Status box

Water Directors Meeting (5-6 June 2014)

Agenda point: 10d. WFD Reporting guidance (Document WD/2014-1/4b)

Title: WFD Reporting Guidance 2016

Version no.: 3.5

Date: 28 May 2014

NOTE: This document consolidates into a single document the chapters 1 to 8 and chapter 12 of the Guidance which were distributed on 23 May to Water Directors (version 3.1) and Chapters 9 to 11 amended as a result of the ad-hoc meeting in Brussels on 26 May. A track changes version of chapters 9 to 11 has also been uploaded in CIRCABC and distributed to the SCG members.

Following the endorsement by the Water Directors, in December 2013, of the way forward for the review of the WFD reporting requirements, a workshop took place in Brussels in January 2014 to discuss in detail the modifications needed for the reporting guidance for 2016. The workshops was well attended by MS experts and relevant CIS WG leads.

Version 1 of this document was distributed prior to the WG DIS meeting and was consulted and discussed by several other CIS WGs. Version 2 was prepared for the meeting of the SCG and reflected the discussions in WG DIS and the input from other CIS WGs.

As explained in the introduction, the document is significantly longer than the previous 2010 CIS Guidance as it intends to consolidate into a single document several pieces of guidance which in the previous exercise were developed separately (e.g. the user guide to the schemas).

Some technical annexes on GIS and the use of Reportnet are proposed to be developed in detail once the agreement on the contents of reporting is achieved. The document also includes some simple sketches of the XML schemas. Full schemas can be developed once the basic agreement on the contents has been reached. The following elements will then be developed in the second semester of 2014:

- Full XML schemas to reflect the agreed contents- Reporting tools including validation checks- GIS guidance (Annex 5)- Reportnet guidance (Annex 6)- INSPIRE check: this will ensure that the reporting contents are in line with the INSPIRE data specifications

On this basis it is then proposed to allow for a testing period of the tools and schemas in the first trimester of 2015. The Member States will be able to test the tools with the data of the draft RBMP to be published by December 2014. Once the testing period is finalised and the necessary improvements are introduced, the reporting package can be released for use around June 2015, nine months ahead of the reporting deadline.

Exceptionally, the Commission intends to translate the main text of the guidance into all official languages during the second semester of 2014, if resources are available.

1

The Water Directors are invited to:

Endorse the guidance document Agree on the following process to develop and finalise the reporting tools:

o The Commission (ENV and JRC) and the EEA with the support from WG DIS will develop during the second semester of 2014 the following complementary and supporting elements for the implementation of the guidance:

Full XML schemas to reflect the agreed contents Reporting tools including validation checks GIS guidance (Annex 5) Reportnet guidance (Annex 6) INSPIRE check: this will ensure that the reporting contents

are in line with the INSPIRE data specificationso The whole package of draft tools and supporting guidance will be

presented to the SCG and to the Water Directors in November 2014. On this basis, it will be proposed to launch a testing period during the first trimester of 2015.

o The final versions of the reporting tools and supporting guidance will then be released for use in June 2015, nine months ahead of the reporting deadline.

o As a result of the process in the coming months, the guidance may need some technical adjustments. These will be transparently reported by the WG DIS to the SCG and to Water Directors.

Contacts:Joaquim Capitão [joaquim.capitao@ec.europa.eu]

Jorge Rodriguez Romero [Jorge.rodriguez-romero@ec.europa.eu]

2

WFD Reporting Guidance 2016

DRAFT V3.0MAY 2014

CONTENTS1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................6

1.1. Purpose of this document...................................................................................6

1.2. Principles of the review.....................................................................................8

1.3. Structure of the document..................................................................................9

1.4. How the Commission and EEA will use the information provided.................10

1.5. New reporting contents for 2016.....................................................................11

1.6. Components of 2016 reporting........................................................................12

1.7. Reporting of RBMPs and Background Documents.........................................13

1.8. Mandatory vs voluntary reporting...................................................................13

1.9. Complementarity with other reporting streams...............................................14

1.10. Summary of the main changes introduced since 2010 reporting.....................14

2. REPORTING AT SURFACE WATER BODY LEVEL (SCHEMA SWB)............17

2.1. Characterisation of surface waters...................................................................17

2.2. Pressures and impacts on surface waters.........................................................30

2.3. Ecological status and exemptions....................................................................35

2.4. Chemical status of surface waters, exemptions and Mixing Zones.................50

3. REPORTING AT GROUNDWATER BODY LEVEL (SCHEMA GWB)..............58

3.1. Characterisation of groundwater......................................................................58

3.2. Pressures and impacts on groundwater............................................................65

3.3. Quantitative status of groundwater..................................................................67

3.4. Chemical status of groundwater and exemptions............................................72

4. MONITORING (SCHEMAS SWM, GWM AND MONITORING)........................82

4.1. Introduction......................................................................................................82

4.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported.................83

4.3. Products from reporting...................................................................................84

4.4. Contents of the 2016 reporting........................................................................88

5. PROTECTED AREAS (SCHEMAS SWB, GWB AND PROT AREAS)..............107

5.1. Introduction....................................................................................................107

3

5.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported...............108

5.3. Products from reporting.................................................................................108

5.4. Contents of the 2016 reporting......................................................................109

6. REPORTING AT MS LEVEL: COMPETENT AUTHORITIES, RBDS AND SUB-UNITS (SCHEMA RBDSUCA).............................................................................119

6.1. Introduction....................................................................................................119

6.2. How the Commission and EEA will use the information reported...............120

6.3. Products from reporting.................................................................................120

6.4. Contents of the 2016 reporting......................................................................121

7. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR SURFACE WATER (SCHEMA SWMET)..................................................................................................................128

7.1. Methodologies characterisation.....................................................................128

7.2. Methodologies classification ecological status and potential........................134

7.3. Methodologies classification chemical status................................................147

7.4. Overall management objectives (nutrients, river continuity)........................154

7.5. Definition of significant pressures and impacts.............................................156

7.6. Methodologies exemptions............................................................................160

8. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR GROUNDWATER (SCHEMA GWMET).................................................................................................................166

8.1. Methodologies characterisation groundwater bodies.....................................166

8.2. Methodologies classification chemical status, upward trend assessment, trend reversal, quantitative status and transboundary coordination........................168

8.3. Definition of significant pressures and impacts.............................................176

8.4. Methodology exemptions...............................................................................180

9. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR RBMP (SCHEMA RBMP_POM).........187

10. PROGRAMME OF MEASURES REPORTED AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL (SCHEMA RBMP_POM).......................................................................................188

11. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND COST RECOVERY (SCHEMA RBMP_POM)......................................................188

12. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN REPORTING....................................................188

12.1. Targets for the 3rd management cycle...........................................................188

12.2. Classification and evolution of the provision of INSPIRE-compliant datasets192

4

ANNEXES

Annex 0: Template for the "Read me first" explanatory note accompanying the 2016 Water Framework Directive reporting

Annex 1: List of drivers, pressures and impacts

Annex 2: Table of Abstraction Pressures in the Context of Water Availability

Annex 3: Mapping of significant pressures and chemical substances causing failure of objectives with Key Types of Measures with quantitative indicators of the scale of the pressures to be tackled and the scale of measures planned to achieve WFD objectives

Annex 4: Groundwater bodies and horizon assignment

Annex 5: GIS guidance

Annex 6: User guide to reporting of RBMP in WISE (Reportnet guide)

Annex 7: Inventories of emissions, discharges and losses

Annex 8: Enumeration list for common intercalibration types required for schema element IntercalibrationType

Annex 9: Enumeration list for River Basin Specific Pollutants (CAS numbers and names) as required for schema elements “RBSPCAS” and “RBSPName”, (chapter 7.2.3.2) and for the classification matrix for groundwater (chapter 8.2.3.2)

Annex 10: XML schema documentation (to be developed in second semester 2014)

5

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose of this document

Building on the achievements of existing EU water legislation, in 2000 the WFD introduced new and ambitious objectives to protect aquatic ecosystems in a more holistic way, while considering the use of water for life and human development. The WFD was hailed as a front runner in that it incorporates into a legally binding instrument the key principles of integrated river basin management: the participatory approach in planning and management at river basin scale; the consideration of the whole hydrological cycle and all pressures and impacts affecting it; and the integration of economic and ecological perspectives into water management. It provides a framework to balance high levels of environmental protection with sustainable economic development.

The WFD foresaw a long implementation process leading to the adoption of the first RBMPs in 2009 which describe the actions envisaged to implement the Directive. The plans are expected to deliver the objectives of the WFD including non-deterioration of water status and the achievement of good status by 2015.

The WFD introduced a number of key principles into the management and protection of aquatic resources:

(1) The integrated planning process at the scale of river basins, from characterisation to the definition of measures to reach the environmental objectives.

(2) A comprehensive assessment of pressures, impacts and status of the aquatic environment, including from the ecological perspective.

(3) The economic analysis of the measures proposed/taken and the use of economic instruments.

(4) The integrated water resources management principle encompassing targeting environmental objectives with water management and related policies objectives.

(5) Public participation and active involvement in water management.

The key objective of the WFD is to achieve good status for all water bodies by 2015. This comprises the objectives of good ecological and good chemical status for surface waters and good quantitative and good chemical status for groundwater.

The key tool for the implementation of the WFD is the RBMP and the accompanying Programme of Measures (PoM). The planning process is a step-by-step procedure in which each step builds on the previous one (see Figure 1). Each step is important, starting from the transposition and the administrative arrangements, followed by the characterisation of the River Basin District (RBD), the monitoring and the assessment of status, the setting of objectives, the establishment of an appropriate programme of measures and its implementation including the monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures supporting the following RBMP cycle.

The PoM is the tool designed to enable the Member States to respond appropriately to the relevant pressures identified at RBD level during the pressures and impacts analysis, with the objective of enabling the river basin/water body to reach good status. For example, if a significant pressure is overlooked during the pressures and impacts analysis, the monitoring programme may not be designed to assess the pressure, and the programme of measures may not envisage action to address

6

it. The RBMP is a comprehensive document describing the execution of water management and identifying all actions to be taken in the River Basin District.

Figure 1 Schematic representation of the WFD planning process

Article 18 of the Directive requires the Commission to publish reports on the implementation of the Directive and to submit them to the European Parliament and to the Council.

The assessment is based on information reported by Member States, required according to Article 15 of the Directive, consisting of the published RBMPs and accompanying documentation, the electronic reporting through the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) in predefined formats agreed by Water Directors, and any additional background documents that the Member States consider relevant.

The RBMPs are comprehensive documents that cover many aspects of water management, consisting of hundreds to thousands of pages of information, published in national languages. The assessment of the RBMPs is a very challenging and complex task and involves dealing with extensive information in more than 20 languages. The quality of the Commission assessments relies on the quality of the Member States' reports. Bad or incomplete reporting can lead to wrong and/or incomplete assessments. It is recognised that reporting is a big effort for Member States, in particular the electronic reporting to WISE. There are examples of very good, high quality reporting. However, there are also cases where reporting contains gaps or contradictions. It is expected that in the six years since the publication of the first RBMPs the quantity and quality of information available to support the implementation of the WFD will have improved, and that this in turn will lead to the an improvement in the quality of reporting, and consequently the quality and completeness of the assessments that the Commission is able to carry out.

The first reporting cycle and the related assessment by the Commission and the EEA was overall a positive exercise where all stakeholders have progressed a great deal in understanding the state of EU waters. However, it also resulted in a heavy workload, both at Member State and EU level. A thorough review of the reporting requirements for the River Basin Management Plans has been carried out.

As a result the Reporting Guidance has been substantially revised. This document presents that Guidance.

7

1.2. Principles of the review

The principles for the revision of reporting schemas, as agreed by Water Directors in Dublin in May 2013 are:

To clearly define the reporting requirements, specifying exactly the data and information needed to be reported, on the basis of the requirements of the WFD and when needed additional requirements that would have to be approved by the Water Directors.

To explore possibilities for additional information based on an identification of the outputs linked to compliance checking, EU-wide assessments and benchmarking also in view of the inter-linkages with the reporting on the other water related directives.

To keep the main lines of reporting to be able to keep track of the progress.

To simplify the schemas as much as possible and fully integrate them in the ReportNet structure.

To limit and focus the changes made to the reporting sheets

To harmonise the reporting scales.

To limit the reporting at water body to the minimum necessary.

The contents of the data and information to be reported must be simplified and should lead to a reduction of the MS and COM workload whilst delivering useful information and data fit for the purpose. The following are concrete proposals to this end:

Electronic reporting should be focused on data and identification (through targeted questions) of where detailed information on methodology can be found in the RBMPs and accompanying documents, requiring searchable formats and secured availability. This will entail a very significant simplification of the methodological schemas (e.g. Monitoring programmes, SW and GW methodologies).

Simplify the structure of the schemas, concentrating on a "backbone" structure that would lead to a max 2-levels, to be seen with schemas enabling the easy production of queries.

Ensure consistency across DPSIR chain (Drivers-Pressures-State-Impact-Response), mainly through harmonisation of common schemas listing drivers, pressures, status, impacts, measures, and specification of rules for the consistency check, enabling interoperability with other streams of reporting under water or other water related legislation.

It is important to recall that reporting should be based on the obligations of the WFD. Even for the second RBMP it will be difficult for some Member States to provide all data and information required by this guidance. The reasons for non-reporting or incomplete reporting of specific data and information can be of very different nature. For example the guidance has been adopted after the deadline for finalisation of some preparatory work for the 2nd RBMP, such as the pressure and impact analysis and the review of the economic analysis, which were due by the end of 2013. This may make it difficult to adapt the information to the structures and the level of aggregation requested by the guidance. On the other hand, some Member States may not be able to report certain aspects requested in the guidance because of implementation gaps.

8

Therefore, non-reporting according to the structured electronic information does not necessarily imply that the Member State is not implementing the WFD correctly. Member States may have done the relevant work, but are simply not able to report it in the agreed format because of a number of reasons. Still, the Commission relies largely on the reporting by Member States for its assessment of implementation. It is therefore essential that, if certain parts of the guidance are incompletely reported or not reported at all, the Member State concerned explain the reasons. It is therefore proposed to include a "Read me first" explanatory note accompanying the electronic reporting, as explained below in section 1.6, which would enable the Member States, if available, to report links or references to other pieces of information where the necessary information is found.

In any case, the fact that some Member States would not be able to report certain data and information should not be a reason to exclude these requirements from the reporting guidance as other Member States will be able to report and the Member States concerned may be able to do it in the future. A lowest common denominator approach should be avoided.

1.3. Structure of the document

This document is considerably longer than the CIS Guidance number 20 (the 2010 Reporting Guidance). This is because the contents that were in separate documents are consolidated into a single guidance (e.g. the user guide for the schema, and the QA validation rules) and more detail and guidance is provided on the terms used.

This document is largely structured on the basis of the 2010 reporting schemas. Chapters are structured on the basis of the level of reporting (surface water body, groundwater body, RBD or Member State). This means that information on certain issue may be distributed in different chapters. For example data on status and pressures at water body level are in chapter 2 for surface water bodies and chapter 3 for groundwater bodies, whereas information on the methodologies on pressures and status are in chapters 7 and 8 respectively.

Each chapter and sub-chapter includes the following sections:

Introduction

Summarising the WFD obligations in the relevant topic and their role in the planning process.

How the Commission and EEA will use the information

Identifying how the Commission and EEA will use the information provided including the compliance checking and analysis that will be carried out and the products that will be developed from the information such as tables, graphs, charts and maps. The list of products in the guidance is not exhaustive, i.e. the Commission and the EEA may develop additional ones later on in close consultation within the CIS process.

Contents of the 2016 reporting

o A sketch of the reporting schema to show how the data and information are structured in the files to be reported;

o The data and GIS information to be reported, including quality assurance checks that will be incorporated into the electronic QA routines, in addition to the standard XML checks. This may include some targeted questions related to methodologies with closed list of replies.

9

o Guidance on the expected content of RBMPs or background documents. This largely replaces the methodological summaries that were reported in 2010. It is not intended to be comprehensive in terms of what the Member States have to include in their RBMPs or background documents, rather to provide certain concrete elements of information that the Commission expects to find (see section on Components of the 2016 reporting below).

o Glossary: clarification of terms and reporting requirements: in case it is considered that there is a need to clarify terms and reporting requirements, explanations are included in this section.

1.4. How the Commission and EEA will use the information provided

The information provided by the Member States will be used by the Commission for the following purposes:

Assessment of whether the implementation of the requirements of the WFD and its daughter Directives (Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC); Directive on Environmental Quality Standards (Directive 2008/105/EC); Directive (2013/39/EU) amending Directives 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC as regards priority substances in the field of water policy) is sufficient in each Member State (compliance assessment);

Evaluation of the WFD and its daughter Directives to identify whether the set objectives of the Directives have been achieved and to assess what can be improved in the future.

To prepare reports for the European Parliament, Council of Ministers and the general public on the implementation of the WFD and its daughter Directives, and the improvements in the state of the water environment that have been achieved as a result.

Determining the appropriate level of EU funding to support the implementation of policies (e.g. through structural, cohesion, rural development and other funding).

In addition, the EEA will use the information provided to supplement the data collected through its own reporting streams when producing European, pan-European and regional integrated environmental data and indicator sets, assessments and thematic analyses.

As in the first implementation cycle, reporting is made on different levels:

Water body level information: the water body is the assessment level of the WFD. It is the basic physical unit of the Directive, to which basic characterisation, pressures, impacts objectives, monitoring and assessment are attached. It is therefore the main reporting unit for these basic components of WFD implementation. Information at water body level will be seamless presented in WISE and aggregation at RBD, national and EU levels will be made possible by this reporting. The Commission will not be able to properly assess implementation without information at water body level.

River Basin District or Sub-unit level: methodologies and approaches are usually developed at (national part of) RBD or at national level, hence this is the right level to report them. In addition, measures are reported at RBD/national part of RBD/Sub-unit level, in line with the requirement of the Directive to include in the RBMP a summary of the Programme of Measures. Reporting of measures at water body level would be disproportionate and not useful at EU level.

10

Once the national reporting systems evolve in line with the INSPIRE requirements, physical reporting to the European level may become more and more obsolete. These developments will be supported by linking the European system WISE to the national systems. In the meantime, the Commission and the Member States will continue working on the basis of the available tools. More information about the future reporting exercises is included in Chapter 12 of this guidance.

The Commission and the EEA continue to have a need to carry out in-depth assessment on new and emerging issues in the water field, and to identify how these are affecting the water environment and are being addressed by MS policies. The Commission also faces very frequent and time-consuming requests for detailed information from the European Parliament or citizens. WFD reporting should provide a valuable source of information to support these assessments.

1.5. New reporting contents for 2016

Reporting of the second RBMP brings new elements into play, some due to legislation which was not fully in force at the time the first RBMP was adopted, others due to the fact that the second RBMP allows comparison with the first and therefore allows assessing of progress towards the objectives. The following paragraphs indicate a number of elements that will be new for the 2016 reporting and need to be addressed in the review of the WFD guidance.

In general terms, the second RBMP in 2015 provides the opportunity to compare the progress achieved since the adoption of the first RBMP in 20091. The assessment of progress can be performed in a number of aspects:

First and foremost, the progress towards the achievement of the environmental objectives, by comparing the status reported in the second and the first RBMPs. Following the discussions within the CIS (WG DIS, SCG and Water Directors), in addition to the reporting at global status (ecological, chemical), reporting should allow the assessment of progress achieved in individual quality elements.

The expected achievement of 2015 good status target. In the 2010 reporting this information was derived by the Commission from the information provided by the Member States on exemptions. This resulted in some difficulties of interpretation, in particular in relation to the water bodies with unknown status. It is proposed that it is explicitly requested to report at water body level if it is expected that the water body will achieve good status in 2015 or not. This will provide MS more control of this key information and will avoid unexpected results in the aggregation process at EU level. The direct use of the assessment of status contained in the 2nd RBMP may lead to wrong information as this status assessment will most likely be based in monitoring data from the period 2010-2013, given that the RBMP will be prepared in 2014 for public consultation. Therefore, the status communicated with the RBMP will not necessarily reflect the expected status in 2015. Depending on the approach adopted in the Member State, the results from the 2013 risk assessment (Article 5) carried out may also contribute to determine whether the water bodies will achieve good status in 2015. This request should not lead to any new ad-hoc assessment, but the Member States should be able to use the results of the 2013 risk assessment and of the status assessments included in the 2nd RBMP to provide the Commission with the requested information.

It is expected that the second RBMP will also bring about improvement of methodologies in many Member States. These improvements are expected to fill the gaps found in the first RBMPs.

1 See WFD Annex VII B.2.11

WFD Annex VII part B also requires Member States to report in the second RBMP the changes since the first RBMP, in particular:

A summary of the reviews of the exemptions under article 4(4) to 4(7)

An explanation for any environmental objectives which have not been reached

A summary and an explanation of the measures foreseen in the first RBMP which have not been taken

A summary of the additional measures taken under article 11(5) since the publication of the first RBMP

Some Member States will re-delineate (some of) their water bodies as part of the review of the characterisation of the RBD.

The EQS Directive 2008/105/EC, as adopted in 2008, will be fully in force for the second RBMP. Some Member States did not implement the Directive in the first RBMP given the fact that transposition deadline was in July 2010, after the adoption of the RBMP. The following elements of the EQS Directive which were not reported in 2010 are relevant for the second RBMP:

Inventory of emissions, discharges and losses

Trend monitoring in sediment and/or biota of priority substances

Mixing zones

In addition, Commission Directive 2009/90/EC (the QA/QC Directive) is also fully in force for the second RBMP.

It should also be noted that whilst the deadline for transposition of Directive 2013/39/EU regarding priority substances is 14 September 2015, the programmes of measures reported in 2016 must include measures to achieve good chemicals status for those substances where the EQS has been revised.

As regards the Groundwater Directive, the assessment of trends of pollutants in groundwater will be possible for the first time in the second RBMP, by comparison of the monitoring results with the first.

1.6. Components of 2016 reporting

The 2010 reporting was made of 3 main components:

The RBMP, PoMs and background documents

The electronic structured information (XML files)

GIS layers

For the 2016 reporting, the same 3 components are expected. However, the experience of the 2010 reporting showed that reporting of methodologies through summary texts was not useful or appropriate. It was often necessary to consult more detailed background documents to understand the approach taken by Member States. It was also burdensome for MS to prepare ad-hoc summaries

12

for all the methodological aspects requested. Consequently, it has been proposed to take an alternative approach, which will be based on targeted questions derived from the compliance assessment, as far as possible with a number of closed answers, and a precise reference to the section of the RBMP, PoM or background document where more information can be found. This will reduce the burden and complexity significantly as it will eliminate the need to produce ad-hoc summaries for the purpose of reporting. The available information in the RBMP and/or accompanying documents will be sufficient. However, in order to ensure that all necessary information is available, this approach will be complemented with guidance on the contents of RBMPs, PoMs or background documents on specific issues, so that the necessary more detailed information can be found. It should be stressed, though, that this guidance on contents is not exhaustive, it covers only specific methodological elements which are deemed necessary to be reported. The RBMP should contain many other aspects as established in the WFD.

As stated in Section 1.2, it will be difficult for some Member States to provide all data and information related to the WFD obligations, due to gaps in implementation or other reasons. Member States are therefore asked to upload a short explanatory note (a “Read me first” document) which should identify what information the Member State is unable to report and the reasons why, according to the template in the Annex 0. If some information exists, but could not be reported, the Member State should include references to where the information can be obtained. If the information cannot be provided due to a gap in the implementation of the Directive, the Member State should provide a brief explanation for the current position and a plan for addressing the gap (or a reference to where to find this outlook in the RBMP). This information can either be reported at a Member State or RBD level. If the Member State has reported all requested information this explanatory note is not necessary.

1.7. Reporting of RBMPs and Background Documents

The report on lessons learned from the first RBMP reporting showed that significant problems had been encountered when Member States had reported hyperlinks. Some links changed in the period between Member States reporting and the assessment of the information being assessed, or the documents referred to being amended or updated resulting in discrepancies between the information reported and the contents of the background document.

In order to overcome these difficulties Member States will have two options for the provision of background documents:

1. Upload a copy of the documents to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance, see Annex 6).

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

1.8. Mandatory vs voluntary reporting

According to the WFD Article 15 Member States are required to submit copies of the RBMP to the Commission. Article 20 provides the Commission the possibility to develop technical formats for the purpose of reporting by comitology procedure. This has never been used. Instead, an informal agreement was reached with Water Directors in 2003 to develop WISE through the informal CIS

13

process. The result of such process is the CIS Guidance number 21 and the electronic reporting in WISE which is reviewed in this document.

The basis for the electronic reporting is therefore informal and non-legally binding. However, it is clear that without the electronic reporting the Commission would have difficulties in performing its tasks of compliance checking and reporting to the Council and the European Parliament on the implementation. In addition, the Commission has the task to review EU policies and propose changes if needed. The review of the WFD is scheduled for 2019. The WFD reporting in 2016 will be one of the key elements of information that the Commission will have to inform such review.

Against this background, the reporting guidance (in fact the technical document called User Guide for the schemas) classifies the elements in the electronic reporting in three categories:

Required: reporting is expected.

Conditional: depending on the contents or the replies to some reporting elements, conditional elements may be required or not necessary.

Optional: these are elements which provide further information if considered appropriate by the MS or the information qualified as “if possible” or “if available” in the CIS guidance.

The quality assurance rules were developed on this basis. It is proposed to keep this classification which is considered useful. However, optional elements should be kept to a minimum as the focus should be on data and information required for clear and specific purposes.

1.9. Complementarity with other reporting streams

The WFD reporting needs to be seen in conjunction with other reporting obligations under other directives such as Urban Waste Water, Nitrates, Bathing, Drinking, Marine Strategy, etc. and also under the EEA SoE data flows. Complementarity of these needs to be ensured, avoiding duplications and reusing as much as possible information for different purposes.

1.9.1. EEA's State of the Environment (SoE) reporting

The EEA established, already in the mid 1990ties, a reporting of water data under its Regulation, with data on water quality from a range of monitoring stations in its member countries (in 2013 ~15000 river monitoring stations where reported) as part of the EEA-EIONET. Since 2008 this EIONET reporting contains also data on emissions to water and water quantity.

The information on emissions and water quantity plays an important role as pressure information in EEA’s State of Environment reporting, as it allows for complementing assessments in the DPSIR framework. The SoE information is, in most cases, more detailed than the information in WFD reporting, as it is reported for the purpose of the environmental assessments and trend analysis that are included in the SoE reports that EEA compiles every 5 years with its member countries (see e.g. SOER 2010 and 2015).

The details about how the data flows on SoE emissions and on SoE water quantity are structured are agreed with the Member Countries of EEA (EU-28 plus Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Switzerland and Turkey) in the context of the EIONET and described in the SoE-reporting guidance [link]. The reporting is set as an annual reporting exercise at the level of RBD (or national portion of RBD) or Sub-unit.

14

The current structure of the data sets reported under SoE emissions and water quantity is, in its data model, very close to what is required under the WFD for the pressure information on emissions to water and water quantity (water abstraction and use).

