarified that under Art 4.4 measures are taken by 2027 to achieve Good Status, but that recovery to good status won't happen until after 2027 due to natural conditions. In contrast, under 4.5 the natural conditions might be similar, but measures to deliver Good Status would be infeasible or disproportionately expensive. The document includes a footnote (10) referring to an earlier document (CIS reporting guidance) indicating those two possibilities for exemptions under Article 4(5), while clarifying that under Article 4(4) 'natural conditions' per se can also be an exemption type.

SE thinks that the interpretation made for natural conditions in the guidance provided for Art. 4.5 is not in line with what is stated in the WFD. There is a problem with issues such as mercury and natural background levels in biota. Also the text on persistent substances is not correct, and gives the unfortunate impression that no action should be taken in relation to contaminated sediment.

PT stated that a distinction needs to be made between the concept of natural conditions under Art. 4.4 and Art. 4.5 and how this is used to justify non-achievement of objectives and delayed recovery. The case studies on high natural background concentrations should cover substances other than metals.

Helen Clayton (HC) (COM), replying to SE and PT, stated that the text in the EQSD on correcting for natural background concentrations only refers to metals and the present document cannot go beyond this. Some other substances sometimes occur naturally at high concentrations (e.g. PAHs), but these cannot be covered at this point. When the EQSD was revised in 2013, it was pointed out that while the first part of Annex I Part B refers to water EQS, the last part refers to ‘relevant EQS’ deliberately to include biota EQS. So the reference in the present document is correct. On sediments and local contamination, it is important not to imply that remediation should not be attempted and the wording needs to ensure this is clear. On persistent substances, some changed wording is possible and can be discussed.

MT stated that the term ‘recovery’ on GW quantitative status in section 3.1.3 suggests a return to pre-abstraction levels. This is often not possible. After discussion it was agreed to revise this to ‘recovery to Good Status’.

IT questioned the issue of the length of time extensions raised under point 3.2, as this is not part of the WFD. Natural conditions exemptions under the WFD are not viewed as temporary

2

and it is usually not possible to indicate by when good status would be achieved. This point is recognised elsewhere in the document. RM replied that the wording on time extensions has taken account of MS comments and is consistent with the comment from IT. IT replied that the word ‘assumption’ had not been used. The wording ‘by when’ gives an incorrect impression and it should not contradict CIS guidance which refers to ‘soon as possible’.

NL noted that further discussion on Art. 4.5 could take place at a later stage.

DK stated that it would be useful to have a paper on the type of evidence needed on disproportionate costs and technical feasibility to extend deadlines beyond 2027 as this was part of the mandate of the group which is not addressed in the paper. ES also noted that the paper does fully meet the mandate from Malta as it does not say what will happen from 2027 onwards. DE agreed that the document does not address post-2027 issues. WDs can discuss this, but it is also a subject that may be part of the wider WFD review. BD agreed that the post-2027 point should be taken up in the WFD review.

EAA noted that fish migration aids need to be efficient and working, otherwise there will not be recovery. RM agreed that they do need to work, but that even if they do, the measures may not overcome all of the impacts of the hydromorphological pressure.

BE stated that the document clarifies natural conditions issues for the next planning cycle.

DE noted that assessment of natural conditions is subject to a six-year review and a comment on this should be included. RM agreed.

NAVITG shared concerns about Art. 4.5 and in particular the statement in table 2 – ‘beyond the control of the MS’ as this should not imply that transboundary pollution is natural and that full downstream costs of non-action are fully taken into account. Not all MS have a consistent method for determining disproportionate costs and hence this is a challenge determining these across frontiers. RM agreed. The document addresses the transboundary context and highlights the obligation to co-ordinate PoMs, but internal cross-referencing could be improved.

After the discussion, HC presented a track-changed version of the document addressing the comments, including points on transboundary issues (including that cost assessment is considered at the scale of the RB), ‘recovery to good status’, clarification that persistent pollutants could be in water, biota or sediment, and that remediation may be possible, but that recontamination might occur. A footnote to forthcoming guidance on implementing metals EQS was included to address the comment on for mercury concentrations in biota. The comments on the assumptions as regards the length of the time extension were addressed.

NAVITG welcomed the changes, but stated that the text should be clear that if Good Status is considered to be infeasible, this should be clearly demonstrated, and that where measures are feasible, they should be put in place.

DE noted that it is important to be careful about the wording on transboundary issues, as the situation is different if non-MS are involved. KS stated that a wording will be found to accommodate this and be provided to WDs in tracked changes.

NL noted that the reference to persistent substances on p8 should not include reference to ‘with a long half-life’. HC agreed that this should be removed.

On the Annexes, KS noted that there is a clear disclaimer as to the nature of the annexes. No comments were made.

3

KS thanked SCG and the leaders for the work done in reaching a consensus on this difficult area. SCG agreed to forward a clean and track-changed version to WDs as a technical document for endorsement.

b) ATG on Article 4.7 Guidance

RM reminded SCG that the ATG (co-chairs BE, FR, WWF, COM) was established in autumn 2016 to develop the guidance. The first activity was to collect practical examples and develop an issue paper for a workshop. This led to the first draft of the guidance, which was circulated for comment. A second draft was discussed by the ATG and a further consultation held. Draft three was discussed by the ATG in October, leading to draft four which has been provided to SCG. Potentially remaining open issues could be discussed by the SCG to allow for a revised version to go to WDs for endorsement.

