EEB WATER SEMINAR IN BRUSSELS

Overview for the CCB members by Maret Merisaar, CCB Water Policy Officer

On 25 February the green activists dealing with water protection and management from almost all EU member states gathered in Brussels in the office of the European Environmental Bureau (EEB). The overall number of NGO activists who have joined the EEB water working group is about one hundred and about one third of them participated in the seminar. The 12th water seminar was chaired by the working group co-ordinator Stefan Scheuer, who formerly lived in Northern Germany, Schlesswig Holstein. As a present surprise, all leading authorities from DG Environment Water Unit were present too, including the Head of the unit, Patrick Murphy and the vice head Helmut Bloch. All the presentations are available on the homepage www.eeb.org/activities/water/index.htm, but hereby I am making a short summary of main points for the members of the CCB.

Partrick Murphy said in his introductory speech that the DG Environment Water Unit does not have its best days at the moment as the political climate does not favour environment protection very much. The Commission has prioritized economic growth and competition is all sectoral policies. For example almost all member states demand weakening of the bathing water standards. The once "evergreen" countries Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Germany have become much more modest in expressing their views and only the latter is still keeping the previous course. But the Brussels environmental policy makers forecast, that at a certain moment the pendulum will start to move back again. The Commission has expressed, that the insufficient implementation of environmental legislation in the member states is harmful for both the natural resources as well as to the respectability of the union in the eyes of its citizens.

DG Environment evaluates the participation of the NGOs in the policy implementation as a very useful process. Still, as the personnel in the Directorate is limited, it would be a great help, if instead of thousands of letters with single complaints the similar problems would arrive as joint letters, indicating violations of certain directives with list of practical examples. The complaints will be much more successful, if they are "horizontal and systematical", stressed Patrick Murphy.

According to Patrick Murphy the most important questions of the year 2005 in water legislation are the following:
· Water protection in agriculture: It is necessary to patiently explain to the farmers that application of the water protection measures is economically useful for them and at least in the new member states there is a possibility now to receive additional funding for investments into better manure handling technologies. So far the farmers only see the limitations to their previous practices and their organisations are strongly opposing new water protection requirements.
· Funding from the Cohesion fund for promoting hydro-energy and navigation are often in conflict with the WFD goal of achieving good ecological status of water bodies.
· European Marine Strategy: this year the strategic environmental impact assessment to the EU Marine Strategy is undertaken but the task is complicated as there is not enough information about the real costs of the various protection measures. On 14 March an Internet consultation with all interested parties and the public was started. Anyone can participate by filling in and sending away a questionnaire on the web during 8 weeks. See http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/consult_marine.htm
and http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/questionnaire.htm.
· The EU Chemicals' Policy REACH.
· The EU Water Initiative for the third countries: The huge funds for water management in the developing countries can be used for enhancing European standards of water supply and sanitation in both inside and outside the borders of the EU, in case of cross-border river basins (For example River Volga). For that the political will and good international co-operation of all stakeholders of the river basin management planning is essential.

Stefan Scheuer introduced the results of the second NGO snapshot survey evaluating the status of implementing the Water Framework Directive in the EU member states. It was assessed how far the national water laws had been harmonized with the WFD requirements by November 2004. Altogether 22 organisations from 16 member states plus from Romania and Norway replied to the questionnaire.

Main conclusions of the survey:
Environmental NGOs have very high expectations about the results of implementing the Water Framework Directive. At he same time the implementation (harmonisation) quality by member states has been quite insufficient. In 2004 some improvements in public consultations can be noticed. But the capacities and knowhow by the NGOs for successful participation in River Basin Management planning are too small, the responsible authorities do not evaluate the possible input from the public and they are quite reluctant in sharing the technical background information.

EEB suggests for the NGOs
· To prioritize the implementation of the Water policies in their action plans anyway and to find synergies with other areas of work, for example nature protection, biodiversity protection and sustainable agriculture etc.
· To demand access to official working documents concerning implementation of water legislation, compilation of river basin management plans and planning over-European monitoring sampling stations.
· To start court cases and submit complaints in case violations of the water policy are noticed.

Some questions from the survey about harmonising national water laws with the Water Framework Directive:
· Does your national water law set as the main goal the achieving of a good status of all water bodies by the year 2015?
· Does your national water law say that the further deterioration of the current state of water bodies should be prevented?
· Is it stipulated that new bodies called river basin administrations are to be founded and the inter-sectoral activities in the whole river basin (navigation, water treatment and supply, hydro-energy, fisheries, drainage and irrigation, recreation etc.) should be administered by those?
· Are all stipulations of the Water Framework Directive describing public participation been added to your national water law?
Some questions about the practical implementation of the requirements of WFD on national level:
· Does your organization receive regular updates from the government about the status of the implementation of the water policies?
· Have Environmental NGOs been asked for their opinions on the draft legislation concerning water protection and management?
· Have NGOs participated in any forums, conferences or seminars about water protection or river basin management planning?
· Has your government improved its attitude toward public participation after the EU Water Framework Directive was adopted (in December 2002)?

Replies to these questions from your country and from the other respondents can be found on the EEB homepage in the snap shot survey
www.eeb.org/activities/water/making-WFD-work-February05.pdf. But what would you have answered if you were asked directly?

According to the presentation by Ruth Davis from the UK Royal Society for the Protection of the Birds the intensive pattern of agricultural production in the old member states puts many watererbodies at risk of not achieving the good status by year 2015. So in the Netherlands up to 90% of waters will not achieve good status and in the UK about 38% of surface water bodies are at risk, the main problem is excess phosphorus load from agricultural fertilizers. According to the existing legislation the farmers who receive agricultural subsidies may only be required to limit nitrogen load into ground water. The environmental conditions accompanying the CAP subsidies have a big potential for being developed further.

While too big amounts of chemical fertilizers and pesticides are causing problems to the water resources in England, Ireland, France and Netherlands, then in the Mediterranean countries the main hazards from agri-sector to wetlands, rivers and ground water layers is too big irrigation (water consumption). In the UK and Netherlands another factor lowering the ecological status of water bodies is changing of the hydromorphology meaning extensive construction works, drainage ditches, dams, straightened watercourses, etc. As for the new member states it was found out during a workshop that the local decision makers have not forecasted any increased risks to water bodies in the coming 10 years due to more intensive agricultural production and thus no additional protection measures have been planned for avoiding the deterioration of the present state of the water quality. It is hoped that any new developments and activities will be subject to environmental licensing and all producers will oblige to set conditions. The greens from the old member states were not optimistic about such reasoning as they have seen another practice.

Joachim d Eugenio from DG Environment Water Unit spoke about the possibilities of using the CAP measures and Rural Development Planning for the sake of (water) environment protection. He advised not to oppose the agri-environmental measures for NATURA areas and semi natural grasslands with the investment subsidies that are used for purchasing better manure spreading machinery or for constructing new manure storages. Such water protection measures can be used only during the few following years and are not applied enough yet.

The rest of the topics covered water liberalisation, flood protection regulation, setting of the criteria for good water quality.

For those tired of the big load of documents and too complicated discussions about legislation there is an alternative way of participating in the monitoring of the European water bodies. See info on the "Big Jump" campaign of 17 July 2005: www.eeb.org/activities/water/big-jump.htm