To facilitate the WFD reporting and to avoid double reporting, most of the information required in chapters 9.2 and 9.3 of this document could be obtained directly or derived from the information reported to EEA under the SoE reporting stream, provided that MS participate in the SoE reporting. It should be noted that the SoE reporting is undergoing a review process in 2014, which provides another opportunity to streamlining reporting with the WFD. It is also foreseen that, as a result of this review, the logic of conditional reporting in case significant pressures are identified in a certain area (pollution or abstraction) will be introduced in the SoE reporting.

The practical process of using already reported SoE information in the context of the WFD could be described as follows:

It will be up to each Member State, if they participated in the EEA SoE reporting, to decide whether path A or path B will be followed for each parameter. The SoE information will be used only if the Member State does not chose to provide new information specifically for the purpose of the WFD.

SoE reporting happens on an annual basis (once a year also for parameters with a higher resolution e.g. monthly or seasonal data for water use). As the WFD requires information only every 6 years, agreements need to be made on aggregation and use in the WFD context.

The information about which member States are participating in the SoE reporting and with which parameters can be seen in the annual priority data overview published by EEA e.g. 2013 [link]

In terms of technical implementation, both information flows are held at EEA in a common data space (grey area in the graph above). Therefore, when path B will be followed the SoE information can easily be made available in the WFD parts of the data space. As part of the current review and

15

upgrade of WISE into WISE 2.0 the EEA is working on increasing transparency of all data available under the SoE regime and to enable Member Countries’ reporters easy access to control which data have been reported and are available for which purpose.

The details on how path B would function in terms of conditionalities in schema elements and mapping of data structure is further described in sections 9.2 and 9.3.

1.9.1. Reporting under other water and marine directives

The development of WISE over the past few years has made significant progress in streamlining the reporting requirements under the various water directives, avoiding double reporting, under the principle "report once, use many". The various water directives such as Urban Waste Water, Nitrates, Drinking Water and Bathing Water include specific requirements that need to be reported within a particular timetable under the respective reporting streams. However, the streamlining with the WFD means that there is no need to report several times the same information (e.g. sensitive areas, nitrate vulnerable zones) and appropriate links are established, mainly through the use of the WFD water body code. Building on this WFD guidance and the processes to review the reporting requirements under these other directives, the objective is to continue improving this alignment to reduce reporting burden and enable a more useful and efficient use of the available information. In this sense the experience gained in the work to developed Structured Implementation and Information Framework (SIIF) for the Urban Waste Water Directive will be very valuable. As regards the Drinking Water Directive, the on-going critical analysis on existing reporting and the development of a new concept for future reporting will also provide a good opportunity for further streamlining.

In the case of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), the Water and Marine Directors have agreed some principles2 to exploit synergies and reduce administrative burden to the extent possible. The Commission and the Member States will work on this basis in the coming months to ensure a smooth and efficient alignment of the respective reporting streams.

1.10. Summary of the main changes introduced since 2010 reporting

Topic Summary of proposed changes Sections GIS layers water bodies Report GIS info for all surface and groundwater bodies 2.1.3.3

3.1.3.3Water bodies (surface and groundwater)

In case of re-delineation of water bodies, for each new water body code, MS to report which is the water body of the first RBMP against which they want COM to make comparisons of status

2.1.3.2 3.1.3.2

HMWB Report the water use and type of physical modification for which it has been designated

2.1.3.2

Pressures and impacts Use new list of drivers- pressures and impacts common for surface and groundwater

Annex 1

Ecological status of surface water bodies

Report the reference year for status assessment Provide status information at more detailed quality element

level (including reference year) plus the change in class since the first RBMP, if available.

Report water bodies used for grouping if no monitoring is available.

Report the substances (River Basin Specific Pollutants)

2.3.3.2

2 See related document WMD/2014-1/4 and conclusions from the Water and Marine Directors meeting in Greece (June 2014) [TO BE CONFIRMED]

16

Topic Summary of proposed changes Sections causing failure.

Report whether the water body is expected to achieve good ecological status in 2015 and if not, by when.

Report drivers behind exemption (at water body level, not at QE level)

Chemical status of surface water bodies

Report the reference year for status assessment Report failure of individual substances Qualitative indication of the confidence in the chemical

status assessment Indicate the substances that have improved from poor to

good chemical status since the first RBMP Indicate if the more stringent EQSs introduced in 2013 for 7

substances change the status of water bodies Report whether the water body is expected to achieve good

chemical status in 2015 and if not, by when Report drivers behind exemption (at substance level)

2.4.3.2

Mixing zones For each water body: If mixing zones have been designated Percentage of length or area of the water bodies which has

been designated mixing zone (optional) Substances exceeding or expecting to exceed EQS within the

mixing zones in the water body

2.4.3.2

Status of groundwater bodies Report whether the groundwater body is at risk, either quantitative or chemical, and in case of the latter, report the individual substances causing risk

If GWB at risk, report the environmental objective at risk Report individual substances causing failure to chemical

status Report whether it is expected that the water body will

achieve good quantitative and good chemical status in 2015 and if not, by when

Qualitative indication of the confidence in classification of quantitative and chemical status (optional)

Report substances showing exceedances of quality standards or threshold values but not assessed as chemical status failures, i.e. cases in which Article 4(2)c of the GWD apply

Report drivers behind exemption (at water body quantitative level and/or at chemical substance level)

3.3.3.2 3.4.3.2

Monitoring Report quality elements (at level 2 for biological and physico-chemical elements, level 2 or 3 for hydromorphological elements3, individual substances and matrix for priority and non-priority substances and individual substances/parameters for groundwater) and frequency at station level

Indicate the last year when the quality elements have been monitored

Report water category at station level Report whether stations are new or were reported already in

2010 Simplify drastically the monitoring programmes schema to

report only the list of programmes and scope/purpose of each

For priority substances, distinguish status monitoring from trend monitoring

4.4.2

Protected areas Deletion of the textual description of the register of protected areas

Reporting of objectives and status is tailored to each type of

5.4.2

3 The word level here refers to the 2010 reporting of quality elements, being level 2 e.g.QE1-4 Fish and level 3 e.g. QE3-1-4 Salinity.

17

Topic Summary of proposed changes Sections protected areas covering only 3 types (Habitats/Birds, shellfish and drinking water)

River Basin Districts/Sub-units and Competent Authorities

Summary texts have been deleted Categorisation of roles has been replaced by a more precise

list of roles

6.4.2

Surface water typology and characterisation methodology

Reporting of factors used in typology is no longer included Indicate whether reservoirs are reported as heavily modified

rivers or lakes Report the list of types with a brief description Report correspondence with intercalibration types Summary texts have been deleted. Few targeted questions on

reference conditions

7.1.3.2

Classification of ecological status/potential of surface water

Large parts of the schema on surface water classification have been deleted, in particular summary texts (some replaced by targeted questions such as on one-out all-out, grouping and GEP), the reporting of thresholds for BQEs and for high-good boundaries of physico-chemical, hydromorphological parameters and river basin specific pollutants (RBSP)

Report status of development of BQE assessment methods and their sensitivity to impacts

Report whether the RBSP EQS have been derived using the 2011 TGD and whether the analytical methods fulfil QA/QC Directive

7.2.3.2

Classification of chemical status Report the standards used for the assessment of chemical status (standard, matrix, purpose, water category, conformity with 2011 TGD, fulfilment of QA/QC Directive)

Targeted questions on the percentage of water bodies not monitored, the approach to assess status without monitoring, implementation of the QA/QC Directive, use of background concentrations and bioavailability, trend assessment and mixing zones methodology.

7.3.3.2

Groundwater characterisation methodology

Schema deleted. Detailed guidance provided on the information that should be included in the RBMP or accompanying documents

8.1.3.2

Groundwater classification status (chemical and quantitative)

Summary text deleted and replaced with targeted questions on diminuation/damage, exceedences, assessment of needs of terrestrial ecosystems, trend assessment and development of threshold values.

8.2.3.2

RBMPs Summary text replaced with targeted questions covering sub-plans, SEA, Stakeholder involvement, and international co-ordination

9.1.3.2

Loads and emissions of pollutants to surface waters and groundwaters

Information collection to be streamlined with EEA reporting on Water Emission Quality

9.2.3.2

Water abstractions and exploitation of water resources

Information collection to be streamlined with EEA reporting on State and Quantity of Water Resources

9.3.3.2

Inventory of emissions, discharges and losses

Information collection to be streamlined with EEA reporting on Water Emissions

9.4.3.2

Programmes of measures The reporting on implementation of basic measures Article 11.3.a no longer required.

The reporting on implementation of basic measures Article 11.3.b to l no longer required

Table on the need for Supplementary Measures no longer required

The Pressures Measures Check List has been removed with the information now collected as measures required to tackle significant pressures

Request for specific information on the measures being planned to meet WFD objectives for Priority substances

10.1.3.2

18

Topic Summary of proposed changes Sections added.

Programmes of measures Reporting on specific measures to achieve the EQS for priority substances

10.2.3.2

Programmes of measures Number of Key Types of Measures increased from 16 to 24 broad measure types that cover the most prevalent significant pressures at EU level and the implementation of which are expected to deliver most of the improvement required to achieve WFD objectives. KTMs first introduced for the 2012 progress reports. Aimed at reducing the very large number of supplementary measures reported by some MS and to simplify the reporting of measures. Quantitative indicators of expected progress or achievement between 2015 and 2021 requested.

10.3.1.2

Programmes of measures List of supplementary measures changed to List of Measures with links to basic measure types requested,

10.4

Programmes of measures Targeted questions on specific measures and aspects of the PoM with links to specific background documents to be made available by MS. These replace the need for lengthy text elements to be reported.

10.5

Programmes of measures Targeted questions and enumeration lists relating to the progress made and achievements of the first RBMP and PoM. Links to specific documents providing the detailed information.

10.8

Costs of Measures Costs to be reported in terms of investment costs (not annualised), annual operational and maintenance cost and other costs (not annualised) for basic measures (Article 11.3.a), basic measures (Article 11.3.b to l), supplementary measures (Article 11.4) and additional measures (Article 11.5) for the first cycle and planned for second cycle (2015 to 2021).

Revising of elements to obtain information on financing of measures for the first cycle and planned for the second cycle (2015 to 2021)

10.6.3.2

Economic Analysis and Cost Recovery

Revised and simplified structure to obtain information on the updated economic analysis with closed questions, enumeration lists and requests for links to specific background documents with the detailed information.

11.2.2

In addition, as explained above, guidance has been included in a number of chapters on guidance for the contents of the RBMPs and/or background documents.

2. REPORTING AT SURFACE WATER BODY LEVEL (SCHEMA SWB)

2.1. Characterisation of surface waters

2.1.1. Introduction

Article 5 of the WFD requires Member States (MS) to identify surface water bodies that will be used for assessing progress with, and achievement of the WFDs environmental objectives. In addition, under certain conditions, Article 4(3) of the WFD permits MS to identify and designate artificial water bodies (AWB) and heavily modified water bodies (HMWB). HMWB and AWB are required to achieve Good Ecological Potential by 2015. Article 5 of the WFD also requires MS to analyse the characteristics of surface water bodies and provide a summary report on surface water characterisation including general information on their typology.

19

Characterisation is a key step in the implementation of the WFD and it needs to be undertaken thoroughly and correctly in order to enable the objectives of the Directive to be efficiently and correctly achieved. Characterisation should identify all relevant categories and types of water bodies within the RBD for which specific typologies and reference conditions have to be established. This step is crucial in obtaining robust ecological status assessment and classification systems and in particular correctly identifying water bodies at risk of failing objectives which will be subsequently the focus for implementation of necessary measures for the achievement of objectives.

Water bodies should be delineated at a size that allows the identification and quantification of significant pressures and the classification of status (CIS Guidance Document No 2). If water bodies are identified that do not permit an accurate description of the status of the aquatic ecosystems, the impacts of pressures may be masked and not detected. If water bodies are too small there may be far too many water bodies for a Member State to deal with in a cost-effective way. The optimum size of a water body is the size that allows the objectivities of the Directive to be most efficiently achieved.

Characterisation also requires the assessment of the risk that a water body may fail (in 2015) the objectives of the Directive unless appropriate measures are taken. The results of the risk assessment inform the monitoring of water bodies and the subsequent classification of status. It is crucial that methodologies used in risk assessment are fit for purpose in the sense of being able to identify and quantify all pressures within the RBD and their potential impact on status of water bodies (CIS Guidance Document No 3)4. If not, (expensive) measures may be incorrectly targeted and objectives may (unexpectedly) not be met.

As part of the characterisation, Member States have defined surface water body types (typology) for each surface water category (i.e. rivers, lakes, transitional waters or coastal waters) in each RBD, and have delineated surface in accordance with the methodology specified in Annex II of the WFD. This also includes the identification of heavily modified surface water bodies (HMWB) and artificial water bodies (AWB). For each surface water body type, type-specific reference conditions have been established representing the values for that surface water body type at high ecological status.

Each water category (R = Rivers; L = Lakes; T = Transitional Waters; C = Coastal Waters) has to be divided into types based on abiotic descriptors such as altitude, geology, size, etc. using System A or B (Annex II of WFD). The ecological relevance of the different theoretical types has to be demonstrated by cross-checking against biological data such as macroinvertebrates groups and/or species composition. This is essential to ensure that the types are relevant and fit for the purpose (i.e. the classification of ecological status of water bodies). Not all water categories occur in every RBD and/or sub-unit.

Member States are required to identify the ecological status of water bodies by comparing current status with near natural or reference conditions. Reference conditions have to be established for each of the surface water types. They represent the values for that surface water body type at high ecological status.

According to WFD Annex II reference conditions can be established using different methods (without specific ranking):

4 It is recognised that detailed quantification of pressures is a challenging task in some cases and might not always be posible.

20

Spatially based reference conditions using data from monitoring sites if sufficient undisturbed or minimally disturbed sites are available.

When adequate numbers of representative reference sites are not available in a region/type, predictive modelling, using the data available within a region/type or borrowing data from other similar regions/types, can be used in model construction and calibration.

A combination of the above approaches.

Where it is not possible to use these methods, reference conditions can be established using expert judgement.

Establishing reference conditions for many quality elements may involve using more than one of the methods described.

The WFD protects all waters independently of their size, but for operational purposes it defines a water body as a ‘discrete and significant’ element of water. The water body is the scale at which status is assessed. The thresholds given in Annex II for System A typology have been used as a possibility for differentiating water bodies but this approach should not exclude smaller water bodies from the protection of the Directive. Member States have flexibility to decide not to designate very small water bodies where, due to the large number of water bodies in a RBD, this would result in a high administrative burden. Instead, Member States can aggregate these small water bodies into groups or include them as part of a larger contiguous water body of the same surface water category and of the same type.

Identifying water bodies will provide for an accurate description of the status of surface water requiring information from the characteristics of the river basin and impacts and pressures, further reviews and monitoring programmes.

Article 6 of the WFD requires Member States to establish a register or registers of all areas lying within each RBD which have been designated as requiring special protection under specific Community legislation for the protection of their surface water and groundwater, or for the conservation of habitats and species directly depending on water. RBMPs should identify and map protected areas (Annex VII WFD).

WFD requires that objectives for protected areas established under Community legislation should also be met.

Article 7 of the WFD requires Member States to establish drinking water protected areas for bodies of groundwater and surface water providing more than 10m3 a day as an average or serving more than 50 persons, or bodies that are intended for that use in the future. The objective for these areas is to avoid deterioration in quality in order to reduce the level of purification treatment required.

2.1.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

The Commission will use this information to assess whether and how Member States have implemented these key obligations of the WFD. This information will be provided to the public through WISE.

With regard to the typology of surface waterbodies, the key issue for compliance will be identifying whether typology is meaningful for the purpose of establishing a classification system for ecological status, whether the level of typology is comparable (in particular in international RBDs) and that type specific reference conditions have been adequately defined.

21

For information relating to the typology of surface waters in accordance with the WFD, refer to the REFCOND, COAST and Waterbodies Guidance Documents (WFD CIS Guidance Document Nos 10, 5 and 2, respectively).

2.1.2.1. Products from reporting

The following products will be produced from the information provided.

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

1 Number and average size of surface and groundwater

Table EU/National/ RBD/Subunits

Number and size (length/area) of water bodies by category and by RBD/country Total length or total area by water categoryAverage size of water bodies per water category

Average: sum of length (rivers) or area (rest) of all water bodies divided by the number of water bodies Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

SWD pg 71EEA1 pg 19WISE WFD database - link

2 Spatial reference layer of surface water bodies

GIS layer

WB Mapping of all surface water bodies

GIS layer including all surface water bodies

Basis for WISE map viewer - link

3 Spatial reference layer of groundwater bodies

GIS layer

WB Mapping of all groundwater bodies

GIS layer including all groundwater bodies

Basis for WISE map viewer - link

4 Number of types reported per water category

Table National Number of types reported by each MS per water category

Count of different types on the basis of the information provided at water body level

SWD pg 63

19 Percentage of HMWBs and AWBs

Map RBD/SU Percentage of HMWBs and AWBs by water category

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

SWD pg 137 EEA1 pg 48

20 Percentage of natural, HMWBs and AWBs

Chart National Percentage of HMWBs and AWBs by water category

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

SWD pg 140 EEA1 pg 47

21 Aggregation tables: Natural, heavily modified and artificial water bodies

Table National/ RBD/Subunits

Number and size (length/area) of Natural, heavily modified and artificial water bodies by category and by RBD/country

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

WISE WFD database - link

22

2.1.3. Contents of 2016 reporting

2.1.3.1. Schema Sketch

SWB

EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode

SWB_MS_CD

WaterBodyChanges

2010EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode

TypeWaterBodyChanges

SWB_Name

RW_Name

RW_CD

EUSubUnitCode

Lat

LON

Category

Natural_AWB_HMWB

HMWBWaterUse 1-∞ Conditional. Required if Natural_AWB_HMWB is yes

HMWBPhysicalAlteration

TYPE_CODE

IntercalibrationType

Scale

AREA

LENGTH

ScaleExplanation

LinkToMSInformation

1-∞ Conditional. Required if Natural_AWB_HMWB is yes

Conditional. Required if Category is RW

Conditional. Required if Category is RW

1-∞ Conditional. Required if WaterBodyChanges is yes

Conditional. Required if WaterBodyChanges is yes

Reservoir

Transboundary

23

2.1.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

The following information should be provided on the delineation and characterisation of each surface water body.

Schema element: EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Unique EU code for the Water Body. Add the two-letter ISO Country code followed by the Member State unique id up to a maximum of 42 characters

Quality check: First 2 characters should be country ISO code

Schema element: SWB_MS_CD

Field type/ facets: String

Guidance on completion of schema element: Required. Unique Code for the Water Body within the MS (as used in the RBMP documentation or in the national information system)

Quality assurance checks:

Schema element: WaterBodyChanges

Field type/ facets: Yes, No, New

Guidance on completion of schema element: Conditional: if water body delineation has changed, reporting is required. Most MS will change their delineation of some water bodies for the second RBMP. There is a need to ensure that there is the possibility to compare the second RBMP with the first RBMP, in particular as regards status. Indicate whether there have been any major changes in water body delineation, or if a new water body has been identified that was not listed before.

Quality assurance checks:

Schema element: 2010EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode

Field type/ facets: String (1-∞)

Guidance on completion of schema element: Conditional: if water body delineation has changed, reporting is required. Indicate for each new water body code, which is the water body of the first RBMP against which comparisons should be made. If there is no meaningful comparison then enter “none”. This field is not required if “New” is entered in WaterBodyChanges.

Quality assurance checks: First 2 characters should be country ISO code. Required if WaterBodyChanges is Yes. More than one entry allowed.

Schema element: TypeWaterBodyChanges

Field type/ facets: Closed list: merged; split; both merged and split; extended

Guidance on completion of schema element: Conditional: if water body delineation has changed, reporting is required. Indicate the type of re-delineation of water bodies. More detailed explanation

24

about the reasons for the re-delineation should be provided in the RBMP/Background document. See Section below for further guidance as to what this document should contain.

Quality assurance checks: Required if WaterBodyChanges is Yes.

Schema element: SWB_Name

Field type/ facets: String

Guidance on completion of schema element: Required. Understandable Name of Water Body that is meaningful to someone outside of the RBD/MS. It should include the name of the river/lake or estuary where the water body is located.

Quality assurance checks:

Schema element: CATEGORY

Field type/ facets: RW, LW, TW, CW, TeW

Guidance on completion of schema element: Required. Category of Water Body: River, Lake, Transitional water, Coastal water or Territorial Waters. Article 2.1 of the WFD indicates that territorial waters are relevant in terms of the assessment of chemical status. A reservoir formed by damming a river is recommended to be reported as a river water body, a reservoir formed by damming an existing lake would be reported as a lake water body. A canal would be expected to be reported as a river water body. Reservoirs and canals would also be reported as heavily modified or artificial water bodies. Territorial waters should be designated for the assessment of chemical status. Territorial waters refer to the water bodies extended beyond the outer limits of coastal waters as defined in the WFD until the limits of the territorial waters.

Quality assurance checks:

Schema element: RW_NAME

Field type/facets: String (1-∞)

Guidance on completion of schema element: Conditional: required of CATEGORY is RW. For rivers only, provide the local name of the river (this information was previously included in the GIS file)

Quality assurance checks: Required if CATEGORY is RW.

Schema element: RW_CD

Field type/facets: String (1-∞)

Guidance on completion of schema element: Conditional: required of CATEGORY is RW. For rivers only, provide the hydrological or water management Code of the river. The code is consistent from source to mouth of the river (this information was previously included in the GIS file).

Quality assurance checks: Required if CATEGORY is RW.

Schema element: EUSubUnitCode

25

Field type/ facets: String

Guidance on completion of schema element: Required. Unique EU code for the Sub Unit (the two character ISO Country code if necessary followed by the Member State unique id up to 42 characters in total). If the RBD is not divided into Sub-units, include the EU RBD code (EURBDCode).

Quality assurance checks: First 2 characters should be country ISO code

Schema element: LAT

Field type/ facets: Number

Guidance on completion of schema element: Required. Latitude in ETRS89 of the centroid of the water body. When linear or area entities are represented as points (centroids) these should be ‘geometric’ centroids in the sense that the point should fall inside a polygon representation or for linear features be a point on the line. Reservoirs (dammed/impounded rivers) should be represented as centroids inside a polygon. Canals should be represented as centroids on a line.

Quality assurance checks: Should fall within the RBD/Sub-unit

Schema element: LON

Field type/ facets: Number

Guidance on completion of schema element: Required. Longitude in ETRS89 of the centroid of the water body. When linear or area entities are represented as points (centroids) these should be ‘geometric’ centroids in the sense that the point should fall inside a polygon representation or for linear features be a point on the line. Reservoirs (dammed/impounded rivers) should be represented as centroids inside a polygon. Canals should be represented as centroids on a line.

Quality assurance checks: Should fall within the RBD/Sub-unit

Schema element: Natural_AWB_HMWB

Field type/ facets: Natural, Artificial, Heavily Modified

Guidance on completion of schema element: Required. Indicate whether or not the Water Body is Natural OR Artificial (AWB) OR Heavily Modified (HMWB). NOTE: a Water Body CANNOT be both Heavily Modified AND Artificial. A reservoir may be Artificial (e.g. constructed for bankside storage) or Heavily Modified (e.g. in the case of a dammed/impounded river). Similarly a canal may be Artificial (e.g. if it has been specifically constructed for navigation where there was no water body before) or Heavily Modified (e.g. if a river has been deepened or widened or similarly engineered for navigation).The identification of the water category for HMWB and AWB as described in the preceding element does not preclude any decision as regards the factors to use in deriving typology and quality elements to be used in the assessment of the HMWB or AWB. According to the WFD, for artificial and heavily modified surface water bodies the typology differentiation should be undertaken in accordance with the descriptors for whichever of the surface water categories most closely resembles the heavily modified or artificial water body concerned (WFD Annex II, 1.1.v). In a similar way, the quality elements should be those applicable to whichever of the four natural surface water categories that most closely resembles the heavily modified or artificial water body concerned (WFD Annex V, 1.1.5). This means that reservoirs made by damming a river will be

26

heavily modified rivers which are typified and assessed using the elements and tools for lakes (as the natural category which most closely resembles the reservoir).

Quality assurance checks:

Schema element: HMWBWaterUse

Field type/ facets: Closed list (1 - ∞):Agriculture – land drainageAgriculture – irrigation Energy – hydropower Energy – non-hydro Storage for fisheries/aquaculture/fish farmsFlood protectionIndustry supply Tourism & recreationTransport – navigation/portsUrban development – drinking water supplyUrban development – other useWider environment – nature protection and other ecological usesOtherUnknown

Guidance on completion of schema element: Conditional: required if Natural_AWB_HMWB is HMWB. For HMWB only: report the water use for which it has been designated. Wider environment can refer to designation in order to maintain nature protected areas but also archaeological sites, patrimony (see CIS Guidance number 4 on HMWB).

(This list has been streamlined with that of drivers, see annex 1)

Quality assurance checks: Required if Natural_AWB_HMWB is HMWB.

Schema element: HMWBPhysicalAlteration

Field type/ facets: Closed list (1 - ∞):LocksWeirs/dam/reservoirChannelisation/straightening/bed stabilisation/ bank reinforcementDredging/Channel maintenanceLand reclamation/coastal modifications/portsLand drainageOther

Guidance on completion of schema element: Conditional: required if Natural_AWB_HMWB is HMWB. In the context of HMWB designation physical alterations mean any significant alterations that have resulted in substantial changes to the hydromorphology of a water body such that the water body is substantially changed in character. In general these hydromorphological characteristics are long-term and alter morphological and hydrological characteristics. See glossary below for further explanation on the terms.For HMWB only report the physical alteration that has resulted in the designation as a HMWB.

27

Further guidance on the terms is found under the glossary section below.

Quality assurance checks: Required if Natural_AWB_HMWB is HMWB

Schema element: Reservoir

Fields type/facets: Yes, No, Unclear

Guidance: Required. Indicate whether the water body is a reservoir created by damming a river.

It is recommended to report the reservoirs created by damming a river as heavily modified rivers (see element CATEGORY above). However, some Member States may choose to report them as lakes. This reporting element "Reservoir" should allow discerning those reservoirs created by damming a river from reservoirs created by modifying a natural lake.

"Yes" should be chosen only if the whole water body represents a reservoir (or part of a reservoir) created by damming a river. If the water body includes some small reservoirs which are not significant enough to be identified as separate water bodies, this should not be taken into account ("No" should be selected in that case).

"Unclear" should be used in such cases where the reservoir has been created by damming a water body which contained chained rivers and lakes.

Quality assurance checks:

Schema element: TYPE_CODE

Field type/ facets: String

Guidance on completion of schema element: Required. Characterisation Type of the Water Body, as reported in the SWMET schema and the RBMP/background documents. Details on the typologies are no longer requested in WISE but only a brief description of the type in SWMET schema is required (element TYPE_NAME) and reference to RBMP/background documents for further details.