Many delegates thanked the ATG for the work undertaken and for taking account of the comments provided during the development of the guidance.

ES hoped that there would be better practical examples, but what was possible has been done. RM noted that the text in the final chapter states that follow-up exchange on practical issues might be facilitated.

SE asked for changes to line 3.2.6 on hydropower to change from ‘pumping’ to ‘balancing capability’; line 1637 to change to ‘could include’, not ‘normally’; and to line 1815-1828 to add reference to COM guidance on undertaking non-energy extracting materials for Natura 2000. RM replied that changing to ‘balancing capacity’ should be fine. On line 1637 noted that the preference is not to change the wording in order to avoid promoting retrofitting for fish aids. RM will check the reference to mineral extraction and Natura 2000.

FI stated that consideration of temporary and long-term effects on p 22 should be more specific on what is meant. RM replied that temporary and long-term effects were discussed at the ATG, but MS interpret these within a certain range. Therefore the wording from CIS Guidance No. 20 was maintained, making reference to the monitoring periods in Annex V of the WFD.

DE noted there are several places where ‘compromise’ and ‘jeopardise’ are used, but only the former should be used. RM agreed to this. DE further stated that line 939 refers to ‘detectable adverse effects on structure and function elements of the ecosystem’, but this should be replaced by ‘on BQEs’ as the latter is in the WFD. SE and WWF did not support the latter change. As a result, DE suggested amendment to “the water body under consideration” RM agreed that this was acceptable.

DE also raised the issue of how cumulative effects are addressed in Chapter 6, which has been the subject of a national court ruling. RM agreed that wording provided by DE to strengthen the role of RBMPs as tools is reasonable.

PL stated that reference in line 1956-1957 to information that can be considered to be useful in the RBMP goes beyond the scope of Annex VII of the WFD as transposed. Additional information would not be in a RBMP, but could be in a supplementary document. NL agreed that it should be clear what should be part of RBMPs and what may be part of RBMPs. RM agreed to include text stating that information could be in RBMPs or in supplementary documents.

NL, supported by PL, stated that the wording following from line 1360 onwards should be aligned from ‘may’ to 'expected to'. RM agreed to this. NL stated that line 1322 relates to

4

cumulative effects and NL stated that the text would be clearer if no distinction is made between projects with permits and those with general binding rules (GBRs) as both can have cumulative effects, and also offered to provide a brief text for a practical example. RM agreed that this could be the case but the paragraph is intending to specifically address activities subject to GBRs. The text can be clarified and the example added.

RO stated that some impact criteria should be clarified and how to analyse issues at WB level. RM stated that this issue could be subject for followed-up and made reference to the points in the final chapter of the Guidance.

SE stated that it would be useful in line 381 to add a point on NWRMs and significant floods. Line 364 should state that it is important to take account of the whole risk management cycle and line 382 should state that floods will become more intense with climate change. At line 1296 it is also appropriate to consider a zero alternative – what would happen if no flood measures are taken. RM stated that adding reference to risk management in line 364 is fine and pointed out that there is already a specific section on climate change, so further repetition is not needed, and also a reference to CIS guidance 24 is included with reference to infrastructure which includes flood protection. With regard to the previous comment by SE to include a reference to Guidance under N2000, RM stated that a general reference to all the different sector-specific guidance documents which are already in place for Natura 2000 will be added.

NAVITG noted that line 1262 states that applicability should be a simple and clear. However, it should state that it does need to be as detailed as is needed. Line 1877 refers to ‘negative benefits’. This should be changed to ‘residual negative effects of the project on the WFD objectives’. RM responded that the wording in the document could be clarified and the points added.

WWF noted that the guidance could be stronger (e.g. it often uses ‘may’). There are two key issues. The first concerns hymo assessment methods. ECOSTAT had suggested that if assessment methods are not sensitive enough to assess hymo, they should be assessed separately and specific changes in the text and a diagram were suggested. Further, reference to the JRC work on hymo should be made. A second issue is on page 30 and HMWBs – there is a difference between detecting deterioration of status rather than potential and this needs to be clarified in different parts of the text. RM agreed to strengthen the wording on the role of supporting elements, examine the diagram and to include reference to work from JRC.

EEB stated that it was not entirely satisfied with the qualified language and supported the comments from WWF on the assessments of deterioration, the diagram and reference to the JRC work.