Quality assurance checks: Should match one of the types reported under SWMET (element TYPE_CODE)

Schema element: Intercalibration Type

Field type/ facets: To be defined

Guidance on completion of schema element: Conditional: reporting required if the water body type corresponds with an intercalibration type it.

Quality assurance checks:

Schema element: AREA

Field type/ facets: Number

Guidance on completion of schema element: Conditional: if the Water Body category is lake, transitional or coastal water, indicate the total area in km2 of the Water Body. If the Water Body is

28

Heavily Modified or Artificial resulting in a reservoir or impoundment, indicate the total area in km2 of the HMWB or AWB.

Quality assurance checks: Required if CATEGORY is LW, TW or CW. It can be filled in as well if RW and is Heavily Modified (reservoirs).

Schema element: LENGTH

Field type/ facets: Number

Guidance on completion of schema element: Conditional: if the Water Body is a river or canal (HMWB or AWB), indicate the total length in km of the Water Body. If the water body is the result of grouping of various interconnected stretches of rivers, provide the full length of the water body including tributaries.

Quality assurance checks: Required if CATEGORY is RW unless is Heavily Modified and AREA is filled in (reservoirs).

Schema element: Scale

Field type/ facets: Number

Guidance on completion of schema element: Optional. Reference map scale at which the area or length of the Water Body was calculated. Express as 1:nnnnnn e.g. 1:50,000. Provide brief explanation if necessary.

Quality assurance checks: Number is between 1000 and 1000000

Schema element: ScaleExplanation

Field type/ facets: String

Guidance on completion of schema element: Optional. Provide brief explanation of the scale used if necessary.

Quality assurance checks:

Schema element: Transboundary

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Does the surface water body extend across national borders or is it shared with other countries?

Quality check:

Schema element: LinkToMSInformation

Field type/ facets: URL

Guidance on completion of schema element: Optional. Provide a URL to a fiche or information system for this water body.

29

Quality assurance checks:

2.1.3.3. GIS information:

Note: GIS information should be reported for all river water bodies, instead of only the main rivers.

River water bodies shape file attributes

Attribute name Obligation Type DescriptionEU_SEG_CD Required string (42) International Code for the River

Segment. <MemberStateCode>_<SEG_CD>

EU_CD_RW Conditional: Required for real Water Body segment

string (42) EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode for the River Water Body as defined in the SWB reporting schema.

Code MUST have a 1-to-1 relationship with EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode and further attribute data described in the related XML file.

CONTINUA Required string (2) The codes 'Y' and 'N' describe real river segments. All other codes describe virtual river segments, to close the river network.

The correct use of this value is essential for the correct count of water bodies. (See below)

CONTINUA Codes (from GIS Guidance):

Name CodeReal surface water network segment (real river or canal section) YReal underground network segment (pipeline or natural network section) NVirtual network segment in lake area LVirtual network segment in river to connect tributary RVirtual network segment in transitional water area TVirtual network segment in coastal water area CVirtual network segment not under other classifications V

Lake water bodies shape file attributes

Attribute name Obligation Type DescriptionEU_CD_LW Required string (42) EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode

for the Lake Water Body as defined in the SWB

30

reporting schema.

Code MUST have a 1-to-1 relationship with EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode and further attribute data described in the related XML file.

Transitional water bodies shape file attributes

Attribute name Obligation Type DescriptionEU_CD_TW Required string (42) EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode

for the Transitional Water Body as defined in the SWB reporting schema.

Codes MUST have a 1-to-1 relationship with EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode and further attribute data described in the related XML file.

Coastal water bodies shape file attributes

Attribute name Obligation Type DescriptionEU_CD_CW Required string (42) EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode

for the Coastal Water Body as defined in the SWB reporting schema.

Codes MUST have a 1-to-1 relationship with EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode and further attribute data described in the related XML file.

2.1.3.4. Guidance on contents of RBMPs/background documents

See Guidance section under SWMET schema for information requested on methodologies for characterisation.

2.1.3.5. Glossary: clarification of terms and reporting requirements

Some countries which have large number of water bodies with low pressures group water bodies for the assessment of pressures and status. The information reported for the water bodies belonging to a group will therefore be identical.

31

Further clarification as regards the terms used in relation to physical alterations for HMWB (element HMWBPhysicalAlteration above):

Locks: device for raising and lowering boats between stretches of water of different levels on river and canal waterways.

Weirs/dam/reservoir: transversal barrier constructed across a river or a lake discharge for the purpose of creating a water impoundment.

Channelisation/straightening/bed stabilisation: any permanent modification which longitudinally affects river banks and/or river bed, including changing direction, reducing meandering, stabilisation of river banks, etc.

Dredging/Channel maintenance: modifications due to regular maintenance of rivers through dredging for any given purpose, usually navigation or flood protection

Land reclamation/coastal modifications/ports: modification of a water body as a result of the creation of new land from ocean, riverbeds, or lake (e.g. for the purpose of expanding or creating a port).

Land drainage: modification of a water body as a result of the artificial change to the water level intended to make available existing land for a particular purpose (often for agricultural production or for urbanisation).

2.2. Pressures and impacts on surface waters

2.2.1. Introduction

In the case of surface waters, the WFD requires identification of significant pressures from point sources of pollution, diffuse sources of pollution, modifications of flow regimes through abstractions or regulation and morphological alterations, as well as any other pressures. ‘Significant’ is interpreted as meaning that the pressure contributes to an impact that may result in the failing of article 4(1) environmental objectives (see under section “glossary” below for further explanations).

The identification of significant pressures and their resulting impacts (which in turn lead to a reduced status) can involve different approaches: field surveys, inventories, numerical tools (e.g. modelling); expert judgement or a combination of tools. The magnitude of the pressure is usually compared with a threshold or criteria, relevant to the water body category and type to assess its significance.

Reporting of pressures has to be seen in the context of the WFD planning process. The purpose of the article 5 pressure and impact analysis is to identify the water bodies which are at risk of failing to meet the environmental objectives of the WFD, either because they will not achieve good status or because their status is at risk of deterioration. Member States may have very comprehensive pressure inventories, but the purpose of reporting is focused on the "significance" in relation to the WFD objectives. Therefore, only if a pressure or impact is significant, alone or in combination with others, because it puts at risk the environmental objectives, should be reported. For example, the mere existence of point sources in a water body is not a reason to report point sources as a significant pressure. It should only be reported if these point sources put at risk the achievement of the environmental objectives in the water body. Significant pressures should only be reported for these water bodies which have been identified as being at risk.

Article 5 analysis is a crucial initial step in the planning process. The resulting risk assessment should then be used to design the monitoring programmes. One of the purposes of the monitoring programmes is to validate the risk assessment (see Annex V section 1.3.1). This validation is then

32

expected to feed the risk assessment of the next planning cycle to refine the definition of "significance" and improve the results. Indeed, in the first RBMP, for the first risk assessment, Member States may have used certain pressure thresholds or criteria to define "significance", but given the scarce impact data available at the time (the monitoring programmes had not yet started) it was not possible to establish a clear link to the impacts in terms of environmental objectives. For the second RBMP, given the significant progress in terms of availability of pressure-impacts response and monitoring data and status information, the pressure-impact analysis and the risk assessment should have improved considerably, making this important first step of the planning process much more reliable.

This does not mean that the information on pressures and status at water body level should match one to one in all cases. It is expected that some water bodies may have been identified as "at risk" but then the status is "good", either because the significant pressures identified are not large enough to cause the water body to be in less than good status in the given local conditions, or because the risk identified is a risk of deterioration. The opposite case (less than good status with no significant pressure) is expected to happen seldom, as the pressure analysis should be driven by a precautionary approach and be thorough enough to capture all potential pressures causing risk.

2.2.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

The purpose of the collection of the information is to identify the main pressures within the RBD. The summary information will be used to compile maps at a European level of relevant pressures and to ensure that relevant pressures have been identified at RBD level. Statistics and information will be provided to the European Parliament at EU wide level. Information will be provided to the public through WISE.

2.2.2.1. Products from reporting

Note: for all relevant products, information on water bodies will be presented by number of water bodies and by size (length or area) in addition to percentages.

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

5 Percentage of surface water bodies of each category affected by significant pressures of each type

Map RBD/SU Percentage of river/lake water bodies or transitional/coastal water bodies subject to significant pressures of each type (point/diffuse/hydromorphology/etc)

Aggregation on the basis of the information on pressures provided at water body level

SWD pg 78 ss and SWD pg 202

6 Aggregation tables: Significant pressures affecting surface water bodies

Table National/ RBD/Subunits

Number and size (length/area) of surface water bodies by category and by Subunit/RBD/country affected by significant pressures

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

WISE WFD database - link

7 Aggregation tables: Significant pressures affecting surface water bodies

Table National/ RBD/Subunits

Number and percentage of surface water bodies by Subunit/RBD/country affected by significant pressures

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

WISE WFD database - link

33

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

8 Pressures affecting groundwater bodies in poor quantitative status

Chart EU Pressures affecting groundwater bodies in poor quantitative status

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

EEA2 pg 38

9 Proportion of total number of classified water bodies with identified significant pressures, by water category

Chart EU Percentage of classified surface water bodies by category affected by significant pressures

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 41

10 Proportion of river water bodies affected by diffuse and hydromorphology pressures in different Member States

Chart National Proportion of river water bodies affected by diffuse and hydromorphology pressures per Member State

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 49

11 Proportion of lake water bodies affected by diffuse and hydromorphology pressures in different Member States

Chart National Proportion of lake water bodies affected by diffuse and hydromorphology pressures per Member State

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 50

12 Proportion of transitional and coastal water bodies affected by diffuse and hydromorphology pressures in different Member States

Chart National Proportion of transitional and coastal water bodies affected by diffuse and hydromorphology pressures per Member State

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 52&53

13 Pollution/hydromorphological pressures ofclassified river water bodies, according to population density and percentage ofarable land in the river basin

Chart EU River basins have been grouped according to population density and percentage of arable land (five groups each). Pollution/HYMO pressures of all river water bodies in the groups have been aggregated and the proportion water bodies affected by the two pressures are presented.

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level supplemented with information on population and land use in the RBDs – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 39

14 Pollution/hydromorphological pressures ofclassified river water bodies, according to population density and percentage ofarable land

Chart EU Water bodies have been grouped according to population density and percentage of arable land (five groups each). Pollution/HYMO pressures of all river water bodies in the groups have been aggregated and the proportion water bodies affected by the two pressures are presented.

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level supplemented with information on population and land use per water body

It was not possible to produce (no information on population and land use was available at water body level)

34

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

15 Aggregation tables: Impacts affecting surface water bodies

Table National/ RBD/Subunits

Number and size (length/area) of surface water bodies by category and by Subunit/RBD/country affected by impacts

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

WISE WFD database - link

16 Proportion of total number of classified water bodies with identified impacts, for (a) rivers, (b) lakes, (c) coastal waters, and (d) transitional waters;

Chart EU Percentage of surface water bodies by category affected by significant impacts

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 41

54 Drivers responsible for failure of good status

Table RBD/SU Number of water bodies failing good status due to each driverPercentage of water bodies failing good status due to each driver in relation to total number of water bodies failing good status (total and per water category)

Aggregation on the basis of the information on pressures provided at water body level

It was not possible to produce (drivers were not reported unless linked to pressures reported at detailed level, which was optional)

2.2.3. Contents of 2016 reporting

2.2.3.1. Schema Sketch

2.2.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Schema element: SWSignificantPressureTypes

Field type / facets: Closed list: revised list of pressures (see annex) plus option "No significant pressures" (1 - ∞)

Guidance: Required. Indicate the significant pressure type(s) from the enumeration list. If a combination of pressure-driver is not significant on its own but it is in combination with others, select all the relevant pressures of that type that are present which make the overall pressure significant (i.e. if abstraction from industry or agriculture only is not relevant on their own but they are relevant in combination, select both).

35

Quality check: If status of the water body is less than good at least one significant pressure should be reported or "Unknown pressures" (the entry "No significant pressure" is not valid).

Schema element: SWOtherPressureDescription

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: if "Other anthropogenic pressures" is selected indicate which other pressure. Only to be used if the Pressure Type is not in the enumeration list.

Quality check: Required if "Other anthropogenic pressures" is selected under SWSignificantPressureTypes.

Schema element: SWSignificantImpactTypes

Field type / facets: Closed list of impacts (see annex) including option "No significant impacts".

Guidance: Required. Indicate the Impact Type(s) from the enumeration list.

Quality check: If status of the water body is less than good at least one significant impact type should be reported (the entry "No significant impacts" is not valid).

Schema element: SWOtherImpactDescription

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: if "Other Significant Impacts" is selected from the enumeration list, indicate which other impacts. Only to be used if the Impact Type is not in the enumeration list

Quality check: Required if "Other significant impacts" is selected under SWSignificantImpactTypes.

See Annex 1 for the list of drivers pressures and impacts.

2.2.3.3. Guidance on contents of RBMPs/background documents

See Guidance section under SWMET schema for information requested on methodologies for characterisation

2.2.3.4. Glossary: clarification of terms and reporting requirements

Some countries which have large number of water bodies with low pressures group water bodies for the assessment of pressures and status. The information reported for the water bodies belonging to a group will therefore be identical.

“Significant Pressures” are those pressures which, either alone, or in combination with other pressures prevent or put at risk the achievement of WFD Article 4(1) environmental objectives including the achievement of good status, the non-deterioration of status, the avoidance of a significant and sustained upward trend in pollution of groundwater and the achievement of objectives in WFD protected areas. This means that for the second RBMP, all water bodies which

36

are below good status and are not expected to achieve good status in 2015 are at risk and MS are expected to identify significant pressures for them.

Pressures may combine to cause water bodies to be failing, or to be at risk of failing, WFD environmental objectives. For example, a point source discharge may not present a risk on its own, but when combined with a reduction in flow will have an impact on a water body. In that case both pressures (point source and abstraction) should be identified as significant. The same happens when there are different pressures of the same type but cause by different drivers, for example abstraction for drinking water supply and for industry in a particular water body may not be significant on their own but if they are in combination, they should be identified as significant.

2.3. Ecological status and exemptions

2.3.1. Introduction

The WFD defines its environmental objectives in Article 4 and sets the aim for long-term sustainable water management. Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objective to be achieved in all surface and groundwater bodies, i.e. good status or potential (for HMWBs) by 2015, and introduces the principle of preventing any further deterioration of status. A number of exemptions to the general objectives are possible under certain conditions. Article 4(4) allows for an extension of the deadline beyond 2015, Article 4(5) allows for the achievement of less stringent objectives, Article 4(6) allows a temporary deterioration in the status of water bodies and Article 4(7) sets out conditions in which deterioration of status or failure to achieve certain of the WFD objectives may be permitted for new modifications to the physical characteristics of surface water bodies, and deterioration from high to good status may be possible as a result of new sustainable human development activities.

The WFD provides the general framework on exemptions but there is scope for differences in understanding and implementation. From the outset of implementation it was clear that the use of exemptions needed to be explained further and the rules for application had to be made clearer. These clarifications can be found in the CIS Guidance Document 20 “Exemptions to the Environmental Objectives” published in 2009.

Annex V of the WFD specifies how MS are to monitor and present overall "status" classification for each of their water bodies in all water categories, as well as the status for each of the Biological Quality Elements (BQEs)/Quality Elements (QEs) used.

2.3.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

Information on status of water bodies is the basic indicator which inform whether the WFD implementation is being successful. The main part of the reported information will be used for visualisation and for providing information to the public through WISE. Furthermore, the data and maps will provide a comparison of current status with the baseline status reported in the first RBMPs (e.g. answering the question: how was the ecological status before the programme of measures required by the WFD was implemented and has it improved?). This means that the requested data and maps will be essential for trend analysis, for policy development and for the assessment of policy effectiveness.

The Commission will use information provided by Member States on the classification of status and on exemptions to give summary statistics to the European Parliament and publicly through WISE.

37

2.3.2.1. Products from reporting

Note: for all relevant products, information on water bodies can be presented by number of water bodies and by size (length or area).

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

52 Number and percentage of water bodies in high or good status and expected improvement

Table WB Nb and percentage of surface water bodies in high or good ecological status/potential and expected improvementNb and percentage of surface water bodies in good chemical status and expected improvementNb of groundwater bodies in good quantitative status and expected improvementNb of groundwater bodies in good chemical status and expected improvement

Aggregation on the basis of the information provided at water body level

COM pg 6

55 Water bodies in good ecological status and use of exemptions

Chart National Percentage of water bodies currently in good ecological status or better, percentage of water bodies in unknown status and percentage of water bodies in which exemptions are used

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

SWD pg 175

56 Percentage of water bodies in less than good ecological status

Map RBD Proportion of classified surface water bodies in different RBDs holding less thangood ecological status or potential, for rivers and lakes and for coastal andtransitional waters

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

EEA1 pg 38

Percentage of water bodies in Unknown status

Table National or RBD

Proportion of classified surface water bodies in different RBDs with unknown status

57 River Basin Specific Pollutants (RBSPs) monitored (by MS) and RBSPs causing failure of good ecological status (by MS), with EQS

Table MS RBSPs monitored (by MS) and RBSPs causing failure of good ecological status (by MS), with EQS

Aggregation of information reported at RBD level

It was not possible to produce (necessary information was not included in reporting requirements)

58 Percentage of failure of good ecological status attributable to RBSPs (by MS)

Chart MS Percentage of failure of good ecological status attributable to RBSPs (by MS)

Aggregation of information reported at water body level

It was not possible to produce (necessary information was not included in reporting requirements)

38

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

69 Aggregation tables: Ecological status of surface water bodies

Table National/ RBD/Subunits

Ecological status and potential of surface water bodies by number and size (length/area) for each category and Subunit/RBD/country

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

WISE WFD database 5-

70 Distribution of ecological status or potential of classified rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters

Chart EU Percentage of surface water bodies by ecological status and potential class by river, lake, transitional and coastal water bodies

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 37

71 Ecological status or potential of classified river water bodies in different Member States

Chart National Percentage of river water bodies by ecological status and potential class

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 49

72 Ecological status or potential of classified lake water bodies in different Member States

Chart National Percentage of lake water bodies by ecological status and potential class

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 50

73 Ecological status or potential of classified transitional and coastal water bodies in different Member States

Chart National Percentage of transitional and coastal water bodies by ecological status and potential class

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 52

74 Ecological status/potential ofclassified river water bodies, according to population density and percentage ofarable land in the river basin

Chart EU River basins have been grouped according to population density and percentage of arable land (five groups each). Ecological status/potential of all river water bodies in the groups have been aggregated and the proportion in the quality classes are presented.

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level supplemented with information on population and land use in the RBDs – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 39

75 Ecological status/potential ofclassified river water bodies, according to population density and percentage ofarable land

Chart EU Water bodies have been grouped according to population density and percentage of arable land (five groups each). Ecological status/potential of all river water bodies in the groups have been aggregated and the proportion in the quality classes are presented

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level supplemented with information on population and land use per water body

It was not possible to produce (no information on population and land use was available at water body level)

5 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/wise_wfd39

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

80 Aggregation tables: Ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies

Table National/ RBD/Subunits

Number and size (length/area) of chemical status of surface water bodies by category and by Subunit/RBD/country

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

WISE WFD database6 -

82 Ecological status/potential ofclassified surface water bodies, according to broad water types

Chart EU/RBD/national

Water bodies have been grouped according to broad water types Ecological status/potential of all river water bodies in the groups have been aggregated and the proportion in the quality classes are presented

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level supplemented with information on population and land use per water body

It was not possible to produce (too many national types and no detailed information on typology available)

83 Trend in median (a) total ammonium, (b) total phosphorus and (c) nitrate concentration of river water bodies, grouped by ecological status/potential class

Chart EU WFD water body information were linked with WISE SOE long time series data on water quality in rivers ((a) total ammonium, (b) total phosphorus and (c) nitrate concentration). The trend in water quality was presented for each ecological class and the trend lines were linear extrapolated to 2027 to illustrate if WBs in moderate to poor ecological status were approaching high/good ecological status.

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level combined with information on river water quality from the WISE SOE database.

EEA1 pg 75

84 Progress in achieving good status since the first RBMP

Map/ Chart

National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of water bodies which have achieved good ecological and/or chemical status? since the first RBMP

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

Not relevant in 2010 reporting

85 Progress towards achievement of good status since the first RBMP by quality element

Map/ Chart

National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of water bodies which have improved status since the first RBMP by quality element

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

Not relevant in 2010 reporting

86 Reasons behind article 4(4) exemption

Chart National Exemptions reported by Member States to extend the deadline of the achievement of good status beyond 2015 and reasons given (natural condition, technical feasibility, disproportionate costs or combinations of them)

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

(SWD pg 179 at EU level)

- Percentage of water bodies in good ecological status in 2015

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of water bodies in good ecological status in 2015, aggregated for all surface waters or by water category

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

-

6 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/wise_wfd40

2.3.3. Contents of the 2016 reporting

2.3.3.1. Schema Sketches

41

ValueQE1-2-1 Macroalgae StatusOrPotential

ValueQE1-2-2 Angiosperms StatusOrPotential

ValueQE1-2-3 Macropyhtes StatusOrPotential

ValueQE1-2-4 Phytobenthos StatusOrPotential

Document: Ecological status and exemptions - continued

ValueQE1-3 Macroinvertabrates StatusOrPotential

ValueQE1-4 Fish StatusOrPotential

ValueQE2-1 HydrologicalOrTidalRegimeConditions

ValueQE2-2 River ContinuityConditions

ValueQE2-3 MorphologicalConditions

ValueQE3-1-1 TransparencyConditions

ValueQE3-1-2 Thermal Conditions

ValueQE3-1-3 OxygenationConditions

ValueQE3-1-4 SalinityConditions

ValueQE3-1-5 pHConditions

ValueQE3.1.6.1 NitrogenConditions

ValueQE3.1.6.2 PhosphorusConditions

ValueQE1-2 OtherAquaticFlora StatusOrPotential

ValueQE1-1 Phytoplankton StatusOrPotential

ValueQE3-3 NonPriority Specific Pollutants

FailingRBSPCAS

SWB_ECO_

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

2.3.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

General guidance for QEs:

Reporting of QE status assessment is expected not only where monitoring results are available for specific water bodies but also for all water bodies for which this information is available (e.g. through grouping/extrapolation). A status value should therefore be given for each of the relevant QEs that have been assessed for the water body and subsequently used to classify the ecological status/potential of the water body.

If the QE status is not reported then it is assumed that it is not used in the classification of the ecological status of the water body.

Schema element: TargetStatusOrPotential

42

Field type / facets: S or P

Guidance: Required. Indicate whether the information given is ecological status (S) or ecological potential (P)

Quality check: Potential is only valid if the element “Natural_AWB_HMWB” is Heavily Modified or Artificial

Schema element: ValueEcologicalStatusOrPotential

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or U

Guidance: Required. Indicate the ecological status or potential of the water body 1=high (status only), 2=good, 3=moderate, 4=poor, 5=bad. U=unknown/no information. This should be the most recently assessed status of the water body.

Quality check:

Schema element: AssessmentYear

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Provide the year on which the assessment of status is based. This may be the year that the water body was monitored or the year that the results from the monitored water bodies within a group were extrapolated to non-monitored water bodies within the same group. A period is possible (e.g. 2011-2013)

Quality check:

Schema element: Confidence

Field type / facets: 0, 1, 2 or 3

Guidance: Required. Indicate the confidence on the ecological status or potential assigned 0=no information, 1 = low confidence, 2 = medium confidence, 3 = high confidence. The criteria used by MSs to assess the confidence vary considerably, but general guidance may be the following: low = no monitoring data, medium = supporting QE data and/or limited data on one BQE, high = good data for at least one BQE and the most relevant supporting QE.

Quality check:

Schema element: Expected2015GoodEcological StatusOrPotential

Field type / facets: Yes or No

Guidance: Required. Indicate whether Member State expects this water body to achieve good (or better) ecological status/potential by the end of 2015, or not. This may differ from “ValueEcologicalStatusOrPotential“ because the assessment of status included in the 2015 RBMP is most likely to be based on monitoring data from the period 2010-2014 at the latest, given that the draft RBMP will be prepared in 2014 for public consultation. Therefore, the status communicated in the RBMP may not necessarily reflect the expected status in 2015. Methodology of this assessment should be clearly explained in background documents (reference reported under classification methodologies (see Section 7.2)).

43

Quality check:

Schema element: GoodEcological StatusOrPotentialAchievementDate

Field type / facets: Closed list:

2016-2021, 2022-2027, beyond 2027, unknown, not relevant.

Guidance: Conditional: if good ecological status/potential will NOT be achieved by 2015 provide the date by which it is expected that it will be achieved. Methodology of this assessment should be clearly explained in background documents (reference reported under classification methodologies). According to article 4(4)c of the WFD, the achievement of the objectives beyond 2027 is only possible due to natural conditions. If an exemption under article 4(5) is applied to this water body and objective, the date by when the less stringent objective is to be achieved needs to be reported (if the less stringent objective has already been achieved then 'not relevant' should be chosen).

Quality check: “Not relevant” should be selected only if Expected2015GoodEcological StatusOrPotential is “Yes”, otherwise other option should be selected.

Schema element: EcologicalExemptionType

Field type / facets: Closed list of Types of exemptions (1 - ∞):

No exemptionArticle4(4) -Technical feasibilityArticle4(4) - Disproportionate costArticle4(4) - Natural conditionsArticle4(5) -Technical feasibilityArticle4(5) - Disproportionate costArticle4(6) - Natural causesArticle4(6) - Force MajeureArticle4(6) - AccidentsArticle4(7) - New modificationArticle4(7) - Sustainable human development

Guidance: Conditional – only to be reported if exemptions are not reported at QE levelIf Expected2015GoodEcological StatusOrPotential is No, report which type(s) of exemption apply (from the enumeration list). More than one exemption may apply to a Water Body.

Quality check: if Expected2015GoodEcological StatusOrPotential is No the entry "No exemption" is not valid.

Schema element: EcologicalExemptionPressure

Field type / facets: Closed list of Pressures (see annex 1) (0 - ∞)

Guidance: Conditional: if any 4(4), 4(5) and/or 4(7) exemption applies to this water body, report the pressures causing failure and justifying the exemption(s) from the enumeration list

Quality check: If Ecological ExemptionType is any of the options for 4(4), 4(5) and/or 4(7) at least one pressure should be reported as a significant pressure.

44

Reporting of information at quality element level

The following schema elements are common to all quality elements and will be replicated for all of them in the schema. They should only be completed if status is reported for the quality element X:

Schema element: ValueQEX MonitoringResults

Field type / facets: Y/N

Guidance: Required. Indicate if this QE was monitored in this water body and if classification for this QE is directly derived for monitoring data available for this water body. "No" means that the assessment of QE status (if any) was derived by grouping or expert judgement, as described in the methodology for classification.Quality check: To be completed unless status for QEX is U or N.

Schema element: ValueQEX MonitoringPeriod

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Indicate the year/period of the monitoring data which was used for classification. Quality check: To be completed unless status for QEX is U or N.

Schema element: ValueQEX Grouping

Field type / facets: String (0 - ∞)

Guidance: Conditional. If no monitoring is available for this water body and status has been derived through grouping by extrapolating monitoring data from other water bodies or by expert judgement, indicate the codes of the water bodies which have been monitored and used in grouping. For example if the status of WB”A” has been determined by extrapolating monitoring data from WB”B” and WB”C” then the EUSurfaceWaterBodyCodes for WB”B” and WB”C” should be provided.

Quality check: Should match EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode values.

Schema element: ValueQEX StatusOrPotentialChange

Field type / facets: enumeration list: +2; +1; 0; -1; -2 or U

Guidance: Conditional: if information is available and if there has been a change in class since the first RBMP, report that change: “+2” for improvement of 2 classes or more; “+1” for improvement of 1 class; “0” no change of class (default);” -1” for deterioration of 1 class;” -2” for deterioration of 2 classes or more; “U” for cases where status or potential unknown in 2010;).

Quality check:

Schema element: ValueQEX StatusOrPotentialComparability

Field type / facets: Conditional: required if a change of class is reported. Consistent change,

45

Inconsistent-Monitoring; Inconsistent-Assessment; Inconsistent Monitoring and Assessment; Other

Guidance: Conditional: if ValueQEX StatusOrPotential Change is +1 or -1 indicate if the reported change in status or potential is considered as being consistent (i.e. a real change of status due to measures or due to increased pressures) or inconsistent because of significant change in the monitoring (site, methodology) or in the assessment method since the first RBMP. The default value is "Consistent change".

Quality check: Required if ValueQEX StatusOrPotential Change is +1 or -1.

Schema element: QEXEcologicalExemptionType

Field type / facets: Closed list of Types of exemptions (1 - ∞):

No exemptionArticle4(4) -Technical feasibilityArticle4(4) - Disproportionate costArticle4(4) - Natural conditionsArticle4(5) -Technical feasibilityArticle4(5) - Disproportionate costArticle4(6) - Natural causesArticle4(6) - Force MajeureArticle4(6) - AccidentsArticle4(7) - New modificationArticle4(7) - Sustainable human development

Guidance: Required. Indicate which type(s) of exemption apply (from the enumeration list) to this water body and quality element. More than one exemption may apply to a Water Body and QE. If this information is reported at QE level there is no need to report at “Ecological Status” level.

Quality check:

QEX means any of the quality elements below (e.g. QE1-1 Phytoplankton).

In addition, the schema element for status/potential is required for each quality element. Guidance is provided in the following table. The default value in all cases is U (no information).

Schema element: ValueQE1-1 Phytoplankton StatusOrPotential

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, U or N

Guidance: Required. Indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – moderate status/potential; 4 – poor status/potential; 5 – bad status/potential; : U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body)

Quality check:

46

Schema element: ValueQE1-2 OtherAquaticFlora StatusOrPotential

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, U or N

Guidance: Required. Indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – moderate status/potential; 4 – poor status/potential; 5 – bad status/potential; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body)

Relevant to all surface water categories within the Member State. This should be reported where the assessment is based on a method that integrates the assessment of the relevant component elements of “QE1-2 other aquatic flora”. Where there are separate assessments based on each component element, status/potential should be reported as either QE1-2-1 macroalgae, QE1-2-2 angiosperms, QE1-2-3 macrophytes, and/or QE1-2-4 phytobenthos where relevant.

Quality check:

Schema element: ValueQE1-2-1 Macroalgae StatusOrPotential

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, U or N

Guidance: Required. For transitional and coastal waters only; indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – moderate status/potential; 4 – poor status/potential; 5 – bad status/potential; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body)Quality check: Water body must be CATEGORY TW or CW

Schema element: ValueQE1-2-2 Angiosperms StatusOrPotential

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, U or N

Guidance: Required. For transitional and coastal waters only; indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – moderate status/potential; 4 – poor status/potential; 5 – bad status/potential; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body)

Quality check: Water body must be CATEGORY TW or CW

Schema element: ValueQE1-2-3 Macrophytes StatusOrPotential

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, U or N

Guidance: Required. For rivers and lakes only; indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – moderate status/potential; 4 – poor status/potential; 5 – bad status/potential; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body)Quality check: Water body must be CATEGORY RW or LW

Schema element: ValueQE1-2-4 Phytobenthos StatusOrPotential

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, U or N

Guidance: Required. For rivers and lakes only; indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 47

– high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – moderate status/potential; 4 – poor status/potential; 5 – bad status/potential; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body)

Quality check: Water body must be CATEGORY RW or LW

Schema element: ValueQE1-3 Macroinvertabrates StatusOrPotential

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, U or N

Guidance: Required. Indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – moderate status/potential; 4 – poor status/potential; 5 – bad status/potential; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body)Quality check:

Schema element: ValueQE1-4 FishStatus OrPotential

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, U or N

Guidance: Required. Indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – moderate status/potential; 4 – poor status/potential; 5 – bad status/potential; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body)

Quality check: Water body must be CATEGORY RW, LW or TW

Schema element: ValueQE2-1 Hydrodological or tidal regime Conditions

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, M, U or N

Guidance: Required. For rivers and lakes hydrological regime; for transitional and coastal waters tidal regime; indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – below good status/potential; M – Monitored but no standard has been developed and/or the quality element is not used for status assessment; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body)Quality check:

Schema element: ValueQE2-2 RiverContinuity Conditions

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, M, U or N

Guidance: Required. Indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: U – no information; 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential or below; 3 – below good status/potential; M – Monitored but no standard has been developed and/or the quality element is not used for status assessment; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body)Quality check: Water body must be CATEGORY RW or TW.Schema element: ValueQE2-3 MorphologicalConditions

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, M, U or N

Guidance: Required. Morphological conditions of rivers, lakes, transitional or coastal waters. Indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; ; 3 –

48

below good status/potential; M – Monitored but no standard has been developed and/or the quality element is not used for status assessment; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body). Quality check:Schema element: ValueQE3-1-1 TransparencyConditions

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, M, U or N

Guidance: Required. Indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – moderate status/potential; M – Monitored but no standard has been developed and/or the quality element is not used for status assessment; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body); If only one standard has been developed for "good or better" and "less than good" then report 2 = pass and 3= fail.Quality check: Water body must be CATEGORY LW, TW or CW

Schema element: ValueQE3-1-2 ThermalConditions

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, M, U or N

Guidance: Required. Indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – moderate status/potential; M – Monitored but no standard has been developed and/or the quality element is not used for status assessment; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body); If only one standard has been developed for "good or better" and "less than good" then report 2 = pass and 3= fail.

Quality check:

Schema element: ValueQE3-1-3 OxygenationConditions

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, M, U or N

Guidance: Required. Indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – moderate status/potential; M – Monitored but no standard has been developed and/or the quality element is not used for status assessment; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body). If only one standard has been developed for "good or better" and "less than good" then report 2 = pass and 3= fail.

Quality check:Schema element: ValueQE3-1-4 SalinityConditions

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, M, U or N

Guidance: Required. Indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – moderate status/potential; M – Monitored but no standard has been developed and/or the quality element is not used for status assessment; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body). If only one standard has been developed for "good or better" and "less than good" then report 2 = pass and 3= fail.

Quality check:Schema element: ValueQE3-1-5 pHConditions

49

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, M, U or N

Guidance: Required. Indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – moderate status/potential; M – Monitored but no standard has been developed and/or the quality element is not used for status assessment; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body). If only one standard has been developed for "good or better" and "less than good" then report 2 = pass and 3= fail.

Quality check: Water body must be CATEGORY RW or LWSchema element: ValueQE3-1-6-1 NitrogenConditions

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, M, U or N

Guidance: Required. Indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – moderate status/potential; M – Monitored but no standard has been developed and/or the quality element is not used for status assessment; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body). If only one standard has been developed for "good or better" and "less than good" then report 2 = pass and 3= fail.Any nitrogen species which are used for the assessment of the quality element “nutrient conditions” should be included in this quality element.

Quality check:Schema element: ValueQE3-1-6-2 PhosphorusConditions

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, M, U or N

Guidance: Required. Indicate the results of the assessment for this QE: 1 – high status; 2 – good status/potential; 3 – moderate status/potential; M – Monitored but no standard has been developed and/or the quality element is not used for status assessment; U – no information; N – not applicable (the quality element is not applicable to this water body). If only one standard has been developed for "good or better" and "less than good" then report 2 = pass and 3= fail.Any phosphorus species which are used for the assessment of the quality element “nutrient conditions” should be included in this quality element.

Quality check:Schema element: ValueQE3-3 NonPriority SpecificPollutants

Field type / facets: 1, 2, 3, M, U or N

Guidance: Required. This element covers all river basin district specific pollutants that are not priority substances but are present in significant quantities in the RBD. The element combines former QE 3-4 other (national) pollutants with QE3-3. Indicate the results of the assessment of these substances in terms of ecological status/potential. 1=high status, 2=good status/ potential. 3= failing to achieve good status/ potential; M – Monitored but no standard has been developed and/or the quality element is not used for status assessment; U = no information/no monitoring; N = not applicable (i.e. there are no non priority specific pollutants present in the RBD in significant quantities). If only one standard has been developed for "good or better" and "less than good" then report 2 = pass and 3= fail.

Quality check:

Schema element: FailingRBSPCAS

50

Field type / facets: String (0 - ∞)

Guidance: Conditional: if value status/potential is less than good due to river basin specific pollutant(s) indicate the CAS number of the substance(s) failing as reported in the methodology schema. This should not include priority substances, except (if considered RBSP) those added in 2013 to the EQS Directive which will not be part of the chemical status assessment in 2015.

Quality check: Required only if ValueQE3-3 NonPriority SpecificPollutants is 3. The value has to match one on the list of schema element RBSPCAS in SWMET schema..

2.4. Chemical status of surface waters, exemptions and Mixing Zones

2.4.1. Introduction

Good surface water chemical status means the chemical status required to meet the environmental objectives for surface waters established in Article 4(1)(a) of the WFD, that is the chemical status achieved by a body of surface water in which concentrations of pollutants do not exceed the environmental quality standards (EQS) established in Annex IX and under Article 16(7), and under other relevant Community legislation setting EQS at Community level. It should be noted that under Article 2(1) of the WFD territorial waters are included for the assessment and reporting of chemical status.

Decision 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 2001 established the list of priority substances in the field of water policy. The Decision identified the substances for which EQS were to be set at Community level which was implemented by means of Directive 2008/105/EC (EQS Directive (EQSD)). Eight other pollutants that were regulated by Directive 76/464/EEC were also incorporated into the assessment of chemical status.

The EQSD includes a number of other obligations relating to priority substances in particular the trend monitoring of certain priority substances in sediment or biota (Article 3(3) EQSD) and the establishment of an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses (Article 5 EQSD, see also Section 9.2).

Directive 2009/90/EC (QA/QC Directive) on the quality and comparability of chemical monitoring specifies minimum performance criteria to ensure the quality of the analytical results. The deadline for transposition of the QA/QC Directive into national legislation was 21 August 2009, just before adoption of the first RBMPs.

Directive 2013/39/EU, amending the WFD and EQSD as regards priority substances, was adopted on 12 August 2013. The revised EQS for existing priority substances should be taken into account for the first time in RBMPs covering the period 2015 to 2021. The newly identified priority substances and their EQS should be taken into account in the establishment of supplementary monitoring programmes and in preliminary programmes of measures to be submitted by the end of 2018.

With the aim of achieving good surface water chemical status, the revised EQS for existing priority substances should be met by the end of 2021 and the EQS for newly identified priority substances by the end of 2027, without prejudice to Article 4(4) to (9) of Directive 2000/60/EC, which includes inter alia provisions for extending the deadline for achieving good surface water chemical status or

51

achieving less stringent environmental objectives for specific bodies of water on the grounds of disproportionate cost and/or socio-economic need, provided that no further deterioration occurs in the status of the affected bodies of water.

The determination of surface water chemical status by the 2015 deadline laid down in Article 4 of Directive 2000/60/EC should be based, therefore, only on the substances and EQS set out in Directive 2008/105/EC in the version in force on 13 January 2009 unless those EQS are stricter than the revised EQS under Directive 2013/39/EU, in which case the revised (less strict) EQS should be applied7.

However, the 2013 Directive requires Member States to achieve good chemical status by 2021 for those existing substances for which a more stringent standard has been adopted. This would require that an assessment is included in the 2015 RBMP on the basis of the new EQSs and, if necessary, measures should be included in the Programmes of Measures to be operational at the latest by 2018.

The 2013 Directive allows that as regards the presentation of chemical status for the purposes of the update of the programmes of measures and of the river basin management plans to be carried out in accordance with Article 11(8) and Article 13(7) of Directive 2000/60/EC respectively, Member States should be allowed to present separately the impact on chemical status of newly identified priority substances and of existing priority substances with revised EQS, so that the introduction of new requirements is not mistakenly perceived as an indication that the chemical status of surface waters has deteriorated. In addition to the obligatory map covering all substances, additional maps, covering newly identified substances and existing substances with revised EQS, substances behaving like ubiquitous PBTs and separately covering the rest of the substances, could be provided.

The EQSD also contains a provision regarding the possibility of designating mixing zones (Article 4 EQSD). This is linked with the so called “combined approach” (Article 10 WFD). Effluent discharge control regimes are normally designed to ensure that concentrations of priority substances or other pollutants in the receiving water do not exceed the EQS. However, if their concentration in the effluent is greater than the EQS value at the point of discharge there will be a zone of EQS exceedence in the vicinity of the point of discharge. Article 4 of the EQSD allows Member States to permit such zones of exceedence in water bodies when a number of criteria are met, i.e. they may designate mixing zones adjacent to points of discharge within which concentrations of one or more substances listed in Part A of Annex 1 to that Directive may exceed the relevant EQS providing that they do not affect the compliance of the rest of the surface water body with those EQS, and that the zones are restricted to the proximity of the discharge and are proportionate, and that certain information (such as on the approaches and methodologies applied to define such zones; and on the measures taken with a view to reducing the extent of the mixing zones in the future) is provided in the RBMPs (see also Section 7.3)

2.4.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

A key indicator will be percentage of water bodies in good chemical status in the River Basin District or Sub-unit. In addition, the main part of the reported information will be used for visualisation and for providing information to the public through WISE, in particular to answer the question: how has the water quality improved since the programme of measures required by the

7 See recital 9 of Directive 2013/39/EU and Article 3 paragraph 1a of Directive 2008/105/EC as amended by Directive 2013/39/EU. Directive 2013/39/EU adopts a less stringent AA-EQS for Naphthalene in transitional and coastal waters. In the case of Naphthalene this standard should be applied in the determination of chemical status. For all other substances the standards from Directive 2008/105/EC as in force on 13 January 2009 should be applied.

52

WFD was implemented? This means that the requested data and maps will be essential for trend analysis, for policy development and for the assessment of policy effectiveness.

The Commission will use information provided by Member States on the classification of status and on exemptions to give summary statistics to the European Parliament and the public. It also needs to identify whether and where mixing zones have been used.

2.4.2.1. Products from reporting

Note: for all relevant products, information on water bodies can be presented by number of water bodies and by size (length or area).

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

59 Priority Substances causing failure of good SW chemical status (by MS)

Table MS Number of water bodies in which each Priority Substances causes failure of good SW chemical status (by MS)

Aggregation of information reported at water body level

It was not possible to produce (reporting of individual priority substances was optional)

60 Percentage of SWBs failing good chemical status (by MS)

Map MS Percentage of SWBs of each water category failing good chemical status (by MS)

Aggregation of information reported at water body level

It was not possible to produce a complete picture because of large percentages of water bodies in unknown status.

61 Percentage of SWBs failing good chemical status (by MS)

Chart MS Percentage of SWBs of each water category failing good chemical status (by MS)

Aggregation of information reported at water body level

It was not possible to produce a complete picture because of large percentages of water bodies in unknown status.

62 Percentage of rivers, lakes, groundwater, transitional and coastal waters in good, poor and unknown chemical status;

Chart EU Percentage of water bodies by chemical status by groundwater river, lake, transitional and coastal water bodies

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

EEA1 pg 55

63 Chemical status of rivers and lakes

Chart National Percentage of river and lake water bodies in poor and good chemical status

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 59

64 Chemical status of rivers and lakes

Map RBD Percentage of river and lake water bodies not achieving good chemical status

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 59

65 Chemical status of transitional and coastal water bodies

Chart National Percentage of transitional and coastal water bodies in poor and good chemical status

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 60

53

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

66 Chemical status of transitional, coastal and territorial water bodies

Map RBD Percentage of transitional, coastal and territorial water bodies not achieving good chemical status

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 61

69 Aggregation tables: Ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies

Table National/ RBD/Subunits

Number and size (length/area) of ecological status and potential of surface water bodies by category and by Subunit/RBD/country

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

WISE WFD database - link

80 Aggregation tables: Ecological and chemical status of surface water bodies

Table National/ RBD/Subunits

Number and size (length/area) of chemical status of surface water bodies by category and by Subunit/RBD/country

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

WISE WFD database - www

84 Progress in achieving good status since the first RBMP

Map/ Chart

National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of water bodies which have achieved good ecological and/or chemical status since the first RBMP

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

Not relevant in 2010 reporting

85 Progress towards achievement of good status since the first RBMP by quality element

Map/ Chart

National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of water bodies which have improved status since the first RBMP by quality element

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

Not relevant in 2010 reporting

86 Reasons behind article 4(4) exemption

Chart National Exemptions reported by Member States to extend the deadline of the achievement of good status beyond 2015 and reasons given (natural condition, technical feasibility, disproportionate costs or combinations of them)

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

(SWD pg 179 at EU level)

- Percentage of water bodies in good chemical status in 2015 based on 2008 EQS for PS in 2008 EQSD

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of water bodies in good chemical status in 2015, aggregated for all surface waters or by water category

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

-

- Percentage of water bodies in good chemical status in 2015 based on 2013 EQS for PS in 2008 EQSD

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of water bodies in good chemical status in 2015, aggregated for all surface waters or by water category

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

-

- Percentage of water bodies in good chemical status in 2015 based on 2013 EQS for PS excluding uPBTs in 2008 EQSD

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of water bodies in good chemical status in 2015, aggregated for all surface waters or by water category

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

54

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

- Percentage of water bodies in good chemical status in 2015 based on 2013 EQS for PS including uPBTs in 2008 EQSD

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of water bodies in good chemical status in 2015, aggregated for all surface waters or by water category

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

-

- Designation of mixing zones and exceedances

Table EU/National/ RBD/Subunits

Number of mixing zones designated, percentage of mixing zones in relation to the whole length or area of water bodies (where provided), substances showing or predicted to show exceedances in the mixing zones

Aggregation of information reported at water body level

It was not possible to produce (necessary information was not included in reporting requirements)

2.4.3. Contents of the 2016 reporting

2.4.3.1. Schema Sketch

55

2.4.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Schema element: SWChemicalStatusValue

Field type / facets: 2, 3 or U

Guidance: Required. Indicate the chemical status of the Water Body: 2=good, 3=failing to achieve good, U=unknown / no information. With the exception of the AA-EQS for naphthalene in transitional and coastal waters, this should be based on the standards laid down in Directive 2008/105/EC (version in force on 13 January 2009).

Quality check:

Schema element: AssessmentYear

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Provide the year on which the assessment of status is based. This may be the year that the water body was monitored or the year that the results from the monitored water bodies within a group were extrapolated to non-monitored water bodies within the same group. A period is possible (e.g. 2011-2013)

Quality check:

Schema element: Confidence

Field type / facets: 0, 1, 2 or 3

Guidance: Required. Indicate the confidence on the chemical status or potential assigned 0=no information, 1 = low confidence, 2 = medium confidence, 3 = high confidence. The criteria used by MSs to assess the confidence vary considerably, but general guidance may be the following: low = no monitoring data, medium = limited or insufficiently robust monitoring data for some or all PSs that are discharged in the RBD, high = good data for all PSs that are discharged in the RBD.

Quality check:

Schema element: ChemicalStatusGrouping

Field type / facets: String (0 - ∞):

Guidance: Conditional. If no monitoring data is available for this water body and status has been derived through grouping by extrapolating monitoring data from other water bodies or by expert

56

judgement, indicate the codes of the water bodies that have been monitored and used in grouping. For example if the status of WB”A” has been determined by extrapolating monitoring data from WB”B” and WB”C” then the EUSurfaceWaterBodyCodes for WB”B” and WB”C” should be provided.

Quality check:

Schema element: ImprovementChemicalStatus

Field type / facets: List of priority substances

Guidance: Required. Select those substances which have improved from poor to good chemical status since the first RBMP. For the substances for which the EQS have changed in the 2013 amendment of the EQS Directive, the improvement should refer to the 2008 EQS.

Quality check:

Schema element: SWExpected2015GoodChemicalStatus

Field type / facets: Yes or No

Guidance: Required. Indicate whether Member State expects to achieve good (or better) chemical status by the end of 2015 or not. This may differ from “SWValueChemicalStatus“ because the assessment of status contained in the RBMP will most likely be based in monitoring data from the period 2010-2014, given that the RBMP will be prepared in 2014 for public consultation. Therefore, the status communicated in the RBMP will not necessarily reflect the expected status in 2015.

Quality check:

Schema element: SWGoodChemicalStatusAchievementDate

Field type / facets: Closed list:

2016-2021, 2022-2027, beyond 2027, unknown, not relevant.

Guidance: Conditional: if Good Chemical Status will NOT be achieved by 2015 provide the date by which it is expected that it will be achieved. If an exemption under article 4(5) is applied to this water body and objective, the date by when the less stringent objective is to be achieved needs to be reported (if the less stringent objective has already been achieved then 'not relevant' should be chosen).

Quality check: “Not relevant” should be selected only if SWExpected2015GoodChemicalStatus is “Yes”, otherwise other option should be selected.

Schema element: EffectStatusNewThresholds

Field type / facets: Anthracene; Brominated diphenylethers; Fluoranthene; Lead and its compounds; Naphthalene; Nickel and its compounds; Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH); none (default) (1 - ∞)

Guidance: Required: if applicable indicate for which substances the more stringent EQSs adopted in Directive 2013/39/EU caused the status of the water body to appear to deteriorate (if not, leave it as "none"). The assessment of failure according to the new more stringent standards is relevant for

57

the purpose of the meeting the 2021 good chemical status objective as set in Article 3 paragraph 1a(i) of Directive 2008/105/EC as amended by Directive 2013/39/EU.

Quality check:

Schema element: ChemicalExceedances

Field type / facets: List of priority substances (0 - ∞)

Guidance: Conditional: indicate which Priority Substances and/or certain other Pollutants are causing chemical status to be less than good. Information on exceedences from ubiquitous substances should be reported.

Quality check: At least one entry is required if SWValueChemicalStatus is 3.

Schema element: ChemicalExceedancesType

Field type / facets: Closed list (1 - ∞):

AA EQSMAC EQSBoth

Guidance: Conditional: for each substance exceeding indicate which EQS is exceeded (AA, MAC or both).

Quality check: Required for each entry in ChemicalExceedances.

At the level of each of the substance exceeding one or more EQS, report the following:

Schema element: ChemicalExemptionType

Field type / facets: Closed list (1 - ∞):No exemptionsArticle4(4) -Technical feasibilityArticle4(4) - Disproportionate costArticle4(4) - Natural conditionsArticle4(5) -Technical feasibilityArticle4(5) - Disproportionate costArticle4(6) - Natural causesArticle4(6) - Force MajeureArticle4(6) - Accidents

Guidance: Required. Indicate which type(s) of exemption applies to this water body and substance (or else "no exemptions"). More than one is possible.

Quality check: if ValueChemicalStatus is 3 and Expected2015ChemicalStatusValue is No the entry "No exemption" is not valid.

Schema element: ChemicalExemptionPressure

58

Field type / facets: Closed list of pressure (see Annex 1) (1 - ∞) plus "no information"

Guidance: Conditional: if exemptions from achievement of good chemical status apply, indicate the pressures (s) behind them.

Quality check: required except if ChemicalExemptionType is "No exemptions".

Information on Mixing Zones.

Note: As it is not obligatory to designate mixing zones, this information is only required if Member States have designated mixing zones.

Schema element: MixingZones

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Optional. Have mixing zones been designated in the water body?

Quality check:

Schema element: ProportionWBDesignatedMixingZone

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Optional. If available, provide the percentage of length or area of the surface water body that has been designated as a mixing zone.

Quality check:

Schema element: SubstancesExceedingEQSinMixingZone

Field type / facets: List of Priority Substances

Guidance: Conditional: required if mixing zones have been designated. Indicate which priority substances exceed or are expected to exceed the EQS within the mixing zones in the surface water body.

Quality check:

3. REPORTING AT GROUNDWATER BODY LEVEL (SCHEMA GWB)

3.1. Characterisation of groundwater

3.1.1. Introduction

Article 5 and Annex II of the WFD requires MS to identify the location and boundaries of groundwater bodies. The Commission will use the information provided on the level of subdivision of groundwater to ensure that this is adequate to describe the status of groundwater bodies.

59

3.1.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

The Commission will use the information provided on the level of subdivision of groundwater to ensure that this is adequate to describe the status of GWB. The following compliance indicators will be used:

3.1.2.1. Products from reporting

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

1 Number and average size of groundwater

Table EU/National/ RBD/Subunits

Number and size (length/area) of water bodies by category and by RBD/country Total area by water categoryAverage size of water bodies per water category

Average: sum area of all water bodies divided by the number of water bodies Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

SWD pg 71EEA1 pg 19WISE WFD database - link

3 Spatial reference layer of groundwater bodies

GIS layer

WB Mapping of all groundwater bodies

GIS layer including all groundwater bodies

Basis for WISE map viewer - link

60

3.1.3. Contents of 2016 reporting

3.1.3.1. Schema Sketch

61

3.1.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Schema element: EUGround WaterBody Code

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Unique EU code for the Water Body. Add the two-letter ISO Country code followed by the Member State unique id up to a maximum of 42 characters

Quality check: First 2 characters should be country ISO code

Schema element: GWB_MS_CD

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Unique Code for the Water Body within the MS (as used in the RBMP documentation or in the national information system).

Quality check:

Schema element: GroundwaterBodyChanges

Filed type/ facets: Yes, No, New

Guidance on completion of schema element: Conditional: if water body delineation has changed, reporting is required. Most MS will change their delineation of some water bodies for the second RBMP. There is a need to ensure that there is the possibility to compare the second RBMP with the first RBMP, in particular as regards status. Indicate whether there have been any major changes in water body delineation, or if a new water body has been identified that was not listed before.

Quality assurance checks:

Schema element: 2010EUGroundwaterBodyCode

Filed type/ facets: String (1-∞)

Guidance on completion of schema element: Conditional: if water body delineation has changed, reporting is required. Indicate for each new water body code, which is the water body of the first RBMP against which comparisons should be made. If there is no meaningful comparison then enter “none”. This field is not required if “New” is entered in WaterBodyChanges.