CZ proposed that the last sentence of lines 821-822 is deleted. RM referred to written comments also provided by SK on that topic. Light is shed in the Guidance on the topic of maintenance from different angles, including the possibility to designate water bodies as HMWB and that there is no need to perform an Art. 4.7 test in case the effects are only temporary. However, if, for example, maintenance is not undertaken regularly, such that deterioration could occur in the longer term, then an Art. 4.7 test would be needed. RM proposed to keep the text as it is since it provides sufficient flexibility. RM furthermore made reference to further written comments provided by SK ahead of the SCG meeting, with maintenance being one of them. Other points included the possibility for MS to set national level criteria on the significance of impacts. RM clarified that setting criteria at national level is actually encouraged by the document in chapter 4.1 and chapter 6 since no specific criteria are prescribed by the Guidance. RM furthermore clarified that the question of what is

5

considered as "deterioration" and therefore as a trigger for an Art. 4.7 test, was addressed by the ECJ in the Weser Ruling (C-461/13), which identified deterioriation at the quality-element level. This is already clarified in chapter 3.4. Finally, the section on overriding public interest outlines relevant considerations for its definition, mentioning also that there is a margin of discretion.

IT asked that also a track-changed document should be provided showing how comments have been addressed.

KS thanked everyone for their comments. A revised version will be provided in clean and tracked-changed form and forwarded to WDs for endorsement.

c) WG Floods: Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (reporting tool for the second cycle)

Ioannis Kavvadas (IK) (COM) explained the background to the updating of the reporting tools. A sub-group of WG Floods was established to develop the reporting guidance. There have been five technical meetings, with very good inputs from MS throughout the process as well as support from WG DIS, leading to a final draft reporting guidance which is comprehensive. The principle taken was not to reinvent the reporting process, but to follow the experience from FD implementation and the experience of updating the WFD reporting guidance. The objectives were to increase the options to choose from, to remove the requirement for custom summaries and replace these with references/pdf uploads, and to reinforce the areas of potential significant risk (APSFR) as a common thread through the flood risk management process. There are still things to do, e.g. the XML template files or the spatial guidance. The next step is a testing phase in 2018 and several MS have volunteered to be part of this. The guidance is presented to SCG for its support and to forward to WDs for their endorsement.

NL requested to delete ‘XSD files’ as this is the XLM files. IK stated that there is a difference between the XSD and XML files, hence the distinction for the phases.

IT asked if a preliminary version of the Access database would be available. It will be important to check points in it and check on how QA/QC is addressed. IT, supported by SE, also stated that the dates in the guidance should be consistent with the FD, i.e. December 2011 rather than January 2011. IK replied that Commission would explore providing a preliminary version of the Access database and will make available the preliminary QA/QC rules. It was agreed to change the date to December 2011.

BE asked if a track change version will be available to see how comments have been addressed in the version sent to WDs. Also, there is a problem reporting geospatial data nationally - it would be better to do this at the unit of management level. IK stated that a tracking table of comments and how they have or will be addressed will be provided as further comments are received and made available. On the geospatial data, IK will explore how to do reporting at unit of management level, but it will be important to ensure that there is coherence amongst UoMs.

SE supported submission of the guidance to WDs. SE, UK and CZ stated that it is important that the testing phase will take on board mistakes found. IK confirmed that any results from testing will be included in technical updates of the reporting guidance.

SE also raised the issue of the classification of coastal floods, which is limited to seawater floods, but suggested that this include lake floods. IK stated that this will be looked into.

6

In conclusion it was agreed that the revised draft guidance will be submitted to WDs for endorsement ten days before the meeting and that a tracking table of comments received will also be made available.

Discussion points:

d) ATG Hydromorphology: Workshop on Policy Related Aspects (scheduled for early 2018)

RM gave a presentation. A lot of activities are undertaken by the ATG Hydromorphology within the framework of WG ECOSTAT, such as developing a report on hymo assessment methods and reports on a common understanding of mitigation measures for different users for the inter-comparison of GEP. A workshop on significant adverse effects on use will be held on 22-23 February in Brussels. Results will feed into the elaboration of an appendix of CIS Guidance 4 on GEP. The workshop is planned to discuss the main uses leading to HMWB, differences between MS, how significant adverse effect is determined and how this is distinguished from adverse effect. SCG was asked if the issues are relevant or if there are additional points. MS were also asked to share their experiences at the workshop.

RM also asked SCG to agree that SE be an additional co-lead of the ATG. SCG agreed to this.

NL stated that it has much experience with HMWBs and artificial WBs and will contribute to the workshop.

NAVITG noted there has been much discussion in the UK on what constitutes an adverse effect on use and whether it is significant or not.

DK suggested an item on the link between different types of instruments/measures and GEP.

e) ATG on Water Reuse: Next steps on Water Reuse

BD informed that the ATG progress report will be updated in the light of the ATG meeting in Larnaca earlier this week. She provided a brief update on the current process; the Commission's Impact Assessment of options for a new legislative instrument is ongoing. The ATG discussed some potential elements of a legal instrument, in particular that it will be enabling in nature, leaving the decision of whether to undertake water reuse to MS. The technical work of the JRC was presented and discussed at the ATG meeting.

IT asked about the type of legal instrument. BD replied that the preferred option is likely for a regulation which would be adopted by the Ordinary Legislative Procedure. A regulation would not need transposition in MS, so would minimise administrative burdens to those MS which do not undertake water reuse.