Quality assurance checks: First 2 characters should be country ISO code. Required if GroundwaterBodyChanges is Yes. More than one entry allowed.

62

Schema element: TypeGroundwaterBodyChanges

Filed type/ facets: Closed list: merged, split, both merged and split; extended

Guidance on completion of schema element: Conditional: if water body delineation has changed, reporting is required. Indicate the type of re-delineation of water bodies. More detailed explanation about the reasons for de-delineation should be provided in the RBMP/Background document. See Section below for further guidance as to what this document should contain.

Quality assurance checks: Required if GroundwaterBodyChanges is Yes.

Schema element: GWB_NAME

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional

Quality check:

Schema element: LAT

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Latitude in ETRS89 of the centroid of the water body.

Quality check: Should fall within the GWB

Schema element: LON

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Longitude in ETRS89 of the centroid of the water body.

Quality check: Should fall within the GWB

Schema element: Layered

Field type / facets: Y; N; NA

Guidance: Required. Is the Groundwater Body layered? Y=Yes, N=No; NA = Information not available

Quality check:

Schema element: AREA

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Land Surface area of the Groundwater Body in km2

Quality check:

63

Schema element: Scale

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Reference map scale at which the area or length of the Water Body was calculated. Express as 1:nnnnnn e.g. 1:50,000

Quality check: Number is between 1000 and 1000000

Schema element: Scale Explanation

Field type / facets: String

Guidance:Optional. Provide brief explanation of the scale used if necessary.

Quality check:

Schema element: LinkSurfaceWaterBodies

Field type / facets: Y or N

Guidance: Required. Is the Groundwater Body associated with one or more Surface Water Bodies? Y=yes, N=No

Quality check:

Schema element: LinkSurfaceWaterBodiesCode

Field type / facets: String (1-∞)

Guidance: Conditional: required if LinkSurfaceWaterBodies is Yes. Provide the EU water body/bodies codes for the associated Surface Water Body.

Quality check: required if LinkSurfaceWaterBodies is Yes. Should match to a EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode in SWB schema.

Schema element: LinkTerrestrial Ecosystems

Field type / facets: Y or N

Guidance: Required. Is a terrestrial ecosystem directly dependent on groundwater? Y=yes, N=No

In order for terrestrial ecosystems to be considered as part of the classification for groundwater bodies (GWBs), they need to be ‘directly dependent’ on the GWB. This means that the GWB should provide quantity (flow, level) or quality of water needed to sustain the ecosystems which are the reasons for the significance of the GWDTE. This critical dependence upon a GWB is most likely where groundwater supplies the GWDTE for a significant part or a significant timeperiod of the year. For more information see Technical Report No. 6 Technical Report on Groundwater - Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems.

Quality check:

64

Schema element: Geological Formation

Field type / facets: Closed list (1 - ∞):Porous - highly productive,Porous - moderately productive, Fissured aquifers including karst - highly productive,Fissured aquifers including karst - moderately productive,Fractured aquifers – highly productiveFractured aquifers – moderately productiveInsignificant aquifers - local and limited groundwaterNot availableUnknown

Guidance: Required. What is the main geological formation of the Aquifer Type? Select one from the enumeration list

Quality check:

Schema element: Transboundary

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Does the Groundwater body extend across national borders?

Quality check:

3.1.3.3. GIS information

GIS information: it is proposed to report GIS information for all groundwater bodies, instead of only those larger than 100 km2.

Attribute name Obligation Type Description

EU_CD_GW Required string (42) International code of the Ground Water Body as defined in the GWB reporting schema.

Code MUST have a 1-to-1 relationship with EUGroundWaterBodyCode and further attribute data described in the related XML file.

Horizon Required string (2) See Guidance Document on the Reporting of Horizon Information (Annex 4)

65

Horz_type Optional String(10) See Guidance Document on the Reporting of Horizon Information (Annex 4)

GW Sub-Unit Optional See Guidance Document on the Reporting of Horizon Information (Annex 4)

3.1.3.4. Glossary: clarification of terms and reporting requirements

Some countries which have large number of water bodies with low pressures group water bodies for the assessment of pressures and status. The information reported for the water bodies belonging to a group will therefore be identical.

3.2. Pressures and impacts on groundwater

3.2.1. Introduction

Article 5 of the WFD requires MS to identify the significant pressures present in the RBD likely to cause water bodies to be of less than good status. It also requires MS to assess the impacts on water bodies to support the determination of status.

See section on pressures and impacts for surface water bodies for further background information.

3.2.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information provided

The purpose of the collection of the information is to identify the main pressures within the RBD. The summary information will be used to compile maps at a European level of relevant pressures and to ensure that relevant pressures have been identified at RBD level. Statistics and information will be provided to the European Parliament at EU wide level. Information will be provided to the public through WISE.

3.2.2.1. Products from reporting

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

8 Significant pressures affecting groundwater bodies in poor status

Chart EU/National/ RBD/Subunits

Pressures affecting groundwater bodies in poor quantitative status

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

EEA2 pg 38

- Pollutants causing risk / TV exceedance / poor status

Table EU/National/ RBD/Subunits

Pollutants causing risk in how many GWB

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

-

66

3.2.3. Contents of 2016 reporting

3.2.3.1. Schema Sketch

3.2.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Schema element: GWSignificantPresureTypes

Field type / facets: Closed list: revised list of pressures (see annex) plus option "No significant pressures" (1 - ∞)

Guidance: Required. Indicate the significant pressure type(s) from the enumeration list.

Quality check: If status of the water body is less than good at least one significant pressure should be reported or "Unknown pressures" (the entry "No significant pressure" is not valid).

Schema element: GWOtherPressureDescription

Field type / facets: string

Guidance: Conditional: if "Other anthropogenic pressures" is selected indicate which other pressure. Only to be used if the Pressure Type is not in the enumeration list.

Quality check: Required if "Other anthropogenic pressures" is selected under GWSignificantPressureTypes

Schema element: GWSignificantImpactTypes

Field type / facets: Closed list of impacts (see annex) including option "No significant impacts" (1 - ∞).

Guidance: Required. Indicate the Impact Type(s) from the enumeration list.

Quality check: If status of the water body is less than good at least one significant impact should be reported (the entry "No significant impacts" is not valid).

Schema element: GWOtherImpactDescription

Field type / facets:

Guidance: Conditional: if "Other Significant Impacts" is selected from the enumeration list, indicate which other impacts. Only to be used if the Impact Type is not in the enumeration list

67

Quality check: Required if "Other significant impacts" is selected under GWSignificantImpactTypes

See Annex 1 for the list of drivers, pressures and impacts.

3.3. Quantitative status of groundwater

3.3.1. Introduction

Annex V of the Water Framework Directive specifies how Member States are to monitor groundwater and present quantitative status classification results.

The WFD requires that the results of the quantitative status assessment and the methodology used to classify groundwater bodies are reported. The requirements are laid down in WFD Annex V, and WFD Article 4.

Article 4(4-9) of the WFD allows MS to extend the deadlines for the achievement of good status/potential or to set other objectives under certain specified circumstances. Additional information can be found in the CIS Paper on "Environmental Objectives agreed in 2005.

Article 4(4-9) goes on to require MS to provide information regarding such extensions or other objectives and the reasons for it in the River Basin Management Plan.

3.3.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information

A key indicator of the level of compliance with the WFD will be the proportion of water bodies in good quantitative status in the River Basin District or Sub-unit, together with the number of groundwater bodies at risk of failing good quantitative status. The main part of the reported information will be used for visualisation and for providing information to the public through WISE. Furthermore, the data and maps will provide a comparison of current status with the baseline status reported in the first RBMPs (e.g. answering the question: how was the status before the programme of measures required by the WFD was implemented and has it improved?). This means that the requested data and maps will be essential for trend analysis, for policy development and for the assessment of policy effectiveness.

The Commission will use information provided by Member States on the classification of status and on exemptions to give summary statistics to the European Parliament and the public.

3.3.2.1. Products from reporting

Note: for all relevant products, information on water bodies can be presented by number of water bodies and by size (area).

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

52 Number, area and percentage of water bodies in good status and expected improvement

Table WB Nb, area of groundwater bodies in good quantitative status and expected improvement

Aggregation on the basis of the information provided at water body level

COM pg 6

68

54 Drivers responsible for failure of good status

Table RBD/SU Number & area of water bodies failing good status due to each driverPercentage of water bodies failing good status due to each driver in relation to total number of water bodies failing good status (total and per water category)

Aggregation on the basis of the information on pressures provided at water body level

It was not possible to produce (drivers were not reported unless linked to pressures reported at detailed level, which was optional)

79 Quantitative status of groundwater bodies

Map RBD Percentage of groundwater area not achieving good quantitative status

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA2 pg 37

81 Aggregation tables: Quantitative and chemical status of groundwater bodies

Table National/ RBD/Subunits

Number and size (area) of groundwater quantitative and chemical status by Subunit/RBD/country

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

WISE WFD database

- Progress in achieving good quantitative status since the first RBMP

Map/ Chart

National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of groundwater bodies( nb, area) which have achieved good quantitative status since the first RBMP

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at groundwater body level

Not relevant in 2010 reporting

86 Reasons behind article 4(4) exemption

Chart National Exemptions reported by Member States to extend the deadline of the achievement of good status beyond 2015 and reasons given (natural condition, technical feasibility, disproportionate costs or combinations of them)

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

(SWD pg 179 at EU level)

- Percentage of groundwater bodies expected to be in good quantitative status in 2015

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of groundwater bodies (nb, area) expected to be in good quantitative status in 2015

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

-

69

3.3.3. Contents of the 2016 reporting

3.3.3.1. Schema Sketch

3.3.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Schema element: GWBodyAtRiskQuantitative

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Is the Groundwater Body at risk of failing to be of good quantitative status? Concerning risks please follow the approach given in the CIS Guidance 26 on Groundwater risk assessment.

Quality check:

Schema element: ReasonsForRiskQuantitative

Field type / facets: Closed list:Water balanceSurface waterGroundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystemsSaline or other intrusion

Guidance: Conditional: if Groundwater Body is at risk of failing quantitative Status select reasons from the enumeration list. The criteria for failing good quantitative status are:

70

a) Exceedance of available groundwater resource by long-term annual average rate of abstraction that may result in a decrease of groundwater levels;b) Failure to achieve environmental objectives (Article 4 WFD) for associated surface water bodies resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions; Significant diminution of the status of surface waters resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions; c) Significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems resulting from an anthropogenic water level alteration; d) Regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced sustained changes in flow direction

Further guidance can be found in CIS Guidance Document 18 on the Groundwater Status and Trends Assessment.

Quality check: Required if GWBodyAtRiskQuantitative is Yes

Schema element: EORiskQuantitative

Field type / facets: Uses or Functions; Surface Waters/Terrestrial Ecosystems; both

Guidance: Conditional: if Groundwater Body is at risk of failing quantitative Status select the Environmental Objective/s to which the risk is related:

The actual or potential legitimate uses or functions of the GWB;The relationship between GWBs and the associated surface waters and directly dependent

terrestrial ecosystems

Quality check: Required if GWBodyAtRiskQuantitative is Yes

Schema element: QuantitativeStatusValue

Field type / facets: 2, 3 or U

Guidance: Required. Indicate the quantitative status of the groundwater body: 2=good, 3=poor, U=Unknown

Quality check:

Schema element: ReasonsForFailure

Field type / facets: Closed list:Water balanceSurface waterGroundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystemsSaline or other intrusion

Guidance: Conditional: if Groundwater Body is of Poor quantitative Status select reasons for failure from the enumeration list. The criteria for failing good quantitative status are:a) Exceedance of available groundwater resource by long-term annual average rate of abstraction that may result in a decrease of groundwater levels;b) Failure to achieve environmental objectives (Article 4 WFD) for associated surface water bodies resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions; Significant

71

diminution of the status of surface waters resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions; c) Significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems resulting from an anthropogenic water level alteration; d) Regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced sustained changes in flow direction

Further guidance can be found in CIS Guidance Document 18 on the Groundwater Status and Trends Assessment.

Quality check: Required if QuantitativeStatusValue is 3.

Schema element: AssessmentYear

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Provide the year on which the assessment of status is based. A period is possible (e.g. 2011-2013) or any other period.

Quality check:

Schema element: Confidence

Field type / facets: 0, 1, 2 or 3

Guidance: Required: Indicate the confidence on the Quantitative status assigned 0=no information or unknown, 1 = low confidence, 2 = medium confidence, 3 = high confidence. The criteria used by MSs to assess the confidence vary considerably, but general guidance may be the following: low = no monitoring data or no conceptual understanding; medium = limited or insufficiently robust monitoring data and expert judgment plays a significant role in assessment of status; high = good monitoring data and a good conceptual model/understanding of the system based on information on its natural characteristics and the pressures on it. Please also see CIS Guidance 7 on monitoring and 15 on groundwater monitoring.

Quality check:

Schema element: Expected2015GoodQuantitiativeStatusValue

Field type / facets: Yes or No

Guidance: Required. Indicate whether Member State expects to achieve good quantitative status by the end of 2015 or not. This may differ from “QuantitativeStatusValue“ because the assessment of status included in the 2015 RBMP will most likely be based on monitoring data from the period 2010-2014 at the latest, given that the draft RBMP will be prepared in 2014 for public consultation. Therefore, the status communicated in the RBMP may not necessarily reflect the expected status in 2015. Methodology of this assessment should be clearly explained in background documents (reference reported under classification methodologies).

Quality check:

Schema element: GoodQuantitativeStatusAchievementDate

72

Field type / facets: Closed list:

2016-2021, 2022-2027, beyond 2027, unknown, not relevant.

Guidance: Conditional: if good quantitative status will NOT be achieved by 2015 provide the date by which it is expected that it will be achieved. Methodology of this assessment should be clearly explained in background documents (reference reported under classification methodologies). If an exemption under article 4(5) is applied to this water body and objective, the date by when the less stringent objective is to be achieved needs to be reported (if the less stringent objective has already been achieved then 'not relevant' should be chosen).

Quality check: “Not relevant” should be selected only if Expected2015GoodEcological StatusOrPotential is “Yes”, otherwise other option should be selected.

Schema element: QuantitativeStatusExemption

Field type / facets: Closed list of Types of exemptions (1 - ∞):No exemptionArticle4(4) -Technical feasibilityArticle4(4) - Disproportionate costArticle4(4) - Natural conditionsArticle4(5) -Technical feasibilityArticle4(5) - Disproportionate costArticle4(6) - Natural causesArticle4(6) - Force MajeureArticle4(6) - AccidentsArticle4(7) - New modification

Guidance: Required. Report which type(s) of exemption apply (from the enumeration list) or "No exemption". More than one exemption may apply to a Water Body.

Quality check: if Expected2015GoodQuantitiativeStatusValue is No the entry "No exemption" is not valid.

Schema element: QuantitativeExemptionPressure

Field type / facets: Closed list of Pressures (see annex) (0 - ∞)

Guidance: Conditional: if any 4(4), 4(5) and/or 4(7) exemption applies to this water body, report the pressures causing failure and justifying the exemption(s) from the enumeration list

Quality check: If QuantitativeStatusExemption is any of the options for 4(4), 4(5) and/or 4(7) at least one pressure should be reported.

73

3.4. Chemical status of groundwater and exemptions

3.4.1. Introduction

Annex V of the Water Framework Directive specifies how Member States are to monitor groundwater and present chemical status classification results. The detailed provisions and criteria for status assessments are laid down in the Groundwater Directive.

In addition to the WFD reporting requirements, the Groundwater Directive introduces several additional reporting requirements to ensure that groundwater body status has been defined according to the provisions of the Directive, and in a consistent and comparable way across the EU.

The GWD requires that the results of the chemical status assessment and the methodology used to classify groundwater bodies are reported. The requirements are laid down in WFD Annex V, GWD Article 4, and Annex III (reporting requirements in GWD Article 4.4 and Annex III point 5).

Article 4(4-9) of the WFD allows MS to extend the deadlines for the achievement of good status or to set other objectives under certain specified circumstances. Additional information can be found in the CIS Paper on "Environmental Objectives" agreed in 2005.

Article 4(4-9) goes on to require MS to provide information regarding such extensions or other objectives and the reasons for it in the River Basin Management Plan.

3.4.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

A key indicator of the level of compliance with the WFD will be the proportion of water bodies in good chemical status in the River Basin District or Sub-unit, together with the number of groundwater bodies at risk of failing good chemical status. The main part of the reported information will be used for visualisation and for providing information to the public through WISE. Furthermore, the data and maps will provide a comparison of current status with the baseline status reported in the first RBMPs (e.g. answering the question: how was the status before the programme of measures required by the WFD was implemented and has it improved?). This means that the requested data and maps will be essential for trend analysis, for policy development and for the assessment of policy effectiveness.

The Commission will use information provided by Member States on the classification of status and on exemptions to give summary statistics to the European Parliament and the public.

3.4.2.1. Products from reporting

Note: for all relevant products, information on water bodies can be presented by number of water bodies and by size (area).

Nb Name of product Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

52 Number, area and percentage of water bodies in good status and expected improvement

Table WB Nb of groundwater bodies in good chemical status and expected improvement

Aggregation on the basis of the information provided at water body level

COM pg 6

74

54 Drivers responsible for failure of good status

Table RBD/SU Number, area of water bodies failing good status due to each driverPercentage of water bodies failing good status due to each driver in relation to total number of water bodies failing good status (total and per water category)

Aggregation on the basis of the information on pressures provided at water body level

It was not possible to produce (drivers were not reported unless linked to pressures reported at detailed level, which was optional)

76 Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Chart National Percentage of groundwater body area in poor and good chemical status

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 56

77 Chemical status of groundwater bodies

Map RBD Percentage of groundwater area not achieving good chemical status

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 57

78 Percentage of groundwater body area not achieving good chemical status due to nitrate

Map RBD Percentage of groundwater body area not achieving good chemical status due to nitrate

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level – water bodies with unknown status not included

EEA1 pg 58

81 Aggregation tables: Quantitative and chemical status of groundwater bodies

Table National/ RBD/Subunits

Number and size (area) of groundwater quantitative and chemical status by Subunit/RBD/country

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

WISE WFD database - www

84 Progress in achieving good status since the first RBMP

Map/ Chart

National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of water bodies which have achieved good quantitative and/or chemical status since the first RBMP

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

Not relevant in 2010 reporting

85 Progress towards achievement of good status since the first RBMP

Map/ Chart

National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of water bodies which have improved status since the first RBMP

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

Not relevant in 2010 reporting

86 Reasons behind article 4(4) exemption

Chart National Exemptions reported by Member States to extend the deadline of the achievement of good status beyond 2015 and reasons given (natural condition, technical feasibility, disproportionate costs or combinations of them)

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

- Instances where article 4(2)c of the GWD has been applied

Chart National/ RBD/Subunits

Number of groundwater bodies in which exceedances of quality standards and/or threshold values do not result in a failure of good chemical status

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

-

- Percentage of groundwater bodies in good chemical status in 2015

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of groundwater bodies in good chemical status in 2015

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

-

Percentage of groundwater bodies at risk

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of groundwater bodies At risk

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

75

Percentage of water bodies subject to an environmentally significant and sustained anthropogenically induced upward trend

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD/Subunits

Percentage of groundwater bodies At risk

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level

3.4.3. Proposed contents of the 2016 reporting

3.4.3.1. Schema Sketch

76

3.4.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Schema element: GWBodyAtRiskChemical

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Is the Groundwater Body at risk of failing to be of good chemical status?

Quality check:

Schema element: PollutantCausingRisk

Field type / facets: Enumeration list of pollutants (level 2): (Nitrates; Active substances in pesticides; Arsenic; Cadmium; Lead; Mercury; Ammonium; Chloride; Sulphate; Trichloroethylene; Tetrachloroethylene; Conductivity)

The list of pollutants is based on the threshold values established by Member States in the first RBMP cycle.

Guidance: Conditional: if Groundwater Body is at risk of failing chemical status select the pollutant(s) or indicator(s) of pollution that is/are causing the Groundwater Body to be at risk.

Quality check: Required if GWBodyAtRiskChemical is Yes

Schema element: OtherRelevantPollutantRisk

77

Field type / facets: Container of 2 fields for the CASnb and the name

Guidance: Conditional: if Groundwater Body is at risk of failing chemical status due to other pollutants not listed under PollutantCausingRisk, give the name of the other pollutant(s) or indicator(s) of pollution which is/are causing the groundwater body to be at risk in relation to chemical status. Give CAS number of the pollutant if available and/or relevant

Quality check:

Schema element: EQORiskChemical

Field type / facets: Uses or Functions; Surface Waters/Terrestrial Ecosystems; both

Guidance: Conditional: if Groundwater Body is at risk of failing chemical status select the Environmental Quality Objective/s to which the risk is related:

The actual or potential legitimate uses or functions of the GWB;The relationship between GWBs and the associated surface waters and directly dependent

terrestrial ecosystems

Quality check: Required if GWBodyAtRiskChemical is Yes

Schema element: GWChemicalStatusValue

Field type / facets: 2, 3 or U

Guidance: Required. Indicate the chemical status of the Water Body: 2=good, 3=failing to achieve good, U=unknown / no information

Quality check:

Schema element: ReasonsForFailure

Field type / facets: Closed listsaline or other intrusionsenvironmental surface waterGW dependent terrestrial ecosystemsdrinking water protected areageneral water quality assessment

Guidance: Conditional: if the Groundwater Body is of Poor Status (3) select criteria for failure from the enumeration list. Reasons are: a) Saline or other intrusions; b) Failure to meet environmental objectives in associated surface water bodies or significant diminution of the ecological or chemical status of such bodies c) Significant damage to terrestrial ecosystems which depend directly on the groundwater bodyd) Deterioration in quality of waters for human consumption.e) Significant impairment of human uses; Significant environmental risk from pollutants across the Groundwater Body

Quality check: Required if GWChemicalStatusValue is 3

78

Schema element: Confidence

Field type / facets: 0, 1, 2 or 3

Guidance: Required. Indicate the confidence on the Chemical status assigned 0=no information or unknown, 1 = low confidence, 2 = medium confidence, 3 = high confidence. The criteria used by MSs to assess the confidence vary considerably, but general guidance may be the following: low = no monitoring data or no conceptual understanding; medium = limited or insufficiently robust monitoring data and expert judgment plays a significant role in assessment of status; high = good monitoring data and a good conceptual model/understanding of the system based on information on its natural characteristics and the pressures on it. Please also see CIS Guidance 7 on monitoring and 15 on groundwater monitoring.

Quality check:

Schema element: AssessmentYear

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Provide the year on which the assessment of status is based. A period is possible (e.g. 2011-2013)

Quality check:

Schema element: GWExpected2015GoodChemicalStatus

Field type / facets: Yes or No

Guidance: Required. Indicate whether Member State expects to achieve good chemical status by the end of 2015 or not. This may differ from “GWChemicalStatusValue“ because the assessment of status contained in the RBMP will most likely be based in monitoring data from the period 2010-2014, given that the RBMP will be prepared in 2014 for public consultation. Therefore, the status communicated in the RBMP will not necessarily reflect the expected status in 2015.

Quality check:

Schema element: GWGoodChemicalStatusAchievementDate

Field type / facets: Closed list:

2016-2021, 2022-2027, beyond 2027, unknown, not relevant.

Guidance: Conditional: If Good Chemical Status will NOT be achieved by 2015 provide the date by which it is expected that it will be achieved. If an exemption under article 4(5) is applied to this water body and objective, the date by when the less stringent objective is to be achieved needs to be reported (if the less stringent objective has already been achieved then 'not relevant' should be chosen).

Quality check: “Not relevant” should be selected only if GWExpected2015GoodChemicalStatus is “Yes”, otherwise other option should be selected.

Schema element: BackgroundNaturalSubstancesIndicators

79

Field type / facets: Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead, Mercury, Ammonium, Nitrate, Chloride, Sulphate, Conductivity

Guidance: Conditional: if a background level is set, select the natural substance(s) or indicator of pollution with a background level from the enumeration list for which threshold values have been established and for which a natural background level is required.

Quality check:

Schema element: BackgroundOtherNaturalSubstances

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: if a background level is set which is not on the list BackgroundNaturalSubstancesIndicators, give the name(s) of the natural substance(s) or indicators for any other relevant pollutant for which threshold values have been established and for which a natural background level is required.

Quality check:

Schema element: BackgroundLevel

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: if a background level is set provide the numeric value or range of the natural background level.

Quality check: Required if BackgroundNaturalSubstancesIndicators or BackgroundOtherNaturalSubstances is filled in.

Schema element: BackgroundUnits

Field type / facets: mg/l, µg/l, ng/l and Sm-1

Guidance: Conditional: if a background level is set select the relevant units for the natural background concentrations/levels (the reporting unit of conductivity is milli Siemens per metre)

Quality check:

Schema element: UpwardTrend

Field type / facets: Y, N, U or NA

Guidance: Required. Yes or No or Unknown. If Yes, the pollutant/indicator of pollution that is showing a significant and sustained upward trend MUST be reported

Quality check:

Schema element: UpwardTrendPollutant

Field type / facets: List of pollutants (level 2)

Guidance: Conditional: if UpwardTrend is Y choose from enumeration list. The list has been

80

derived from the Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC with an indicative list of pesticides.

Quality check: If UpwardTrend is Y either UpwardTrendPollutant or UpwardTrendOtherRelevantPollutant or both should be filled in.

Schema element: UpwardTrendOtherRelevantPollutant

Field type / facets: Container of 2 fields for the CASnb and the name

Guidance: Conditional: if the pollutant is not on the list in UpwardTrendPollutant give the name of the pollutant or indicator of pollution. Give CAS number of the pollutant if available and/or relevant

Quality check: If UpwardTrend is Y either UpwardTrendPollutant or UpwardTrendOtherRelevantPollutant or both should be filled in.

Schema element: TrendReversal

Field type / facets: Y, N, U or NA

Guidance: Required. Yes or No. If Yes, the pollutant/indicator of pollution for which trend reversal applies MUST be reported

Quality check:

Schema element: TrendReversalPollutant

Field type / facets: List of pollutants (level 2)

Guidance: Conditional: if TrendReversal is Y choose from enumeration list. The list has been derived from the Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC with an indicative list of pesticides.

Quality check: If TrendReversal is Y either TrendReversalPollutant or TrendReversalOtherRelevantPollutant or both should be filled in.

Schema element: TrendReversalOtherRelevantPollutant

Field type / facets: Container of 2 fields for the CASnb and the name

Guidance: Conditional: if the pollutant is not on the list in TrendReversalPollutant Give the name of the pollutant or indicator of pollution. Give the CAS number of the pollutant if available and/or relevant

Quality check: If TrendReversal is Y either TrendReversalPollutant or TrendReversalOtherRelevantPollutant or both should be filled in

Schema element: PollutantsExceedancesNotCounted

Field type / facets: List of pollutants (level 2)

Guidance: Conditional: if there are exceedances which are not counted as failure of chemical status (cases in which Article 4(2)c of the GWD apply), report which ones.