IT asked about the JRC technical report. It introduces a risk management framework for water reuse. The application is however too vague and it does not guarantee harmonisation at EU level. IT asked for further detail on the framework. Also, the number of parameters included is insufficient. Finally, IT asked when the IA will be made available. BD explained that the IA does not assess the work done by JRC. It will be published alongside a proposal for an instrument. BD suggested that further technical issues are discussed bilaterally.

7

PT supported the proposal as it will contribute to better water reuse within the context of the circular economy action plan. A regulation with a fit for purpose approach is the best approach. However, to place all requirements on waste water treatment plant operators may not be sufficient as it may not protect quality in distribution systems. Alternatives, though, may be burdensome. Quality requirements should be at the point of use and address different uses. BD stated that these issues will be looked into.

f) WG Chemicals: Progress on the Surface Water Watch List

Stephanie Schaan (SS) (COM) reported on the continuing work to review and update the surface water watch list. The aim is to adopt a new Decision in March 2018 in order to ensure that the monitoring timetable for MS does not need to be changed. JRC has based its analysis on monitoring data reported by MS and produced a report suggesting substances to remove and indicating candidate substances to be added to the list. Following the WG Chemicals meeting in October, many comments have been received, including on possible new substances. The JRC is assessing the information, including determining reliable PNECs and appropriate analytical methods. COM will circulate a proposed revision to WG Chemicals in December, which will be discussed at the WG meeting on 9-10 January. The aim is to vote on a Decision in the Art. 21 Committee in spring 2018.

SS explained that the aim would be to cover two successive updates of the watch list in the one proposal. This is because, under the EQSD, substances can only stay on the WL for four years, so this could mean another new Decision would be needed in March 2019. However, it is desirable to avoid two new Decisions in quick succession, so it would be best to do both updates in the one Decision in 2018. The first update would take effect in 2018, it would remove substances for which sufficient, high quality monitoring data have been collected and also add new substances (reaching up to 11 substances in total in the 2nd WL). If the second update is also included in the Commission Decision in 2018, it would take effect in March 2019, and it would remove substances having reached the four-year limit and add new substances of potential interest (reaching up to 12 substances in total in the 3 rd WL). Doing both updates together would also give MS more time to prepare for monitoring changes in Sept 2019 for the third watch list. All of these changes would not result in any change to the reporting deadlines, if the Commission Decision is adopted in March 2018.

DE stated that it is important to have reliable PNECs and analytical methods. Substances should not be proposed if both of these are not available. Also, what happens with substances that are taken off the watch list, but for which no positive qualitative statements have been made? It is acceptable to combine both updates in one Decision, but this would require a lot of work to be done before the Committee meeting.

NL asked about the wider strategic work on fighting chemical pollution. NL also supported the comments from DE. Experts will examine the proposed PNECs and good analytical methods are needed, as to develop these at MS level is very costly. Finally, there is also the forthcoming WFD review which may re-examine some of these issues, so it is not clear why there is a need to bring forward the 2019 update.

BE agreed that it is important to have reliable standardised methods as it is not only expensive for MS to develop their own methods, but these might also not be comparable with other MS.

8

SS agreed that reliable PNECs and methods are important. However, it is important to note that PNECs do change as knowledge on toxicity, etc., changes. Discussion on which substances to remove from the WL, and on what to do with the substances removed are two interlinked but separate discussions. First we need to have a clear view on which substances are actually removed from the WL (following the vote in the Article 21 Committee), before discussing their fate. It is also important to note that there is a difference between the criteria to keep or add a substance and those to prioritise a substance. The former requires high quality data, but the latter could be done using data of lesser quality, using additional information (e.g. on uses) to support the assessment. This will be taken into account when assessing the substances taken out of the list, in particular for substances removed from the list because they will have reached the four-year limit. On the analytical methods in the JRC report, these are preliminary and require further consideration. SS noted that the timing of the update will depend on the outcome of the technical work, in particular the availability of reliable PNEC and appropriate analytical methods.

SS stated that work by WG Chemicals on the effects-based approach is ongoing and sub-groups are being established for each objective in the TOR and the first preliminary conclusions will be presented to the WG meeting in April. At this point the way forward will be clearer. This will contribute to the wider holistic approach to fighting chemicals raised by NL.

IT agreed on the importance of ensuring costs of analytical methods are kept low. Nationally, there is a method for chromium, but further checks are needed for other substances. IT can agree with the selection of substances proposed. It is acceptable to combine both updates of the watch list, as long this does not result in additional monitoring. Indeed, if a substance is to be removed before the four-year limit, then it should be agreed that monitoring is no longer necessary.

SE asked if the length of time is the only reason to remove substances. Also what criteria are used to add substances which are banned from use? SS replied that time is not the only argument, e.g. if there is sufficient high-quality monitoring data, then a substance needs to be removed from the WL. However, the EQSD states that substances cannot stay on the watch list for continuous periods of more than four years. This was included during adoption in order to ensure the list is reactive and continues to capture emerging substances. When proposing new substances, JRC made sure that these were approved at EU-level, although products containing these substances (eg pesticides) may not be authorised in all EU Member States. Comments have been received from Member States on products authorised or not in certain Member States and the JRC will look into these comments.

UK noted that a longer time may be required to develop the revised watch list, especially to review a year’s monitoring data. UK agreed on the resource intensive nature of developing methods. One issue arising from the JRC report is that about 50% of MS failed to give information on how representative their monitoring stations are. At theWG Chemicals meeting it was suggested that JRC might have a workshop on how to support MS in developing methods and this could be pursued. SS confirmed that the JRC is willing to organise a workshop on new methodologies early in 2018. There are deficiencies in MS reporting on the representativity of the monitoring stations. This information is important to assess the risk, so Member States are encouraged to report thoroughly on this when reporting the 2nd year of WL monitoring. Quicker reporting from MS in the future, and reusing the criteria developed by the JRC to remove the substances from the WL could ensure a faster process for the next updates.

9

FR agreed with UK on the timetable due to the complexities of the issues, including ensuring the data are collected and allowing time to reflect on the list. FR would like the proposal not to be too precipitous each time the watch list is changed. SS replied that while the timetable is challenging, the requirements are legally binding, there is no option to add a waiting period. Reducing the time available for reporting is also problematic for some MSs.

DK agreed on the importance of good analytical methods and considered that there are problems with the timeframe. DK questioned why substances should be added to the watch list as the purpose of the list is to gather information on substances that might be future priority substances, but this is premature given the fact that the EQSD is to be subject to review along with the WFD. SS replied that while there is a review of the EQSD, this doesn't mean we can stop working altogether on improving our knowledge of chemical risk in the aquatic environment. In addition, the watch list is more reactive than the PS list in order to assess emerging risks and has a different review timetable. This means that by design, there can be a lag time from a substance leaving the watch list and possibly joining the priority substance list, which is due to the different objectives of the two lists. Also while there is a legal requirement to review the priority substances, this may not then result in a revision.

EAA expressed support for the paper and substances proposed for inclusion in the list. It asked whether, as regards the four substances to be removed, there would be a paper on the data and how to follow them up.

Eurometaux stated that the last sentence of paragraph 6 of the paper on additional evidence, which states that substances could be prioritised if data are not of high quality, is not clear. SS replied that the paper was not intended to define what are or are not high-quality data, but to highlight the concept. This will need further clarification in technical discussion.

IT stated that if there is to be an update in March, JRC should provide methods by December in order for MS to assess them.

NL noted that the legal obligation to update the WL was missed in March 2017; MS could help COM to draft a letter to Council and EP explaining this, since COM had written such a letter before in relation to the priority substances review.

BE echoed NL, stating that the timeline should be carefully assessed, whether both revisions should be done together and whether there should be a delay.

WWF replied to NL and BE stating that delay is bad legal practice and the previous delay was not a positive outcome. WWF could not support such an approach.

SS concluded by stating that work will continue, taking account of the comments received. It will be important to see what is produced by JRC and then determine the best way forward from that point.

4 – Legal/Implementation issues and other activities

a) Update on RBMP/FRMPs adoption and reporting: State of Play of RBMPs/FRMPs; State of Water (EEA)

Lourdes Alvarellos (LA) (COM) gave a presentation. The analysis will result in an overview report on implementation and MS specific reports covering RBMPs, FRMPs and

10

international issues respectively. The focus will be on progress made and good practice. An assessment template was being circulated for information. The aim is to produce these around March/April 2018 and MS will be consulted to check facts in draft MS reports. The implementation assessment will also be co-ordinated with the production of the state of water report being produced by the EEA.

On the forthcoming evaluation of EU water legislation, the roadmap of the Fitness Check has been published and this will cover the WFD, EQSD, GWD and FD. This will be done alongside the evaluation of the UWWTD; the DWD was already evaluated in 2016. A contract will be set up to support the evaluations. Results are expected in mid-2019. The evaluation will be discussed at the September water conference, along with the assessment of the plans which will have been published.

FI asked if MS will see reports before they are published. BD confirmed that drafts will be shared with MS once ready towards the end of the year to check facts.

LU stressed the importance of taking account of the philosophy of the whole water acquis when evaluating individual directives such as the UWWTD and DWD. For example, under the DWD there is a discussion on how pesticide limit values are to be addressed, but this cannot be done without thinking about how pesticides are addressed in the GWD as GW is a key DW source. LA replied that COM has reflected on this and it is important to ensure there is coherence across the acquis as well as taking opportunities for streamlining.

SI noted that comments concerning SI in the paper under points 3, 5 and 7 have been addressed.

RO noted under point 10 that RO had concluded reporting on MSFD PoM.

PT noted that the issue in PT on the GWD was clarified in an earlier meeting. On FRMPs, the plan for Madeira was published and the Guadiana does not have critical flood zones.