Quality check:

81

Schema element: OtherPollutantsExceedancesNotCounted

Field type / facets: Container of 2 fields for the CASnb and the name

Guidance: Conditional: if there are exceedances which are not counted as failure of chemical status (cases in which Article 4(2)c of the GWD apply) and the pollutants are not on the list PollutantsExceedancesNotCounted, report other pollutants.

Quality check:

Schema element: PollutantCausingFailure

Field type / facets: List of pollutants (level 2)

Guidance: Conditional: if poor chemical status please select the pollutant(s) or indicator(s) of pollution that is/are causing the failure of the Groundwater Body to reach good chemical status.

Quality check: Required if GWChemicalStatusValue is 3

Schema element: OtherRelevantPollutantExceedance

Field type / facets: Container of 2 fields for the CASnb and the name

Guidance: Conditional: if Groundwater Body is failing chemical status due to other pollutants not listed under PollutantCausingFailure give the name of the other pollutant(s) or indicator(s) of pollution which is/are causing the exceedance of national standards or threshold values. Give CAS number of the pollutant if available and/or relevant

Quality check:

For each pollutant causing failure report the following if relevant:

Schema element: GWChemicalExemptionType

Field type / facets: Closed list (1 - ∞):No exemptionArticle4(4) -Technical feasibilityArticle4(4) - Disproportionate costArticle4(4) - Natural conditionsArticle4(5) -Technical feasibilityArticle4(5) - Disproportionate costArticle4(6) - Natural causesArticle4(6) - Force MajeureArticle4(6) - AccidentsArticle4(7) - New modificationArticle4(7) - Sustainable human developmentGWD Article 6(3) - Direct Discharges; GWD Article 6(3) - Small discharges; GWD Article 6(3) - Accidents/Exceptional Circumstances; GWD Article 6(3) - Artificial recharge/Augmentation; GWD Article 6(3) - Measures increase risk;

82

GWD Article 6(3) - Measures disproportionate cost; GWD Article 6(3) - Interventions in surface waters

Guidance: Required. Select from the enumeration list which type(s) of exemption apply to this water body and pollutant (or "No exemption"). More than one may apply to each Groundwater Body and pollutant.

Quality check: If GWChemicalStatusValue is 3 and GWExpected2015GoodChemicalStatus is No the entry "No exemption" is not valid.

Schema element: GWChemicalExemptionPressure

Field type / facets: Closed list of pressures (see Annex 1) (1 - ∞)

Guidance: Conditional: if an exemption is applied to this Groundwater Body and pollutant in terms of achievement of good chemical status select the pressure(s) behind it.

Quality check: Required except if GWChemicalExemptionType is "No exemption".

4. MONITORING (SCHEMAS SWM, GWM AND MONITORING)

4.1. Introduction

Article 8.1 of the WFD requires Member States to establish monitoring programmes for the assessment of the status of surface water and of groundwater in order to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each RBD. These requirements include monitoring of protected areas as far as the status of surface water and groundwater is concerned. The results of monitoring play a key role in determining whether water bodies are in good status and what measures need to be included in the RBMP in order to reach good status as a rule by 2015. Precise and reliable monitoring results are therefore a prerequisite for sound planning of investments in the programme of measures.

The WFD implementation report required by Article 18 of the WFD should include among others “a review of the status of surface water and groundwater in the Community undertaken in coordination with the European Environment Agency”. In the first implementation report this review was based on both the State of Environment (SoE) information provided by EEA Member Countries8 through the EIONET reporting and the status and pressure results reported at water body level (chapter 2 and 3 of this guidance). To obtain the best benefit out of this two level approach a better streamlining between WFD and SoE reporting is still needed. For the second reporting the review of status could hugely benefit from including the WFD monitoring results such as water quality data and biological data into the overall status assessment under Art. 18 by showing details on the development of the progress e.g. in the trends of status, pressures and impacts also in cases where objectives are not fully met.

Reporting should reflect the monitoring carried out to inform the 2015 RBMP. Given that monitoring programmes are usually dynamic and multiannual (i.e. in the cases of the quality elements with lower frequencies of monitoring), reporting should reflect as accurately as possible

8 EU 28 plus Island, Lichtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey83

the monitoring that has informed the preparation of the RBMP. Reporting is not intended to report future monitoring programmes.

The selection of the quality elements and parameters to be monitored should enable the detection of all significant pressures on water bodies. This is particularly important where the pressures and impact assessment may not have been adequate enough to identify all potential pressures and impacts in the RBD perhaps because of lack of information or methods or because of unexpected, anthropogenic activities within the RBD.

The results of surveillance monitoring should ensure that the potential impacts of all pressures on water bodies in the RBD are detected. Incomplete coverage of quality elements and water bodies in surveillance monitoring could lead to the non-detection of significant pressures, the incorrect classification of water status and inappropriate targeting of measures. Surveillance monitoring must also be able to detect long-term natural changes and those arising from anthropogenic pressures.

The selection of biological quality elements (BQEs) for operational monitoring should focus on those most sensitive to the identified pressures and impacts on water bodies. The results of operational monitoring are used (with the results of surveillance monitoring) in the classification of water bodies and to monitor progress of implemented measures in achieving the objectives of the Directive.

The results of monitoring are used in the assessment and classification of the status of water bodies (ecological and chemical for surface waters, chemical and quantitative for groundwater). The amount of monitoring undertaken in terms of quality elements, parameters, frequency and numbers of sites should be sufficient to obtain a reliable and robust assessment of the status of all water bodies in the RBD. Insufficient monitoring leads to a low confidence in the classification of water bodies, and as a result the (expensive) measures required to achieve objectives may be incorrectly targeted, and objectives such as restoration of water bodies to good status may not be achieved.

Directive 2009/90/EC lays down technical specifications for chemical analysis and monitoring of water status with the aim of improving the quality and comparability of monitoring results by establishing minimum performance criteria for methods of analysis to be applied by Member States when monitoring water status, sediment and biota, as well as rules for demonstrating the quality of analytical results.

4.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

The Commission will check comparability of the monitoring programmes between Member States and consistency with the requirements of Annex V WFD and the outcome of the Article 5 analysis. Moreover, the Commission will use this information to inform the European Parliament and the public about the implementation progress in the Member States. Finally, some of the base data are necessary to update a reference dataset with which monitoring results can be related and exchanged between the Member States and the European bodies more easily at a later stage.

The results on water quality, including from monitoring biological quality elements and priority substances, and important for the EEA to provide a trend assessment and overview of the status of and pressures affecting surface waters and groundwater. In the assessment of the results from the second RBMPs focus will be on illustrating improvement in status and progress in reducing pressures. This analysis can benefit from Member States reporting both water quality and biological monitoring results to EEA Waterbases.

84

Most Member States already report water quality monitoring results from most of their surface water and groundwater surveillance monitoring stations via EEA’s EIONET priority data flows (WISE-SoE) to EEAs Waterbases. Also monitoring results from biological quality elements are reported to EEAs Waterbases. This wealth of information already reported by EEA member countries including EU Member States can only be interpreted reasonably when streamlined with the WFD reporting. In the context of the implementation of the SEIS principles9 in the future the results from the EIONET water monitoring stations, which are in the majority also WFD monitoring stations, can be used in the mutual exchange of information between the SoE and WFD assessments and be the common basis for assessment of status of and pressures affecting Europe surface waters and groundwater. For this purpose reporting from more WFD monitoring stations, e.g. from operational stations, to EEAs Waterbases would be very valuable.

4.3. Products from reporting

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

25 Surface water monitoring sites

Map Monitoring site

Map of surface water monitoring sites by water category

Geographical location of monitoring sites as reported

SWD pg 90

26 Number of surveillance, operational and total monitoring stations by water category

Table National Number of surveillance, operational and total monitoring sites per surface water categoryNumber of surveillance, operational and quantitative monitoring sites for groundwater

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at monitoring site level

SWD pg 93

27 Number of surveillance and operational monitoring stations per 1000 km2

Chart National Number of surveillance and operational monitoring sites per 1000 km2

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at monitoring site level and total surface area of the RBD

SWD pg 94

28 Number of monitoring stations in surface waters used for monitoring the different types of quality elements

Table National Number of monitoring stations in surface waters used for monitoring the different types of quality elements (biological; hydromorphological; physico-chemical incl non-priority specific pollutants; priority substances,)

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at monitoring site level

SWD pg 95

29 Percentage of surface water bodies included in surveillance monitoring compared to total number of surface water bodies

Chart National Percentage of surface water bodies included in surveillance monitoring compared to total number of surface water bodies

Aggregation on the basis of the water body information reported at monitoring site level

SWD pg 96

30 Number of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring

Chart National Number of river water bodies included in surveillance monitoring, benchmarked to criteria in annex V section 1.3.1.

Aggregation on the basis of the water body information reported at monitoring site levelBenchmark is country land area divided by 2500 km2

SWD pg 97

9 SEIS – shared environmental information systems – collect once use multiple times85

31 Percentage of surface water bodies in surveillance monitoring in which all relevant biological quality elements are monitored

Chart National Percentage of surface water bodies in surveillance monitoring in which all relevant biological quality elements are monitored

Aggregation on the basis of the water body information reported at monitoring site level

SWD pg 98

32 Percentage of surface water bodies included in operational monitoring compared to total and compared to surface water bodies with significant pressures

Chart National Percentage of surface water bodies included in operational monitoring compared to total number of surface water bodies and compared to surface water bodies with significant pressures

Aggregation on the basis of the water body information reported at monitoring site level

SWD pg 100

33 Percentage of surface water bodies included in operational monitoring compared to total failing good ecological status

Chart National Percentage of surface water bodies included in operational monitoring compared to total number of surface water bodies failing to achieve good ecological status

Aggregation on the basis of the water body information reported at monitoring site and at water body level

Not used

34 Number of operational sites in relation to the population density of the Member State

Chart National Number of operational sites in relation to the population density of the Member State; population density is used as an indicator of the amount of potential pressure from human activity

Aggregation on the basis of the water body information reported at monitoring site level

SWD pg 101

35 Percentage of surface water bodies included in operational monitoring in which each biological quality element is measured

Chart National Percentage of surface water bodies included in operational monitoring in which phytoplankton, other aquatic flora, macroinvertebrates and fish are monitored

Aggregation on the basis of the water body information reported at monitoring site level

SWD pg 102

36 Percentage of surface water bodies monitored and classified (on the basis of monitoring or extrapolation) for chemical status

Chart National Percentage of surface water bodies classified for chemical status compared to the percentage of water bodies monitored for priority substances

Aggregation on the basis of information reported at water body and monitoring site levels

SWD pg 106

86

37 Percentage of surface water bodies in which each priority substance is monitored

Chart National Percentage of surface water bodies in which each priority substance is monitored

Aggregation on the basis of information reported at water body and monitoring site levels

It was not possible to produce (reporting of individual priority substances was optional; in addition in many cases information was not available in RBMP or background documents; generally very poor reporting of chemical status reflecting implementation gaps)

38 Number of priority substances reliably monitored in surveillance and/or operational monitoring (by MS)

Chart MS Number of priority substances monitored in each MS in accordance with QA/QC Directive performance requirements in surveillance and/or operational monitoring (by MS)

Aggregation of information reported at RBD level

It was not possible to produce (necessary information on QA/QC Directive implementation was not included in reporting requirements because not yet implemented)

39 Priority substances subjected to trend monitoring in sediment (by MS)

Table MS Priority substances subjected to trend monitoring in sediment (by MS)

Aggregation of information reported at water body level

It was not possible to produce (necessary information was not included in reporting requirements)

40 Priority substances subjected to trend monitoring in biota (by MS)

Table MS Priority substances subjected to trend monitoring in biota (by MS)

Aggregation of information reported at water body level

It was not possible to produce (necessary information was not included in reporting requirements)

41 Priority substances showing upward trend in biota or sediment (by MS)

Table MS Priority substances showing upward trend in biota or sediment (by MS), with matrix (sed/biota)

Aggregation of information reported at water body level

It was not possible to produce (necessary information was not included in reporting requirements)

42 Groundwater monitoring sites

Map Monitoring site

Map of groundwater monitoring sites for chemical and quantitative monitoring

Geographical location of monitoring sites as reported

SWD pg 91

43 Number of monitoring sites for quantitative and chemical groundwater monitoring

Chart National Number of monitoring sites for quantitative and for chemical groundwater monitoring

Aggregation on the basis of the water body information reported at monitoring site level

SWD pg 107

44 Density of groundwater monitoring sites for quantitative and chemical monitoring

Chart National Number of groundwater monitoring sites per 1000km2 of GW surface area for quantitative and chemical monitoring

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at monitoring site level and total surface area of the RBD

SWD pg 107

87

45 Percentage of groundwater bodies included in quantitative monitoring

Chart National Percentage of groundwater bodies included in quantitative monitoring

Aggregation on the basis of the water body information reported at monitoring site level

SWD pg 108

46 Number of monitoring sites per groundwater body for quantitative monitoring

Chart EU Number of groundwater bodies with 0, 1, 2-5, 6-10, and 11 and more monitoring sites for quantitative monitoring

Aggregation on the basis of the water body information reported at monitoring site level

SWD pg 109

47 Percentage of groundwater bodies in chemical surveillance monitoring

Chart National Percentage of groundwater bodies in chemical surveillance monitoring

Aggregation on the basis of the water body information reported at monitoring site level

SWD pg 109

48 Percentage of GWB included in chemical surveillance monitoring where all core parameters are monitored

Chart National Percentage of GWB included in chemical surveillance monitoring where all core parameters are monitored

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at monitoring site level

SWD pg 110

49 Percentage of groundwater bodies in chemical operational monitoring

Chart National Percentage of groundwater bodies in chemical operational monitoring

Aggregation on the basis of the water body information reported at monitoring site level

SWD pg 111

50 Relative number of groundwater bodies included in operational monitoring and those with significant pressures

Chart National Relative number of groundwater bodies included in operational monitoring and those with significant pressures

Aggregation on the basis of the water body information reported at monitoring site level

SWD pg 112

51 Number of monitoring sites per groundwater body for chemical monitoring

Chart EU Number of groundwater bodies with 0, 1, 2-5, 6-10, and 11 and more monitoring sites for chemical monitoring

Aggregation on the basis of the water body information reported at monitoring site level

SWD pg 112

- Number of monitoring sites per priority substance (SW only)

Chart or table

EU/National/ RBD/Subunit

Number of monitoring sites per priority substance differentiating matrix and purpose (status and trend)

Aggregation on the basis of the water body information reported at monitoring site level

-

88

83 Trend in median (a) total ammonium, (b) total phosphorus and (c) nitrate concentration of river water bodies, grouped by ecological status/potential class

Chart EU WFD water body information were linked with WISE SOE long time series data on water quality in rivers and lakes ((a) total ammonium, (b) total phosphorus and (c) nitrate concentration). The trend in water quality was presented for each ecological class and the trend lines were linear extrapolated to 2027 to illustrate if WBs in moderate to poor ecological status were approaching high/good ecological status.

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at water body level combined with information on river water quality from the WISE SOE database.

EEA1 pg 75

Example on combining water quality results with information on ecological status and potential – more examples are available in ETC/ICM 201210.

Figure 2 Rivers: Concentration range (1st quartile, median and 3rd quartile) of annual average nutrient concentrations in river water bodies in different classes of ecological status or potential (high to bad)

Notes: Average of mean annual water quality concentration values over the years 2005-2010. Based on results from 3368 river stations in 16 Member States, dominated by river stations in France (1416 stations) and the UK (555 stations).

4.4. Contents of the 2016 reporting

The data and information to be reported are first a description of the monitoring stations and then a specification of the different quality elements (QEs) and chemical substances monitored at the monitoring stations.

10 http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/ETC_Reports/EcoChemStatusPressInEurWaters_201211/Ecological_and_chemical_status_and_pressures_ETC_13112012_Published.pdf

89

Figure 3 presents a conceptual overview of reporting of WFD monitoring metadata (Article 8) and monitoring results to EEA WISE SOE Waterbases. In both reporting streams the monitoring stations have a common description with station codes and names and information on location and the monitoring stations relationship to waterbodies.

The Art. 8 reporting schemas ask for metadata on the WFD monitoring programs – for each station the following information has to be reported: information on the monitoring purpose (e.g. surveillance or operational monitoring); the quality elements and chemical substances monitored with information on frequency (e.g. samples per year); cycle (e.g. every second year) and the last year with monitoring.

The EEA WISE SoE (State of The Environment) ask for the actual observations such as annual average values for physico-chemical determinand or Ecological Quality Ratio’s data for the biological data flows.

Figure 3: Conceptual overview of reporting of WFD monitoring metadata (Article 8) and reporting monitoring results to EEA WISE SOE Waterbases

Monitoring stations

EURBDCode EU_CD (station_code) MS_CD(station_code) NEW_CD EIONET_CD NAME LAT, LON CATEGORY EUWaterBodyCode

Programme description Monitored quality elements

WFD article 8 reporting EEA WISE-SoE reporting

Determinands and observations

Water quality in Groundwater, Rivers, Lakes, Transitional and

Coastal waters

Biological data in Rivers, Lakes, Transitional and Coastal waters

SW/GW_MonitoringPurpose ASSOC_DOC_REF Programme_CD QE_CD_x (monitored quality

elements) OtherQE CHEMICAL_SUBSTANCE_CAS CHEMICAL_MATRIX_PURPOSE

For each quality element FREQUENCY CYCLE LAST_MONITORED (year)

For each water quality determinand Determinand_code Year (or date) Observations(average, median, etc.)

For each biological quality element BQE (biological quality element) Year (or date) Observation (EQR data)

Member States are expected to report to EEA Waterbases:

Water quality results incl. priority substances and river basin specific pollutants to EEAs Waterbases on groundwater, rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters

Results from monitoring Biological Quality Elements to EEAs Waterbases on rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters

Water quality results incl. priority substances and river basin specific pollutants to EEAs Waterbases on rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters

The reporting requirements are further described here

Reporting obligation for: Groundwater quality (EWN-3) http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/30.

90

Reporting obligation for: River quality http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/28

Reporting obligation for: Lake quality (EWN2) http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/29

Reporting obligation for: Marine Data (ME-1) http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/14

EEA plans in the coming year to provide digital metadata overviews of the information Member States and RBDs have reported to the different WISE database among others the first WFD database and the different WISE-SoE databases. These overviews will provide list of common monitoring stations between WFD and WISE-SoE reporting flows. In addition, a reference list of WFD Water body codes will be established helping in insuring consistency between the different water related directives (WFD, NiD, UWWT, Bathing Water) and WISE SoE.

Further streamlining between the reporting streams and a review of the SoE reporting guidance will be discussed with Eionet members during 2014.

4.4.1. Schema Sketch

91

92

4.4.2. Data and information to be reported using the schemas

SWM schema (reporting at station level):

Schema element: EU_CD

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Unique Code for the Monitoring Station at EU level. The same codes reported in 2007 and 2010 should be used for stations are still monitored

Quality check:

Schema element: EIONET_CD

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: if used under EIONET, report unique code for station used for EIONET water and SoE reporting. EEA will during the coming year provide an overview of common monitoring stations reported via the first RBMPs and WISE-SoE monitoring stations.

Quality check:

Schema element: MS_CD

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Unique Code for the Monitoring Station within the MS.

Quality check:

Schema element: NEW_CD93

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Is this a new monitoring station not previously reported? It is likely that monitoring networks have changed over time in relation to the increasing knowledge base arising from the results of the first monitoring cycles. If this station has not been reported in 2007 or 2010, please indicate that this is a new station.

Quality check:

Schema element: OLD_CD

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional. It is likely that monitoring networks have changed over time in relation to the increasing knowledge base arising from the results of the first monitoring cycles. If this station replaces a previous monitoring station reported in 2007 or 2010, indicate the code for the station that this replaces.

Quality check:

Schema element: LON

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Longitude in ETRS89 of the monitoring station

Quality check:

Schema element: LAT

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Latitude in ETRS89 of the monitoring station

Quality check:

Schema element: NAME

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional. Locally used name for the monitoring station

Quality check:

Schema element: EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Unique code of the surface water body at EU level as reported in the SWB schema in which the monitoring station is physically located on or near (in the rare cases where the monitoring station is not physically located in the water body).

Quality check: Should match a EUSurfaceWaterBodyCode reported under the SWB schema.

94

Schema element: SWMonitoringPurpose

Field type / facets: Closed list (1- ∞):

- Part of WFD surveillance monitoring network- Part of WFD operational monitoring network- Part of WFD investigative monitoring network- Reference network monitoring site- Monitoring of a drinking water protected area (Annex IV.1.(i))- Monitoring of a protected area designated for shellfish production (Annex IV.1.(ii))- Monitoring of a protected area designated for recreation/bathing water Directive (Annex

IV.1.(iii))- Monitoring of a nutrient sensitive areas under Nitrates Directive (Annex IV.1.(iv))- Monitoring of a nutrient sensitive areas under Urban Waste Water Directive (Annex IV.1.

(iv))- Monitoring of a protected area designated for the protection of habitats or species depending

on water (Annex IV.1.(v))- Part of Marine Strategy Framework Directive monitoring network- Station is part of an international network of a river convention- Station is part of an international network of a sea convention- Station is part of an international network of other international conventions- Other purposes and/or networks not listed above

Guidance:

Required. Report all purposes of the monitoring station.

If the station is part of the EIONET network, its EIONET code should be reported in the schema element EIONET_CD (see above).

As regards protected areas, report if the station is used for the assessment of the objectives of the protected area. If the station is located in a protected area but it is not used for assessing the specific objectives of that protected area you should not report that purpose.

Monitoring of nutrient sensitive areas should only be reported if the Member State has designated vulnerable zones under the Nitrates Directive and/or sensitive areas under the Urban Waste Water Directive (not to be reported if the country applies a whole country approach in the implementation of these Directives).

Quality check:

Schema element: ASSOC_DOC_REF

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional. Hyperlink or reference to associated documentation on the station. This document must be made available on the web or uploaded to WISE.

Quality check:

Schema element: Programme_CD

95

Field type / facets: String (1-∞)

Guidance: Required. EU code for surface water monitoring programmes that this site is part of.

Quality check: Must be one or more of the Programme_CD reported under Monitoring schema (reporting at RBD level)

Schema element: QE_CD_ECO

Field type / facets: Enumeration list (0 - ∞)

Guidance: Required. Please select (one by one) from the enumeration list all the QEs monitored at this station. (1 to 1, i.e. the station code is repeated for each QE monitored)

Biological QEs and sub-QEs

QE1-1 Phytoplankton; QE1-2 Other aquatic flora; QE1-2-1 Macroalgae; QE1-2-2 Angiosperms; QE1-2-3 Macrophytes; QE1-2-4 Phytobenthos; QE1-3 Benthic invertebrates; QE1-4 Fish; QE1-5 Other species:

Hydromorphological QEs

QE2-1 Hydrological regime: rivers; QE2-1-1 Quantity and dynamics of water flow; QE2-1-2 Connection to groundwater bodies; QE2-2 River continuity ; QE2-3 Morphological conditions: rivers; QE2-3-1 River depth and width variation; QE2-3-2 Structure and substrate of the river bed; QE2-3-3 Structure of riparian zone; QE2-4 Hydrological regime lakes; QE2-4-1 Quantity and dynamics of water flow; QE2-4-2 Residence time; QE2-4-3 Connection to groundwater bodies; QE2-5 Morphological conditions lakes; QE2-5-1 Lake depth variation; QE2-5-2 Quantity, structure and substrate of the lake bed; QE2-5-3 Structure of the lake shore; QE2-6 Morphological conditions transitional and coastal waters; QE2-6-1 Depth variation; QE2-6-2 Quantity, structure and substrate of the bed; QE2-7 Tidal regime: transitional waters; QE2-7-1 Freshwater flow; QE2-7-2 Wave exposure; QE2-8 Tidal regime coastal waters QE2-8-1 Direction of dominant currents; QE2-8-2 Wave exposure

Physicochemical QEs

QE3-1-1 Transparency; QE3-1-2 Thermal conditions; QE3-1-3 Oxygenation conditions; QE3-1-4 Salinity; QE3-1-5-2 Acidification status (e.g. pH); QE3-1-6-1 Nitrogen; QE3-1-6-2 Phosphorus; QE3-1-6-3 Silicate.

Quality check:

Schema element: OtherQE

Field type / facets String

Guidance: Conditional: if "other" has been reported for QE_CD, please enter the name of the other QEs monitored at this site.

Quality check

Schema element: CHEMICAL_SUBSTANCE_CAS

Field type / facets: String (0 - ∞)

Guidance: Conditional: if chemical monitoring is carried out in this monitoring station, give details of each of the specific chemical substances monitored, this includes priority substances and river

96

basin specific pollutants (if any).

Please note that according to the WFD priority substances are included in the assessment of chemical status and non-priority river basin specific pollutants are included in the assessment of ecological status. However, for the sake of simplicity in the reporting of monitoring programmes, they are required to be reported together.

Quality check: CAS should match a priority substance as per Annex 1 to EQS Directive (as amended in 2013) OR a CAS provided for river basin specific pollutants in element RBSPCAS in SWMET schema.

Schema element: CHEMICAL_MATRIX_PURPOSE

Field type / facets: Water status; settled sediment status; settled sediment trend; suspended sediment status; suspended sediment trend; biota status; biota trend (1 - ∞)

Guidance: Conditional: if chemical monitoring is carried out in this monitoring station, for each substance, indicate in which matrix it is monitored and for what purpose (status assessment or monitoring of trends in concentrations).

If there is more than one purpose include as many entries for the same substance as necessary.

Quality check: Required for all substances reported under CHEMICAL_SUBSTANCE_CAS

For each QE and substance report:

Schema element: FREQUENCY

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Frequency at which the QE is measured at this site. Guidance on what should be reported is given in the glossary below.

Quality check:

Schema element: CYCLE

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Monitoring cycle for this parameter QE. Guidance on what should be reported is given in the glossary below.

Quality check:

Schema element: LAST_MONITORED

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. The most recent year that this QE was monitored at this station. Enter -8888 if QE is yet to be measured

97

Quality check:

GWM schema (reporting at station level):

Schema element: EU_CD

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Unique Code for the Monitoring Station at EU level

Quality check:

Schema element: EIONET_CD

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: if used under EIONET, report unique code for station used for EIONET water and SoE reporting where relevant

Quality check:

Schema element: MS_CD

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Unique Code for the Monitoring Station within the MS

Quality check:

Schema element: NEW_CD

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Is this a new monitoring station not previously reported? If this station has not been reported in 2007 or 2010, please indicate that this is a new station.

Quality check:

Schema element: OLD_CD

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional. It is likely that monitoring networks have changed over time in relation to the increasing knowledge base arising from the results of the first monitoring cycles. If this station replaces a previous monitoring station reported in 2007 or 2010, indicate the code for the station that this replaces.

Quality check:

Schema element: LON

98

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Longitude in ETRS89 of the monitoring station

Quality check:

Schema element: LAT

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Longitude in ETRS89 of the monitoring station

Quality check:

Schema element: NAME

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional. Locally used name for the monitoring station

Quality check:

Schema element: EUGroundWaterBodyCode

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Unique code of the ground water body at EU level as reported in the GWB schema in which the monitoring station is physically located on or associated with.

Quality check: Should match a EUGroundWaterBodyCode reported under the GWB schema

Schema element: WELL_OR_SPRING

Field type / facets: W, S or O

Guidance: Required. Is the station a well or a spring or other?

Quality check:

Schema element: DEPTH

Field type / facets: U, M, L or A

Guidance: Required. Groundwater layer at which sampling occurs - upper, medium, lower or mixed.

Quality check:

Schema element: GWMonitoringPurpose

Field type / facets: Closed list (1-∞)

Monitoring of groundwater status;Monitoring a drinking water abstraction

99

Monitoring an industrial supplyMonitoring an abstraction for irrigationMonitoring for other purposes

Guidance: Required. Report all purposes of the monitoring station.

If the station is part of the EIONET network, its EIONET code should be reported in the schema element EIONET_CD.

Quality check:

Schema element: URL

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional. Provide a URL for integration of your own internet-based information. The Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

Quality check:

Schema element: PROGRAMME_CD

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. EU code for programme that this site is part of.

Quality check: Should match the PROGRAMME_CD under the Monitoring schema (reporting at RBD level).

Schema element: QUANTITATIVE

Field type / facets: Y, N, U or NA

Guidance: Required. Indicate if the station is used for quantitative monitoring.

Quality check:

Schema element: FREQUENCY_QUANTITATIVE

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Conditional: if quantitative monitoring takes place indicate the frequency. Guidance on what should be reported is given in the glossary below.

Quality check: Required if QUANTITATIVE is Y

Schema element: CYCLE_QUANTITATIVE

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Conditional: if quantitative monitoring takes place indicate the cycle. Guidance on what should be reported is given in the glossary below.

100

Quality check: Required if QUANTITATIVE is Y

Schema element: LAST_MONITORED_QUANTITATIVE

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Conditional: if quantitative monitoring takes place indicate the most recent year that this parameter was monitored at this station for quantitative purposes. Enter -8888 if parameter is yet to be measured.

Quality check: Required if QUANTITATIVE is Y

Schema element: CHEM_SURVEIL

Field type / facets: Y, N, U or NA

Guidance: Required. Indicate of the station is used for chemical surveillance monitoring.

Quality check:

Schema element: CHEM_OPERAT

Field type / facets: Y, N, U or NA

Guidance: Required. Indicate of the station is used for chemical operational monitoring.

Quality check:

Schema element: CHEMICAL_PARAMETER_CD

Field type / facets: Enumeration list

Guidance: Required. Code or name of the groundwater parameter. Report individual parameters.

Please select the monitored parameters from the enumeration list: GE2-1:Oxygen content; GE2-2:pH Value; GE2-3:Conductivity; GE2-4:Nitrate; GE2-5:Ammonium; GE3-1:Arsenic; GE3-2:Cadmium; GE3-3:Lead; GE3-4:Mercury; GE3-5:Chloride; GE3-6:Sulphate; GE3-7:Trichloroethylene; GE3-8:Tetrachloroethylene; GE3-9:Nitrites; GE3-10:Phosphorus; GE3-11:Other chemical parameters; GE3-12 Pesticides (Active substances in pesticides, including their relevant metabolites, degradation and reaction products) (1 to 1 relationship)

Quality check:

Schema element: CHEMICAL_PARAMETER_CD_OTHER

Field type / facets String

Guidance: Conditional: if “other” parameters have been selected for element “PARAMETER_CD”, please add the name of the other parameters used to monitor groundwater bodies.

Quality check:

101

Schema element: CHEMICAL_PARAMETER_PURPOSE

Field type / facets: Status, Trend or Both

Guidance: Required. Purpose for monitoring this parameter at this station: status (for assessment of status); monitoring trends in concentrations/ levels; both purposes.

Quality check:

For each parameter report the following:

Schema element: FREQUENCY

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Frequency at which this parameter is measured at this site. Guidance on what should be reported is given in the glossary below.

Quality check:

Schema element: CYCLE

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Monitoring cycle for this parameter. Guidance on what should be reported is given in the glossary below.

Quality check:

Schema element: LAST_MONITORED

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. The most recent year that this parameter was monitored at this station. Enter -8888 if parameter is yet to be measured

Quality check:

Monitoring schema (reporting at RBD level):

Schema element: PROGRAMME_CD

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. National code of monitoring programmes as used in the RBMPs/background document.

102

Quality check: should match the code provided at station level (at least for one station).

Schema element: NAME

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Name of the monitoring programme. The name of the monitoring programme should reflect its purpose such as surveillance, operational, investigative or drinking water monitoring programme and the water categories in which it is undertaken.

Quality check:

Schema element: CATEGORY

Field type / facets: RW; LW; TW; CW; GW

Guidance: Required. Water category(ies) in which this programme is undertaken. More than one category can apply to each programme.

Quality check:

Schema element: PURPOSE

Field type / facets: S; O; Q; I; Trend; Trans; DWPA; SHELL; HASP; BATH; ND; UWWT;

Guidance: Required. Select the purpose of monitoring from the enumeration list: more than one option possible.

S = SurveillanceO = OperationalQ = QuantitativeI = InvestigativeTREND = Trend detection and assessmentTRANS = TransboundaryDWPA = Drinking Water Protection AreasSHELL = Shellfish Protection AreasHASP = Habitat and Species Protection AreasBATH = Bathing WatersND = Nitrates DirectiveUWWT = Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive

Quality check:

Schema element: URL

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. URL for integration of your own internet-based information. The Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

103

Quality check:

4.4.3. GIS information

Not relevant. Monitoring stations are provided as XY coordinates.

4.4.4. Guidance on contents of RBMPs/background documents

The following provides guidance on contents that the Commission expects to find in the relevant chapter of the RBMP or in background documents. This guidance is not intended to be comprehensive in terms of what the Member States have to include in their RBMPs or background documents, rather to provide certain concrete elements of information that the Commission expects to find. To provide RBMPs or background documents Member States should either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

Provide a summary of the significant changes in the monitoring programmes undertaken for the first River Basin Management Plan (reported in 2007 and 2010) and those used to inform the development of the second river basin management plans up to 2015 and those planned to be undertaken up to 2021?

The detailed information on the design of each type of monitoring programmes, including objectives of monitoring, quality elements selected, rationale for the number and location of stations chosen, level of confidence and precision, etc.

Surface Waters

Which of the requirements and objectives given in Annex V 1.3.1 of the WFD are incorporated into the design of the surveillance monitoring programme for surface waters?

- supplementing and validating the impact assessment procedure detailed in Annex II,

- the efficient and effective design of future monitoring programmes,

- the assessment of long-term changes in natural conditions,

- the assessment of long-term changes resulting from widespread anthropogenic activity

- an assessment of the overall surface water status within each catchment or subcatchments within the river basin district

Surveillance monitoring requires that parameters indicative of all biological quality elements, and parameters indicative of all hydromorphological quality elements, and parameters indicative of all general physicochemical quality elements, and (conditionally)

104

priority list pollutants which are discharged into the river basin or sub-basin, and (conditionally) other pollutants discharged in significant quantities in the river basin or sub-basin are monitored. How have water bodies and quality elements been selected for surveillance monitoring (e.g. in relation to all potential pressures, on the basis of emissions inventories, selection of QEs to be monitored in water bodies included in surveillance monitoring)?

What are the reasons for the exclusion of any QEs that are not monitored in water bodies included in surveillance monitoring (e.g. lack of suitable method, practical considerations, scientific justification).

The operational monitoring programme should respond to the significant pressures identified in the pressures and impacts analysis required under Article 5. Which biological quality elements are selected in the operational monitoring programme to respond to different pressures/impacts? Please present a table like the following:

Biological Quality Elements used in operational monitoring (indicate in each cell the relevant BQEs from the enumeration list):

Impact Rivers Lakes Transitional waters

Coastal waters

Nutrient pollution

Organic pollution

Chemical contamination of water

Chemical contamination of sediment

Saline pollution

Acidification

Elevated temperatures

Altered habitats as a result of hydrological and morphololgical alterations

Other impacts

Enumeration list for RW and LW Enumeration list for TW and CW

Phytoplankton Phytoplankton

Phytobenthos Macroalgae

Macrophytes Angiosperms

Benthic invertebrates Benthic invertebrates

Fish Fish

Other (indicate) Other (indicate)

105

How are priority substances monitored in sediments and/or biota to assess long-term trends of priority substances? Article 3.3 of Directive 2008/105/EC (Article 3.6 in the current version as amended by Directive 2013/39/EU) states that “Member States shall determine the frequency of monitoring in sediment and/or biota so as to provide sufficient data for a reliable long-term trend analysis. As a guideline, monitoring should take place every three years, unless technical knowledge and expert judgment justify another interval.” Indicate the priority substances for which the monitoring of long term trends is undertaken in how many stations, with the matrices used and frequencies applied.

The WFD allows the grouping of water bodies for monitoring and assessment. Only similar types of water bodies can be grouped, for example, where the ecological conditions are similar or almost similar and in terms of the magnitude and type of pressure or combination of pressures on the water bodies. In all cases grouping must be technically or scientifically justifiable. Also the monitoring of sufficient indicative or representative water bodies in the sub-groups of surface water or groundwater bodies would have to provide for an acceptable level of confidence and precision in the results of monitoring, and in particular the classification of water body status. Explain and justify the basis for grouping, the categories of water bodies to which grouping has been applied and the extent of application. Explain differences if methodology differs between water categories.

Provide a summary of how the requirements associated with surface water and groundwater drinking water protected areas have been incorporated into the monitoring programmes for the WFD?

Provide a summary of transboundary monitoring networks for surface water and groundwater bodies, including when the transboundary country is not a EU Member State.

Groundwater

Annex V of the WFD requires Member States to monitor a set of core parameters in all groundwater bodies and parameters indicative of pressures in groundwater bodies identified as being at risk for surveillance monitoring. In the case of operational monitoring, Member States should monitor only those parameters which are indicative of the pressures to which the body is subject. How have the parameters in groundwater monitoring programmes been selected to respond to different pressures/impacts?

How are the groundwater chemical status monitoring programmes designed in order to detect significant and sustained upward trends in pollutants? Indicate which aspects, and how, were they incorporated in the monitoring programme:

o Trend assessment only carried out in groundwater bodies at risk of not meeting WFD objectives

o Trend assessment on groundwater bodies not currently at risk in order to distinguish long term trends both as a result of changes in natural conditions and through anthropogenic activity

o Trend assessment based on surveillance and operational monitoring data from individual monitoring sites

106

o Statistical method for assessing trends at each monitoring point (statistical method adapted to initial conditions such as regression analysis for normal distributions and non-parametric tests for non-normal distributed time series)

o Individual parameter concentrations (or values) below Limit of Quantification (LOQ) replaced by half of the value of the highest LOQ occurring in the time series being analysed;

o How upward trends were identified in sufficient time to allow measures to be implemented;

o Length of time series considered to be appropriate to detect significant trends

o How baseline levels for substances which occur both naturally and from anthropogenic sources were considered

o How was it ensured that upward trends can be distinguished from natural variation with an adequate level of confidence and precision;

o What was considered to be an acceptable level of confidence in the trend assessment;

4.4.5. Glossary: clarification of terms and reporting requirements

The FREQUENCY and CYCLE elements are used together to describe the frequency at which the quality elements are determined at surface waters monitoring stations, and parameters in groundwater monitoring.

Frequency is the number of determination or sampling events made in a year when monitoring is undertaken. For example; 12 equates to approximately 12 monthly determinations, 4 equates to determinations approximately every 3 months; 2 equates to determinations approximately every 6 months or twice a year; and 1 to 1 determination in the year.

Cycle is the period (years) between the years when monitoring is undertaken within the 6 year planning cycle. For example, 1 indicates that the element will be monitored every year in the 6 year cycle, a “2” once every 2 years (i.e. 3 times in the cycle) and a “3”once every 3 years (i.e. twice in the cycle). A “0” in the "Cycle" field means that the programme will be implemented once per cycleand depending on the results, future monitoring will be decided.

Some QEs (such river flow regime) or parameters (e.g. groundwater level) are measured continuously. In these cases, please enter 365 in the frequency element and 1 in the cycle element.

Some examples are given below.

FREQUENCY CYCLE DESCRIPTION

12 1 The element is determined monthly every year

1 2 The element is determined once every two years

12 0 The element is determined

107

monthly for one year only (i.e. the cycle is not repeated)

365 1 The element is determined daily every year or continuously (i.e water table level or river flow...)

5. PROTECTED AREAS (SCHEMAS SWB, GWB AND PROT AREAS)

5.1. Introduction

According to Article 6 and Annex IV, Member States shall ensure the establishment of a register or registers of all areas lying within each river basin district which have been designated as requiring special protection under specific Community legislation for the protection of their surface water and groundwater or for the conservation of habitats and species directly depending on water, including the protection of Natura 2000 sites and economically significant aquatic species (e.g. shellfish).

A summary of the register of protected areas should be part of the RBMPs, including maps indicating the location of each protected area and a description of the Community, national or local legislation under which the protected areas have been designated. It is expected that all protected areas will be reported under the Surface Water Body and Groundwater Body schemas.

The relevant EU legislation for the protection of water with more stringent objectives includes the following directives:

Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC, as amended by Directive 98/83/EC).

Shellfish Directive (2006/113/EC).

Freshwater Fish Directive (2006/44/EC).

Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC).

Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC).

Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC).

Birds Directive (2009/147/EC).

Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC).

The Freshwater Fish Directive and the Shellfish Directive were repealed on 22 December 2013. According to the WFD the level of protection should be maintained through the inclusion of the designated areas as protected areas under WFD. The necessary additional objectives and measures should be included in the RBMP and PoM.

For water bodies which are designated as a protected area, the environmental objectives set are beyond good status, as more stringent objectives have been set out for those areas in the relevant Community legislation.

108

Annex VII (7)(1) WFD requires that the RBMPs contain 'a summary of the measures required implementing Community legislation for the protection of water'. The additional measures for protected areas should be an integral part of the RBMPs in order to ensure that the requirements of those protected areas are included in the overall management of the RBDs and to ensure the coherence of the entire water planning with the objectives already established by other Community and national legislation. Article 4.1(c) of the WFD states that “Member States shall achieve compliance with any standards and objectives at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive, unless otherwise specified in the Community legislation under which the individual protected areas have been established”. Therefore, water bodies must be of good status by 2015 at the latest, and earlier if required by another piece of Community legislation. If a water body is not of good status then it would be expected that an exemption under Article 4.4 would be applied.

The additional measures can be of the same nature as those for the WFD (e.g. measures to reduce nitrogen loss from agriculture or measures to improve the hydromorphological status in a river) but they need to reach a higher level of improvement of status. Or they may need to address different aspects of pollution which are not included in the WFD definition of good status, such as microbiological standards for the protection of shellfish and bathing waters. There can also be different kinds of measures targeted towards the specific objectives for the protection of the area.

As with any other WFD environmental objective, exemptions may apply provided the conditions in the relevant articles are fulfilled. In the case of protected areas, it needs to be ensured that the WFD exemptions do not undermine the objectives under the relevant legislation. Reporting of exemptions linked to protected areas refer only to the additional objectives set (e.g. based on article 4(1)c). Exemptions from the WFD objectives in articles 4(1)a and 4(1)b are reported in the context of the reporting of the relevant status of surface or groundwater (see relevant parts of sections 2 and 3).

5.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

The Commission will use the information provided by Member States on protected areas to ensure that a register of protected areas has been established in the RBD, and that the appropriate levels of protection are in place.

5.3. Products from reporting

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

91 Number of protected areas of each type

Table National Nb of protected areas of each type reported

Aggregation on the basis of the reported register of protected areas

SWD pg 84

92 Number of protected areas

Chart National Number of protected areas of each type at country level

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at protected area level

SWD pg 176

- Status of protected areas

Table National Number of protected areas (by type) achieving objectives

Aggregation on the basis of the information reported at protected area level

-

109

5.4. Contents of the 2016 reporting

5.4.1. Schemas Sketch

110

5.4.2. Data and information to be provided using the schemas

In SWB schema (for each surface water body)

Schema element: EUProtectedAreaCode

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Input the code of each Protected Area code (i.e. as previously reported under other directives) associated with the surface water body.

For each newly reported Protected Area input a code and use PROT_AREA schema to provide details.

This report only relates to water-dependent Protected Areas

Quality check:

Schema element: TypeOfAssociation

Field type / facets: within protected area; overlapping (partly within); or dynamically connected

Guidance: Required. For each Protected area associated with the surface water body, choose from the enumeration list the type of association (water bodies and protected areas will not always overlap 1:1. Protected Areas may include more than water body and a water body may overlap more than one Protected Area).

Quality check:

Schema element: TypeOfProtectedArea (1-∞)

Field type / facets: Bathing; Birds; Fish; Shellfish; Habitats; Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Sensitive Area, Nitrates; Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water; Other

111

Guidance: Required. Indicate the type of Protected Area as defined in the enumeration list.

If the Member State apply a whole territory approach for Urban Waste Water and/or Nitrates Directive it should not report water bodies as protected areas.

Quality check:

Schema element: HabitatsBirdsProtAreaObjective

Field type / facets: Closed list (choose one reply):

Yes, specific water objectives have been set to protect all water dependent habitats and species

Yes, some specific water objectives have been set to protect water dependent habitats and species but work is still on-going to determine needs

No, no specific water objectives have been set to protect water dependent habitats and species because the achievement of WFD good status is sufficient to achieve favourable conservation status

No, no specific water objectives have been set to protect water dependent habitats and species because additional needs are not known

Guidance: Conditional: required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Habitats or Birds. Indicate whether specific water objectives have been set to protect relevant water dependent protected habitats and species.

Quality check: required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Habitats or Birds.

Schema element: ShellfishProtAreaObjective

Field type / facets: Closed list (choose one reply):

Yes, microbiological standards have been set to protect shellfish and these are identical to those in the repealed Shellfish Directive 2006/113/EC

Yes, microbiological standards have been set to protect shellfish and these are different to those in the repealed Shellfish Directive 2006/113/EC

No, no microbiological standards have been set to protect shellfish

Guidance: Conditional: required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Shellfish. Indicate whether microbiological standards have been set to protect shellfish.

Quality check: required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Shellfish.

Schema element: DrinkingProtAreaObjective

Field type / facets: Closed list (choose one reply):

Yes, specific standards have been set in the water body/protected area for all relevant parameters to protect the drinking water quality

No, no specific standards have been set in the water body/protected area to protect the drinking

112

water quality.

Guidance: Conditional: required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Article 7 abstraction for drinking water. Indicate whether additional standards have been set to protect drinking water. “Standards” mean specific quality objectives for pollutants for the protection of drinking water. Choose “No” if it is considered that other measures taken are sufficient to protect drinking water.

Quality check: required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Article 7 abstraction for drinking water.

Schema element: ValueStatusHabitatsBirdsProtectedArea

Field type / facets: Closed list (choose one)

Yes, the specific water objectives set to protect water dependent habitats and species are met

No, the specific water objectives set to protect water dependent habitats and species are not yet met

No information.

Guidance: Conditional: required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Habitats or Birds AND if specific water objectives have been set (HabitatsBirdsProtAreaObjective is any of the two Yes options). Indicate if the specific water objectives set to protect water dependent habitats and species are met or not.

Quality check: Required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Habitats or Birds AND HabitatsBirdsProtAreaObjective is any of the two Yes options

Schema element: ValueStatusShellfishProtectedArea

Field type / facets: Closed list (choose one)

Yes, the microbiological standards set to protect shellfish are met

No, the microbiological standards set to protect shellfish are not met

No information

Guidance: Conditional: required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Shellfish AND if microbiological standards have been set (ShellfishProtAreaObjective is any of the two Yes options). Indicate if the microbiological standards set to protect shellfish are met or not.

Quality check: Required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Shellfish AND ShellfishProtAreaObjective is any of the two Yes options

Schema element: ValueStatusDrinkingProtectedArea

Field type / facets: Closed list (choose one)

Yes, the specific standards set in the water body/protected area to protect the drinking water quality are met

No, the specific standards set in the water body/protected area to protect the drinking water quality are not met

113

No information

Guidance: Conditional: required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Drinking AND if specific standards to protect drinking water quality have been set (DrinkingProtAreaObjective is Yes). Indicate if the specific standards for the protection of drinking water quality are met or not.

Quality check: Required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Drinking AND DrinkingProtAreaObjective is Yes

Schema element: CommentValueStatusProtArea

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional: If objectives are not met for the protected area, provide further explanation (which standards are not met, reasons, etc).

Quality check:

Schema element: ProtAreaExemptions

Field type / facets: Closed list (1 - ∞):No exemption applyArticle4(4) -Technical feasibilityArticle4(4) - Disproportionate costArticle4(4) - Natural conditionsArticle4(5) -Technical feasibilityArticle4(5) - Disproportionate costArticle4(6) - Natural causesArticle4(6) - Force MajeureArticle4(6) - AccidentsArticle4(7) - New modificationArticle4(7) - Sustainable human development

Guidance: Required. Report Exemptions from protected area objectives at water body level (if any) from the enumeration list. Provide further details in the RBMP/Background documents, for more information see Section 5.4.4 below.

Quality check:

In GWB schema (for each groundwater body):

Schema element: EUProtectedAreaCode

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Input the code of each Protected Area code (i.e. as previously reported under other directives) associated with the groundwater body.

For each newly reported Protected Area input a code and use PROT_AREA schema to provide details.

114

This report only relates to water-dependent Protected Areas

Quality check:

Schema element: TypeOfAssociation

Field type / facets: within protected area; overlapping (partly within); or dynamically connected

Guidance: Required. For each Protected area associated with the groundwater body, choose from the enumeration list the type of association (water bodies and protected areas will not always overlap 1:1. Protected Areas may include more than water body and a water body may overlap more than one Protected Area)

Quality check:

Schema element: TypeOfProtectedArea

Field type / facets: Birds; Habitats; Nitrates; Article 7 Abstraction for drinking water; Other

Guidance: Required. Indicate the type of Protected Area as defined in the enumeration list. Fewer Protected Area types relevant to groundwater bodies. Birds and Habitats is relevant if protected habitats and species rely on groundwater dependent surface waters or terrestrial ecosystems.

Quality check:

Schema element: HabitatsBirdsProtAreaObjective

Field type / facets: Closed list (choose one reply):

Yes, specific water objectives have been set to protect all groundwater dependent habitats and species

Yes, some specific water objectives have been set to protect groundwater dependent habitats and species but work is still on-going to determine needs

No, no specific water objectives have been set to protect groundwater dependent habitats and species because the achievement of WFD good status is sufficient to achieve favourable conservation status

No, no specific water objectives have been set to protect groundwater dependent habitats and species because additional needs are not known

Guidance: Conditional: required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Habitats or Birds. Indicate whether specific water objectives have been set to protect relevant groundwater dependent protected habitats and species.

Quality check: required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Habitats or Birds.

Schema element: DrinkingProtAreaObjective

Field type / facets: Closed list (choose one reply):

115

Yes, specific standards have been set in the groundwater body/protected area for all relevant parameters to protect the drinking water quality

No, no specific standards have been set in the groundwater body/protected area to protect the drinking water quality.

Guidance: Conditional: required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Article 7 abstraction for drinking water. Indicate whether additional standards have been set to protect drinking water. “Standards” mean specific quality objectives for pollutants for the protection of drinking water. Choose “No” if it is considered that other measures taken are sufficient to protect drinking water.

Quality check: required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Article 7 abstraction for drinking water.

Schema element: ValueStatusHabitatsBirdsProtectedArea

Field type / facets: Closed list (choose one)

Yes, the specific groundwater objectives set to protect groundwater dependent habitats and species are met

No, the specific groundwater objectives set to protect groundwater dependent habitats and species are not yet met

No information.

Guidance: Conditional: required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Habitats or Birds AND if specific groundwater objectives have been set (HabitatsBirdsProtAreaObjective is any of the two Yes options). Indicate if the specific groundwater objectives set to protect groundwater dependent habitats and species are met or not.

Quality check: Required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Habitats or Birds AND HabitatsBirdsProtAreaObjective is any of the two Yes options

Schema element: ValueStatusDrinkingProtectedArea

Field type / facets: Closed list (choose one)

Yes, the specific standards set in the groundwater body/protected area to protect the drinking water quality are met

No, the specific standards set in the groundwater body/protected area to protect the drinking water quality are not met

No information

Guidance: Conditional: required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Drinking AND if specific standards to protect drinking water quality have been set (DrinkingProtAreaObjective is Yes). Indicate if the specific standards for the protection of drinking water quality are met or not.

Quality check: Required if TypeOfProtectedArea is Drinking AND DrinkingProtAreaObjective is Yes

Schema element: CommentValue StatusProtArea

116

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional: If objectives are not met for the protected area, provide further explanation (which standards are not met, reasons, etc)..

Quality check:

Schema element: ProtAreaExemptions

Field type / facets: Closed list (1 - ∞):No exemption applyArticle4(4) -Technical feasibilityArticle4(4) - Disproportionate costArticle4(4) - Natural conditionsArticle4(5) -Technical feasibilityArticle4(5) - Disproportionate costArticle4(6) - Natural causesArticle4(6) - Force MajeureArticle4(6) - AccidentsArticle4(7) - New modificationArticle4(7) - Sustainable human development

Guidance: Required. Report Exemptions from protected area objectives at water body level (if any) from the enumeration list. Provide further details in the RBMP/Background documents, for more information see Section 5.4.4 below.

Quality check:

Protected area schema (protected area level) (see Section 5.4.4 for further explanation)

Schema element: EUProtected AreaCode

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Unique code for the Protected Area at EU level. In the case of Protected Areas reported under other directives please use the same code, preceded by the two-letter ISO Country code if necessary. It is expected that the same and/or overlapping Protected Areas would have different identifying codes under the different Directives under which they are designated.

Quality check:

Schema element: PROT_AREA_ MS_CD

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Unique code for the Protected Area within the MS (as used in the RBMP or relevant documentation).

117

Quality check:

Schema element: PROT_AREA_ NAME

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional. Local name of the Protected Area

Quality check:

Schema element: INSPIRE_ID

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional. The Inspire ID for the protected area.

Quality check:

Schema element: LAT

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Latitude in ETRS89 of the centroid of the Protected Area. When linear or area entities are represented as points (centroids) these should be ‘geometric’ centroids in the sense that the point should fall inside a polygon representation or for linear features be a point on the line.

Quality check:

Schema element: LON

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Longitude in ETRS89 of the centroid of the Protected Area. When linear or areal entities are represented as points (centroids) these should be ‘geometric’ centroids in the sense that the point should fall inside a polygon representation or for linear features be a point on the line.

Quality check:

Schema element: AREA

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Area of the Protected Area in km2 (if more appropriate, length in km should be provided - see LENGTH element)

Quality check:

Schema element: LENGTH

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Length of the Protected Area in km (if more appropriate, area in km2 should be provided - see AREA element)

118

Quality check:

Schema element: LegislationReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional. Hyperlink or reference to the appropriate European / National / Local Legislation under which the area is protected Either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated..