BD requested that any additional comments should be sent in writing.

b) Developments on Water and Agriculture

BD provided an update of recent developments. She recalled the activity on this under the MT Presidency and also referred to the Commission's April Staff Working Document which explores the interplay between water and agriculture. This document covers three strands, and work is ongoing on all three of them (policy co-ordination, investments and knowledge base). The SWD fed into the informal May AGRIFISH Council which, for the first time, was devoted to water. Prior to the Council, also in May a first meeting between Water and Agriculture Directors was held. Work has since continued on the better integration of water within agriculture policy. In the coming period, starting next year, targeted workshops at regional level in the MS are going to be planned to bring together the water and agriculture communities to discuss concrete practical co-operation.

Concerning investments, following up on discussions in the meeting of Water and Agriculture Directors, a questionnaire has been developed on ongoing financing and investment needs; the Commission services co-ordinated this also with the EIB. The questionnaire was sent out to Member States in the early autumn, and their feedback is

11

awaited. The results will be used to get an overall picture of needs with a view to facilitating their matching with funding possibilities, including involving the EIB.

On the knowledge base, the JRC, together with several COM services, is working on creating a tool that would bring together existing data related to water and agriculture, presented in a way useful to a wider audience to help inform choices at high level, regional level and individual farm level.

As to further ongoing activities, efforts are ongoing to bring EIP Agriculture and EIP Water closer together. Recently, a session dedicated to the EIP Agriculture was held during the EIP Water conference in Porto in September; at the EIP Agriculture conference in Porto in October, a similar session on the EIP Water took place.

EUREAU supported these developments, including the targeted workshops. They suggested that water operators be involved in them. On the knowledge hub, some EUREAU members are collecting data, and the EUREAU representative asked how they could contribute.

ECPA supported the sharing of practical information and tools.

SE also asked for further information about how to participate in the knowledge hub.

BD replied that the concepts for the workshops are going to be developed in the coming period and the Commission will make this information available at the appropriate moment. There is not a link yet to the knowledge hub, but if there are ideas for contributions, etc., these should be sent to DG ENV who will pass them to JRC.

NL asked whether WDs should be informed of these developments. BD replied that this can be done if considered useful.

DK encouraged COM to consider the relationship between the ND and WFD and for wider use of the Rural Development Programmes to contribute more to EU water policies. BD replied that these issues are going to be explored in the water policy evaluation.

c) Peer Review processes: Environmental Implementation Review Peer to Peer; Water Peer to Peer

Elisa Vargas Amelin (EVA) (COM) gave a presentation setting out the different tools for peer to peer activities. These include the Taiex EIR peer to peer activity and the peer review mechanism on the WFD/FD developed under the CIS. On the latter, the plan is to launch a call for experts and RB authorities for the next two years to help support the 3 rd cycle RBMPs.

SE noted that for the first peer review period only competent authorities were involved and experts gave recommendations to other countries without involving the national authorities which guide policy. These should be included. EVA stated that this will be communicated to the secretariat.

MT asked if the process could include collaboration between two competent authorities rather than a selection of experts with a competent authority as this could result in longer-term relationships that could continue after the review itself. EVA noted that the peer review mechanism is still developing, so suggestions such as this are welcome.

12

5 – Water and Marine Directors' meetings

a) Water and Marine Directors' meeting (Tallinn, 4-5 December 2017)

EE gave a presentation. The first session is the WDs meeting, with discussion including the Art. 4.7 guidance and reporting for the 2nd cycle of the FDs, followed by information points from other CIS activities. Delegates are invited to provide further ideas for discussion. Day two is the joint MD/WD meeting.

SK noted that DE and FR had previously raised the question of SDGs in MT and this should be discussed as SK is a pilot MS. For example, it will be important to avoid double reporting of data that are already available. BD stated that COM will check if there is any update and EE stated that a check can be made to see if this can be added to the agenda.

DE noted that later in November there is a UN water workshop in The Hague on data for indicators on SDG 6. Also in July there will be the high level political forum on sustainable development and there is a preparatory regional meeting in March. KS stated that information on these activities can be provided to SCG as written information.

BE noted that the EEA has set up common framework for reporting and indicators for SDGs, but there is a danger of double reporting with the UN reporting. KS noted that these technical issues can be discussed by SDG, but WDs should focus on the high level political forum.

KS asked SCG whether to follow the suggestion of NL and include an information point to WDs on the water and agriculture activity. SCG agreed to include this.

b) Water and Marine Directors' meeting (Bulgaria, 11-12 June 2018)

BG informed SCG of the dates of the meeting which will take place in Sofia. A detailed agenda is yet to be prepared, but the plan is to start with the MDs meeting, followed by the joint meeting and have the WDs meeting on the second day, followed by a technical visit.

c) Water and Marine Directors meeting (Vienna, 29-30 November 2018)

KS informed SCG of the dates of the meeting which will take place at the Technical University in the centre of Vienna. This will start with the WDs meeting.

6 - Updated SCG Rules of Procedure

BD recalled that SCG has had its rules of procedure for a long time and that they worked well in practice. However, there is a wider process of aligning decision making with the Lisbon Treaty, particularly to address the move to delegated acts. All institutional formats need to be brought into the new rules, including for “expert groups”, which also applies to SCG. This will ensure that SCG continues to function in the same way as today and, as far as preparations for delegated acts are concerned, may act as an expert group to support COM also in the future. They will not in practice change the way SCG works. SCG has a sui generis function in addition to being an “expert group” and the updated rules of procedure include the flexibility to allow for this.

NO and IS both noted that they are associated with EU through the EEA, hence participation in the CIS process is important. They cannot vote in the Art. 21 Committee. COM was asked

13

if the new wording would allow this collaboration to continue. BD stressed the importance of continued collaboration with NO and IS and is looking at the wording to ensure it allows for this while being legally sound. Comments on this point are welcome.

FI stressed that the rules state that documents should be available 10 days before a meeting.

DE highlighted that SCG has wider functions than a committee in a regulatory procedure (e.g. intercalibration). The membership of SCG is broader than a regulatory committee – is this legally acceptable? BD confirmed that membership of expert groups varies and need not be limited to MS.

BE asked what the situation would be if there is no consensus on delegated acts by SCG. BD replied that divergent views would be reflected in a transparent way.

IT asked if COM could send a note explaining the legislative context of the new rules.

BD highlighted that comments are welcome and there is not an immediate deadline for these although it would be good to conclude on this point soon. Any changes that would result will be presented in track changes.

7 – Other issues/AOB

a) European Water Conference (20-21 September 2018)

KS informed SCG of the joint conference of the Austrian Presidency and the Commission in Vienna which will present the outcomes of the assessment of the RBMPs/FRMPs as a foundation for the evaluation of EU water policy. The conference is planning for more than 300 participants.

BD noted that a website is being built for the conference and SCG is encouraged to spread information about it to those who might be interested.

b) Position paper on WFD-related Research topics (written information provided by EurAqua)

BD referred SCG to the paper and asked comments to be provided in writing to COM by the end of November. EurAqua noted that the document is a starting point to align future research.

c) Next SCG meeting: 8-9 February 2018

BD informed delegates of the dates of the next meeting, but these are tentative and the timing of the next meeting will be confirmed in due course.

d) AOB

HU noted that at the last SCG COM stated that further information would be provided on the work on ex-ante conditionalities. BD replied that the assessment for water is almost completed (with only two open MS – EL and Canary Islands for ES). However, the final COM assessment covers several issues and not just water and any assessment of the ex-ante

14

conditionalities needs to be seen in this broader context. EL noted that the revision of RBMPs in EL is almost complete and these should be delivered by the end of 2017.

KS concluded the meeting by expressing the shared appreciation of SCG to the previous co-chair, Jean Paul Lickes (JPL), for all of his work supporting SCG over many years. JPL thanked KS and wished him well for his future co-chairing of SCG.

15

8 - Key actions and conclusions

The key actions/conclusions agreed at the meeting included the following:

Nr Topic Action/conclusion Deadline

3aAd-hoc Strategic Group: Document on Natural Conditions

An updated version according to the meeting results to be forwarded to WDs for endorsement as a technical document in Tallinn

10 days before the WDs meeting

3b ATG on Article 4.7 Guidance

An updated version according to the meeting results to be forwarded to WDs for endorsement as CIS guidance in Tallinn

10 days before the WDs meeting

3c

WG Floods: Guidance for Reporting under the FD

The comments received table, a preliminary version of the Access database and a preliminary version of validation rules to be forwarded to WDs ahead of the endorsement as CIS guidance in Tallinn.

10 days before the WDs meeting

4aUpdate on RBMP/FRMPs adoption and reporting

Members to provide comments on the adoption process as appropriate

Wherever relevant

4cPeer Review processes

Members to provide comments on the water peer review process to COM

As soon as possible

5aWDs meeting (Tallinn)

EE to consider if/how WDs are to discuss SDGs and activity related to agriculture

As soon as possible

6Updated SCG Rules of Procedure

Members may send comments to COMAs soon as possible

7aEuropean Water Conference

Members are invited to spread information about the conference to interested parties

Prior to the conference

16

Annex 1: List of participants

MEMBER STATES PARTICIPANTS

Austria Egon BäumelKarl Schwaiger (SCG Co-Chair)

Belgium Wendy BonneCatherine LatourVeronique Van den Langenbergh

Bulgaria Mariya BabukchievaCroatia Sanja Genzić Jurišević

Danko BiondićCyprus Maria PhilippouCzech Republic Ladislav Faigl

Jaroslav KinkorDenmark Theis JensenEstonia Harry Liiv

Reet UlmFinland Juhani GustafssonFrance Fanny Bontemps

Anaïs BaillyGermany Meike Gierk

Thomas StratenwerthMichael Trepel

Greece Iakovos Jacques Gkanoulis GanoulisHungary Gabriella JelinekIreland Andrew Fanning

Donal GrantItaly Lucia FiumiLatvia Iveta TeibeLithuania Viktorija VaškevičienėLuxembourg Jean-Paul Lickes

Anne-Marie ReckingerMalta Michael SchembriPoland Przemyslaw Gruszecki

Joanna KopczynskaPortugal Maria Fernanda Gomes

Sofia RodriguesRomania Gheorghe Constantin

Elena TuchiuSlovak Republic Zdenka KelnarováSlovenia Nataša VodopivecSpain Victor Manuel Arqued Esquia

17

Sweden Anneli HarlénBarbro Näslund-LandenmarkKarin Wall

The Netherlands Gerrit NiebeekDiederik van der MolenTjalling Vlieg

UK Benjamin BuntingSteve MorrisRhonda Scobie-Crago

STAKEHOLDERS PARTICIPANTS

CEFIC – European Chemical Industry Council

Steven Van de Broeck

CONCAWE – CONservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe

Michael Spence

EAA - European Anglers Alliance

Mark OwenAnna Szczodrowska

ECPA – European Crop Protection Association

Stuart Rutherford

EEB – European Environmental Bureau

Leonardo Mazza

EIC-FENACORE – Euromediterranean Irrigators Community

David Hernandez-Gomez

EURAQUA Michiel BlindEurEau – European Union of National Associations of Water Suppliers

Carla ChiarettiOliver Loebel

EURELECTRIC-Union of the Electricity Industry

Hélène Lavray

Eurometaux – European Association of Metals

Annalisa Bortoluzzi

EUWMA – European Union of Water Management Associations

Dieter Staat

EWA – European Water Association

Andrea Barbieri

INBO – International Network of Basin Organisations

Pierre Henry de Villeneuve

NTG – Navigation Task Group

Jan Brooke

UEPG – European Alev Somer

18

Aggregates AssociationWetlands International Cy GriffinWWF EPO - The World Wide Fund For Nature

Martina Mlinaric

EFTA COUNTRIES PARTICIPANTSIceland Lilja ÓlafsdóttirNorway Anders Iversen

CANDIDATE COUNTRIES PARTICIPANTSTurkey Nermin Anul

Gokce Ceylan

EUROPEAN COMMISSION PARTICIPANTSDirectorate-General for the Environment (DG ENV)Unit C1 – Clean Water

Lourdes AlvarellosDaniela BuzicaJoaquim Capitão Helen ClaytonBettina Doeser (Head of Unit ENV.C1 and SCG Co-Chair)Helen Jolly (Meeting Secretary)Ioannis KavvadasRaimund MairAmanda NordinJuan-Pablo PertierraKaren Sanning DalgaardStéphanie SchaanHans Stielstra (Deputy Head of Unit ENV.C1)Giovanni ValleraElisa Vargas Amelin

OTHERS PARTICIPANTSIEEP – Institute for European Environmental Policy

Andrew Farmer (Consultant for DG ENV)

19

Annex 2: Agenda

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERALENVIRONMENTDirectorate C - Quality of LifeENV.C.1 – Clean Water

Brussels, 20 October 2017ENV-SCG 08-09112017

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

08 NOVEMBER 2017 FROM 15:00 TO 18:00

09 NOVEMBER 2017 FROM 09:30 TO 13:00

CENTRE ALBERT BORSCHETTE, ROOM 1B, BRUSSELS

PM : PRECEDED BY EP/COM/ICPDR EVENT ON 08 NOVEMBER 2017 AT 12:30 PM

DRAFT AGENDA

1 – Welcome and introduction Co-Chairs

2 – Approval of the agenda and minutes of the last SCG meeting Co-Chairs

3 – Activities of the Working Groups and Ad-hoc Task Groups (written information has been provided for all the Working Groups and Ad-hoc Task Groups)

Deliverables foreseen for endorsement by Water Directors:

a) Ad-hoc Strategic Group

– Guidance on Natural Conditions

b) ATG on Article 4.7 Guidance

– Article 4.7 Guidance

c) WG Floods

– Guidance for Reporting under the Floods Directive (reporting tool for the second cycle)

Discussion points:

d) ATG Hydromorphology

– Workshop on Policy Related Aspects (scheduled for early 2018)

e) ATG on Water Reuse

– Next steps on Water Reuse

f) WG Chemicals

– Progress on the Surface Water Watch List

WG/ATG Leads

20

Written information only:

g) WG Ecological Status (currently preparing Best Practice Guidance on setting Nutrient Boundaries foreseen for endorsement by Water Directors following February SCG meeting)

h) WG DIS

i) WG Groundwater

4 – Legal/Implementation issues and other activities (written information has been provided on Legal/Implementation issues)

a) Update on RBMP/FRMPs adoption and reporting: State of Play of RBMPs/FRMPs; State of Water (EEA)

b) Developments on Water and Agriculture

c) Peer Review processes: Environmental Implementation Review Peer to Peer; Water Peer to Peer

COM

5 – Water and Marine Directors' meeting preparation

a) Water and Marine Directors' meeting (Tallinn, 4-5 December 2017)

b) Water and Marine Directors' meeting (Bulgaria, 11-12 June 2018)

c) Water and Marine Directors meeting (Vienna, 29-30 November 2018)

EE/BG/AT

6 – Updated SCG Rules of Procedure COM

7 – Other issues/AOB

a) European Water Conference (20-21 September 2018)

b) Position paper on WFD-related Research topics (written information provided by EurAqua)

c) Next SCG meeting: 8-9 February 2018

Co-Chairs

COM

21