Quality check:

5.4.3. GIS Information

GIS layers for protected areas according to the specifications of the guidance for reporting spatial data. If they are reported under other directives (e.g. Natura 2000 protected areas under the Habitats Directive, sensitive areas under UWWTD or vulnerable zones under the Nitrates Directive) they do not need to be reported again.

5.4.4. Glossary: clarification of terms and reporting requirements

Article 7 Drinking Water Protected Areas:

According to Article 7.2 of the WFD MS should ensure that, under the water treatment regime applied, the resulting water will meet the requirements of the Drinking Water Directive. For this purpose Member States are expected to set additional standards in the water bodies used for the abstraction of drinking water. Reporting request whether this is the case and whether these standards are met or not.

Bathing Water Directive:

In general MS would not be expected to provide information on the status of bathing waters under the WFD as there is an annual reporting exercise that provides this information and this has been successfully integrated into WISE.

Birds and Habitats Directives:

"Favourable conservation status" of protected habitats and species is not assessed at site level but at national level per biogeographic region, taking into account the overall situation. Water dependent habitats and species may require more stringent protection than that afforded by the WFD objective of good status, i.e. more stringent standards for some physico-chemical parameters, high status for specific hydromorphological parameters or specific quantities of water. In the context of the WFD reporting therefore, MS would be expected to report whether this specific and additional needs of

119

water dependent habitats and species have been evaluated and set as objectives under the WFD Article 4(1)c. The status of the protected area is then assessed against these specific additional water objectives and the result of such assessment reported. Note that there may be cases where the WFD relevant objectives are met but still the habitats and species are not in favourable conservation status, due to other non-water dependent requirements. In addition, the comment box in the schema (CommentValueStatusProtArea) can be used to give additional information about the habitats or species that are relevant in the Protected Areas overlapping with each particular water body.

Shellfish directive:

Microbiological standards are essential for the quality of shellfish water. It is requested to report if these standards have been set (or maintained from the shellfish water directive) and if they are met of not.

Fish directive:

It is considered that the WFD objective of good ecological status integrates fully the objectives of the Fish Directive, so no further information is requested as regards specific objectives and status for this type of protected area.

Nitrates Directive:

It is considered that the WFD objective of good ecological status integrates fully the objectives of the Nitrates Directive of protecting from eutrophication, so no further information is requested as regards specific objectives and status for this type of protected area. In addition, there is a regular reporting exercise under the Nitrates Directive.

Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive:

This type of Protected Area is reported in the Register of Protected Area (PA Schema) but status information in not relevant in this context. Eutrophication status is captured by WFD ecological status.

6. REPORTING AT MS LEVEL: COMPETENT AUTHORITIES, RBDS AND SUB-UNITS (SCHEMA RBDSUCA)

6.1. Introduction

The Water Framework Directive defines the River Basin District (RBD) as ‘the area of land and sea, made up of one or more neighbouring river basins together with their associated groundwaters and coastal waters…’. A 'river basin means the area of land from which all surface run-off flows through a sequence of streams, rivers and, possibly, lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta.' One river basin, including all its tributaries, must not be divided between different RBDs. One RBD may however include several (sometimes smaller) river basins, and shall also include associated coastal areas and groundwaters (e.g. Bothnian Bay (SE) or Adour-Garonne (FR)).

The RBD is the main unit for management of river basins as specified in Article 3(1) for which competent authorities (in both national and international RBDs) need to be identified that will apply the rules of the Directive (Article 3(2) and Article 3(3)). Through Article 3(4) and Article 3(5) there is a requirement to co-ordinate the actions (nationally and internationally) to achieve the environmental objectives established by the Directive (Art. 4) through the planned PoMs.

120

This designation of RBDs is therefore one of the core aspects of the integrated river basin management approach setting out the geographical extent for the co-ordination of water resources. The principle of holistic water management at the catchment level, from source to sea and based on surface waters and associated groundwater, rather than on administrative boundaries, is reflected in the requirement for RBD designation.

The WFD requires the designation of competent authorities (Article 3, Annex I) within each RBD including for the portion of any international RBD lying within their territory. Member States notified the Commission of their competent authorities in 2004. In addition to name and geographical coverage, information was also provided on the legal and administrative responsibilities of each competent authority and of its role within each RBD. Where the competent authority acts as a co-ordinating body for other competent authorities, a list is required of these bodies together with a summary of the institutional relationships established to ensure co-ordination. The RBMPs should also include a list of competent authorities in accordance with Annex I (WFD Annex VII.10.).

6.2. How the Commission and EEA will use the information reported

The information will be used to ensure that appropriate governance arrangements are in place in the Member States to ensure the proper implementation of the Directive. The information will also be used to identify the relevant competent authorities involved in the implementation of the Directive should further information be required.

6.3. Products from reporting

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

- Basic information on RBDs and Sub-units

Table EU/National/ RBD/Subunits

Number and size (area) of RBDs and sub-units, national or international character.

Aggregated information on the basis of information provided at RBD/sub-unit level

-

121

6.4. Contents of the 2016 reporting

6.4.1. Schema Sketch

122

6.4.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

For each competent authority:

Schema element: EUCACode

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Unique EU code for the Competent Authority. Add the Two-letter ISO Country code followed by the Member State unique id - up to 42 characters in total.

Quality check:

Schema element: CompetentAuthority Name

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Official name of the Competent Authority in English. Where a number of small competent authorities have a key involvement they can be reported as a generic group, e.g. “municipalities”, rather than each competent authority being recorded as a specific entity.

Quality check:

Schema element: CompetentAuthority NameNL

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Official name of the Competent Authority in National Language

Quality check:

Schema element: URL

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Website address of the Competent Authority (may not be reported where a generic group is reported (see CompetentAuthorityName)

Quality check:

123

Schema element: Acronym

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: Acronym for the Competent Authority (if it exists)

Quality check:

Schema element: Auth_CD

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional. Unique National code for the Competent Authority

Quality check:

Schema element: Street

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional.

Quality check:

Schema element: City

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional.

Quality check:

Schema element: CityNL

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional.

Quality check:

Schema element: Country

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional.

Quality check:

Schema element: Postcode

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional.

124

Quality check:

Schema element: MainRole

Field type / facets: Closed list (1 - ∞)

Pressure and impact analysisEconomic analysis Monitoring of surface waterMonitoring of groundwaterAssessment of status of surface waterAssessment of status of groundwaterPreparation of RBMPPreparation of PoMImplementation of measures Public participationEnforcement of regulations (e.g. taking action when permits are breached)Coordination of implementationReporting to the European Commission

Guidance: Required. For each competent authority, identify their main role/s in the implementation of the WFD in the RBD.

Quality check: at least one competent authority has to be identified as “main” for each role

Schema element: OtherRole

Field type / facets: Closed list (1 - ∞)

Pressure and impact analysisEconomic analysis Monitoring of surface waterMonitoring of groundwaterAssessment of status of surface waterAssessment of status of groundwaterPreparation of RBMPPreparation of PoMImplementation of measures Public participationEnforcement of regulations (e.g. taking action when permits are breached)Reporting to the European Commission

Guidance: Conditional: if relevant, identify the cases where the competent authority contributes or supports other competent authority in a particular role. .

Quality check:

For each RBD:

Schema element: EURBDCode

125

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Unique EU code for the River Basin District. Add the two-letter ISO Country code to the Member State unique id - up to 42 characters in total

Quality check: First 2 characters should be a valid ISO MS code.

Schema element: RBDName

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Name of the River Basin District in English

Quality check:

Schema element: RBDNameNL

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Name of the River Basin District in National Language

Quality check:

Schema element: RBD_MS_CD

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional. Unique national code for the River Basin District

Quality check:

Schema element: Area

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Area of the River Basin District in km2 including coastal waters (but not including territorial waters as required for the chemical status under WFD article 2(1))

Quality check:

Schema element: AreaExclCW

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Area of the River Basin District in km2 excluding coastal waters (i.e. land area)

Quality check:

Schema element: International

Field type / facets: Y or N

Guidance: Required. Is the River Basin District part of an International River Basin? (Answer Y or

126

N)

Quality check:

Schema element: InternationalName

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: if the answer to International is Y, give the name of the international River Basin District (in English) that this forms part of

Quality check:

Schema element: PrimeCompetent Authority

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. An RBD will usually have only one prime Competent Authority. Input the EU Code for the prime Competent Authority (two-letter ISO Country code followed by the Member State code). Introduction of more than one prime Competent Authorities is reserved for those cases in which there are more than one Competent Authorities of equivalent level of competences (e.g. over different geographical areas within the RBD), with no established hierarchy and/or with none of them with defined role as coordinator.

Quality check: should match a EUCACode provided for a competent authority.

For each sub-unit within each RBD:

Schema element: EUSubUnitCode

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. A unique code comprising of the two-letter ISO Country code followed by the Member State unique id: up to 42 characters in total.

Quality check:

Schema element: MS_SubUnitCode

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Unique code within the MS for the Sub-unit.

Quality check:

Schema element: SubUnitName

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Name of the Sub-unit in English

127

Quality check:

Schema element: SubUnitNameNL

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Name of the Sub-unit in national language

Quality check:

Schema element: SubUnitArea

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Area of the Sub-unit in km2 including coastal waters

Quality check:

Schema element: SubUnitAreaExclCW

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Area of the Sub-unit in km2 excluding coastal waters

Quality check:

Schema element: URL

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional. URL for integration of your own internet-based informationThe Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

Quality check:

6.4.1. GIS information

GIS layers for RBD and sub-units in accordance with guidance for reporting spatial data.

6.4.2. Guidance on the contents of the RBMPs/background documents

Change in Competent Authorities

If the competent authorities, or their role has changed since the publication of the first RBMP an explanation should be provided in the RBMP. This should include information on the reasons for change and how the changes will support the improved implementation of the WFD.

Co-ordination

A detailed summary of how co-ordination is achieved between competent authorities within the same RBD should be provided. This should include:

128

How co-ordination is achieved between competent authorities with different roles;

How co-ordination is achieved between competent authorities who share a role (e.g. for issuing permits; for enforcement)

To provide RBMPs or background documents Member States should either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

7. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR SURFACE WATER (SCHEMA SWMET)

7.1. Methodologies characterisation

7.1.1. Introduction

Article 5 of the WFD requires Member States (MS) to identify surface water bodies that will be used for assessing progress with, and achievement of the WFDs environmental objectives. In addition, under certain conditions, Article 4(3) of the WFD permits MS to identify and designate artificial water bodies (AWB) and heavily modified water bodies (HMWB). HMWB and AWB are required to achieve Good Ecological Potential by 2015.

Identifying the size of water bodies was an important parameter that had implications on the design of the monitoring programmes and on the development of appropriate programmes of measures. A stepwise process for the identification of HMWB resulted in a provisional identification by 2004. Full identification should have been completed by 2010 for publication in the first RBMP. The characterisation of surface water body types, including the identification of heavily modified water bodies, may have been reviewed and revised as part of the review and update (if necessary) of the Article 5 analysis required by December 2013

Article 5 of the WFD also requires MS to analyse the characteristics of surface water bodies and provide a summary report on surface water characterisation including general information on their typology.

7.1.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information provided

The Commission will use the information provided to check that small water bodies received sufficient consideration when not delineated as such and to check compliance in designation of HMWB.

7.1.2.1. Products from Reporting

The Commission will produce tables showing:

an overview of how small water bodies have been covered by the different Member States and water categories

129

7.1.3. Contents of the 2016 reporting

7.1.3.1. Schema Sketch

7.1.3.2. Information and Data to be reported using the schemas

Elements to be reported for each type:

Schema element: TYPE_CODE

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. MS Code for the type

Quality check: Consistency with codes provided at WB level. In 2010 some MS reported more types in terms of characterisation than were subsequently reported with surface water bodies.

Schema element: TYPE_NAME

130

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. MS description for the type; Describe the type briefly (e.g. small, lowland, siliceous rivers).

Quality check:

Schema element: IntercalibrationType

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: if there is a related intercalibration type, Code (not name) of the related Common Intercalibration type

Quality check: Consistency with IC types given in the Official Decision (2013/480/EU) document

Schema element: CATEGORY

Field type / facets: RW, LW, TW or CW

Guidance: River, Lake, Transitional or Coastal

Quality check:

Schema element: BQETypeSpecificReferenceConditions

Field type / facets: Closed list

Yes, reference conditions have been set for this type for all relevant BQEs

Partly, reference conditions have been set for this type for some BQEs

No, reference conditions have not been set for this type for any BQEs

Guidance: Required. Have type-specific reference conditions been established for this surface water type for all relevant BQEs?

Quality check:

Schema element: HymoTypeSpecificReferenceConditions

Field type / facets: Closed list

Yes, reference conditions have been set for this type for all relevant hydromorphological QEs

Partly, reference conditions have been set for this type for some hydromorphological QEs

No, reference conditions have not been set for this type for any hydromorphological QEs

Guidance: Required. Have type-specific reference conditions been established for this surface water type for all relevant hydromorphological QEs?

Quality check:

131

Schema element: PCTypeSpecificReferenceConditions

Field type / facets: Closed list

Yes, reference conditions have been set for this type for all relevant physico-chemical QEs

Partly, reference conditions have been set for this type for some physico-chemical QEs

No, reference conditions have not been set for this type for any physico-chemical QEs

Guidance: Required. Have type-specific reference conditions been established for this surface water type for all relevant physico-chemical QEs?

Quality check:

Elements to be reported for the RBD/sub-unit:

Schema element: Typology_Methodology

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Precise and permanent reference to the documents where the detailed typology methodology can be found. See guidance on contents below. .

Quality check:

Schema element: SmallWBsMethodology

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Provide background documents or precise and permanent reference to these documents (see guidance on contents below)

Quality check:

Schema element: MinimumCatchmentArea_Rivers

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. If defined, state the minimum catchment area for a river to be delineated as a water body in the RBMP (unit: km²). If not defined report -8888.

Quality check:

Schema element: MinimumSizeWB_Lakes

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. If defined, state the minimum size (surface area) of a lake to be delineated as a water body in the RBMP (unit: km²). If not defined report -8888.

132

Quality check:

Schema element: OtherMinimumCriteria

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional. If the minimum criterion for rivers is not based on catchment area or for lakes is not based on surface area, please describe the criteria used.

Quality check:

Schema element: IRBDTypologyCoordination

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: required only for International River Basin District (IRBD); precise and permanent reference to the documents where the information can be found coordination of typology. See guidance on contents below.

Quality check:

Designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies

Schema element: HMWB_Methodology

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Precise and permanent reference to the documents where the detailed methodology for the designation of HMWB and AWB can be found. See guidance on contents below.

Quality check:

7.1.3.3. Guidance on contents of RBMPs/Background Documents

Typology

RBMP's background documents should include a detailed description of the typology methodology, with information of system (A/B) used, typology factors (descriptors) and related ranges, methods for testing typology versus biological data, and setting the type-specific reference conditions

MS with a coastline where no transitional waters have been delineated should include a clear justification for this in these documents.

For international RBDs: if typology was coordinated with MS and third countries sharing the IRBD, how this coordination was achieved and what the results are; if it was not, reasons why and steps that have been taken to address this shortcoming and by when co-ordination will be achieved.

133

Small water bodies

Describe the approach that has been taken to deal with small water bodies. Size threshold used for the delineation of water bodies for rivers, lakes and transitional waters.

Reference conditions

Describe the reference conditions for all types and quality elements (biological, physico-chemical and hydromorphological). If there are gaps, identify them explicitly. If there are quality elements which are not considered reliable for some types (WFD Annex II section 1.3.vi), identify them and explain what the information basis is for this.

Designation of HMWBs

Describe in detail the methodology for the designation of HMWBs:

o Criteria used for the identification of substantial change in character. Thresholds if have been used (such as %, length or area of water body affected by modification, size of dams or impoundment, or any other).

o Type of physical alterations considered for the designation of HMWB

o Criteria used for the assessment of significant adverse effect on the use. Indicate if thresholds have been used for the different water uses to define significant adverse effect (such as % of losses in energy production, agricultural production, increase in risk of flooding, etc).

o List the water uses behind the designated HMWB and the number/percentage of water bodies for each use.

o Explain how WFD Article 4(3)b has been applied (better environmental option). Which “other means” have been considered for each water use. Describe all cases in which this assessment has concluded on the need to restore a water body and achieve the beneficial objectives through other means which are significantly better environmental option.

References: CIS guidance documents N° 2 - Identification of Water Bodies), N° 4 - Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies), N° 5 - Transitional and Coastal Waters - Typology, Reference Conditions and Classification Systems and N° 10 - Rivers and Lakes - Typology, Reference Conditions and Classification Systems). Intercalibration Official Decision and Technical Reports. Note on broad types (from EEA/ETC in production)

To provide RBMPs or background documents Member States should either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

134

7.1.3.4. Glossary: clarification of terms and reporting requirements

Wider environment:

“Article 4(3)(a) refers to the wider environment. Consequently a restricted definition of environment would not be appropriate and the environment is considered to include the natural environment and the human environment including archaeology, heritage, landscape and geomorphology11.”

7.2. Methodologies classification ecological status and potential

7.2.1. Introduction

Annex V of the WFD specifies how MS are to monitor and present "status" classification. The Commission needs to ensure that "good status/potential" has been defined according to the provisions of the Directive, and in a consistent and comparable way throughout the EU. The status requirements refer to all QEs in the Directive, chemical and biological. The normative provisions of Annex V provide a starting point. However, interpretation and application of these definitions may differ, which may lead to a wide range of variation between the MS. In this respect, it is important to compare the criteria and thresholds that MS have set. Whilst it is recognised that the intercalibration exercise has set out to ensure that the definition of high and good ecological status is consistent, the intercalibration exercise will not result in the findings of whether the Member States have followed the results of intercalibration or whether class boundaries have been established for all required water body types and quality elements. However, the intercalibration exercise has provided a useful template for the collection of such information which has been used in the development of this reporting guidance.

7.2.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

Information provided by Member States on will be used to establish whether Member States have established a status classification scheme in accordance with the Directive, and to determine whether status classes are consistent with the Directive, comprehensive and comparable between Member States and River Basin Districts. The comparison of assessment criteria and thresholds will make the level and ambition of environmental protection more transparent and will allow to identification of differences in assessment methods, in terms of whether they are comprehensive and comparable.

7.2.2.1. Products from reporting

Table of assessment methods status – are methods available for each water category/type or not? For each BQE.

Table of pressures that method is sensitive to.

Table of nutrient standards – are standards available for each water category and type or not? For each nutrient (level 3 + parameter name, e.g. TotalPhosphorus)

Statistics can be derived of the main methodological approaches used by Member States.

11 CIS Guidance document No. 4: Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and Artificial Water Bodies135

7.2.3. Contents of 2016 reporting

7.2.3.1. Schema Sketches

PHYCHEM_STANDARD_Unit

PHYSCHEM_STANDARD

CATEGORY

TYPE_CODE

PHYSCHEM_STANDARD_VALUE

SWMET (PhysChem)

PHYSCHEM_STANDARD_Unit_NP

PHYSCHEM_STANDARD_EXPRESSION

PHYSCHEM_MBoundary

136

137

7.2.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Development of assessment methods for biological quality elements

Schema element: QE_CD_BQE

Field type / facets: Closed list (1 to 1):

QE1-1 Phytoplankton; QE1-2 Other aquatic flora; QE1-2-1 Macroalgae; QE1-2-2 Angiosperms; QE1-2-3 Macrophytes; QE1-2-4 Phytobenthos; QE1-3 Benthic invertebrates; QE1-4 Fish; QE1-5 Other species

Guidance: Required. Provide the information below for each of the BQEs.

Quality check:

Schema element: CATEGORY

Field type / facets: LW, RW, TW, CW (1 to 1)

Guidance: Required. Select the water category in which this BQE is being assessed in terms of ecological status/potential. LW = lakes; RW = rivers; TW = transitional waters; CW = coastal waters. Where BQE is used in different water categories, several entries for the same BQE will be needed.

Quality check:

Schema element: QE_CD_BQE_NAME

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Provide the name of the assessment method(s) used for this BQE and water category (same name(s) as referred to in the RBMP or background documents).

Quality check:

Schema element: PercentageOfTypes

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. % of types for this water category and BQE for which an assessment method is fully developed. Number (0-100%)

Quality check:

Schema element: SensitivityImpact

Field type / facets: Closed list (1- ∞):

Nutrient pollutionOrganic pollutionChemical pollution Saline pollutionAcidification

138

Elevated temperaturesAltered habitats due to hydrological changesAltered habitats due to morphological changesOther significant impacts

Guidance: Required. Select from the enumeration list the main impact(s) to which the ecological status assessment method for this BQE in this water category is principally sensitive.

Quality check:

Supporting QEs

Schema element: QE_CD_Support

Field type / facets: Closed list:

Hydromorphological QEs: QE2-1 Hydrological regime: rivers and lakes; QE2-2 River continuity; QE2-3 Morphological conditions: rivers and lakes; QE2-4 Tidal regime: transitional waters and coastal waters; QE2-5 Morphological conditions: transitional and coastal waters

Physico-chemical QEs: QE3-1-1 Transparency; QE3-1-2 Thermal conditions; QE3-1-3 Oxygenation conditions; QE3-1-4 Salinity; QE3-1-5 Acidification status; QE3-1-6 Nutrient conditions

Guidance: Required. Select one by one each supporting quality element from the list in order to provide the information requested below. In case the same QE is used in several water categories, as many entries as needed are expected.

Quality check:

Schema element: CATEGORY

Field type / facets: LW, RW, TW, CW

Guidance: Required. Select the water category in which this supporting QE is being assessed in terms of ecological status/potential. LW = lakes; RW = rivers; TW = transitional waters; CW = coastal waters

Quality check:

Schema element: SensitivityBQE

Field type / facets: Y/N

Guidance: Required. Are the classification boundaries for this supporting QE related to the class boundaries for the sensitive biological Quality Elements?

Quality check:

139

Standards for general physicochemical QEs including nutrients

Schema element: PHYSCHEM_STANDARD

Field type / facets: Closed list

QE3-1-1-1 Secchi disk depth; QE3-1-1-2 Other determinand for transparency; QE3-1-2-1 Water temperature (oC); QE3-1-2-2 Other determinand for thermal conditions; QE3-1-3-1 Dissolved oxygen (% saturation); QE3-1-3-2 Dissolved oxygen (mg/l); QE3-1-3-3 Other determinand for oxygenation conditions; QE3-1-4-1 Practical salinity units; QE3-1-4-2 Other determinand for salinity; QE3-1-5-2 pH ; QE3-1-5-2 Other determinand for acidification status ; QE3-1-6-1 Nitrate; QE3-1-6-2 Nitrite; QE3-1-6-3 Non-ionised Ammonia; QE3-1-6-4 Total Ammonium; QE3-1-6-5 Total Nitrogen; QE3-1-6-6 Orthophosphate; QE3-1-6-7 Total Phosphorous; QE3-1-6-8 Silicate; QE3-1-6-9 Other determinand for nutrient conditions.

Guidance: Required. Select each of the physicochemical parameters from the enumeration list. Elements at the level 4 of aggregation. If the parameter for which there is a standard is not in the list please select other and describe other in the “OtherDeterminand” element.

Quality check:

Schema element: CATEGORY

Field type / facets: LW, RW, TW, CW

Guidance: Required. Select the water category for which this standard for the selected physicochemical QE is relevant. LW = lakes; RW = rivers; TW = transitional waters; CW = coastal waters (1 to many)

Quality check:

Schema element: TYPE_CODE

Field type / facets: String (1 - ∞)

Guidance: Required. For each standard, please enter the national code(s) of each type of river, lake, transitional waters and coastal water body as identified in the characterisation of the River Basin District and surface water types as required by Annex II WFD.

If the standard applies to all national types, please enter “ALL”. More than one type can be added for the same standard value.

If the types used in the derivation of physicochemical standards are different from those used in the assessment of biological QEs, please enter the specific national physicochemical types. If so please upload the specific methodology document on how the standards are derived and in particular how it is ensured that all biological types are covered by the standards.

Quality check: should match types provided in SWMET schema

Schema element: PHYSCHEM_STANDARD_VALUE

Field type / facets: String

140

Guidance: Required. Provide the value or range of the standard (representing the good-moderate boundary only)

Quality check:

Schema element: PHYSCHEM_STANDARD_Unit

Field type / facets: µg/l; mg/l; %saturation; meters; oC; psu; Other

Guidance: Required. The unit of the standard

Quality check:

Schema element: PHYSCHEM_STANDARD_Unit_Other

Field type / facets:String (1 to 1)

Guidance: Conditional: If “PHYSCHEM_STANDARD_Unit” is “Other”, please enter the unit here.

Quality check:

Schema element: PHYSCHEM_STANDARD_Unit_NP

Field type / facets: Closed list:

N-NO3, NO3, N-NO2, NO2, N-NH3, NH3, N-NH4, NH4, P-PO4, PO4

Guidance: Conditional: for the parameters QE3-1-6-1 Nitrate; QE3-1-6-2 Nitrite; QE3-1-6-3 Non-ionised Ammonia; QE3-1-6-4 Total Ammonium; QE3-1-6-6 Orthophosphate, indicate on what basis the standard is expressed.

Quality check: required if PHYSCHEM_STANDARD is QE3-1-6-1 Nitrate; QE3-1-6-2 Nitrite; QE3-1-6-3 Non-ionised Ammonia; QE3-1-6-4 Total Ammonium; QE3-1-6-6 Orthophosphate

Schema element: PHYSCHEM_STANDARD_EXPRESSION

Field type / facets: AA; MAC; 95%ile; Other

Guidance: Required. Select the type of Standard Applied. AA: Annual Average; MAC: Maximum Allowable Concentration; 95 percentile; Other

Quality check:

Schema element: PHYSCHEM_STANDARD_Unit_Other

Field type / facets: String (1 to 1)

Guidance: Conditional: If “PHYSCHEM_STANDARD_EXPRESSION” is “Other”, please describe how it is expressed.

Quality check:

Schema element: PHYCHEM_MBoundary141

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Is the standard linked to the good-moderate status boundary of Biological Quality Elements?

Quality check:

Environmental Quality Standards for River Basin Specific Pollutants (non-priority specific substances (QE3-3) and other national pollutants (QE3-4 in 2010 schema). For each good-moderate EQS for each RBSP provide the following:

Schema element: RBSPCAS

Field type / facets: To be confirmed

Guidance: Required. Provide the CAS number for each River Basin Specific Pollutant (RBSP). If there are more than one standard per substance (e.g. because there are different standards for different water categories or matrices), the same CAS number and name can be introduced more than once.

Quality check:

Schema element: RBSPName

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Provide the name for each River Basin Specific Pollutant (RBSP). If there are more than one standard per substance (e.g. because there are different standards for different water categories or matrices), the same CAS number and name can be introduced more than once.

Quality check:

Schema element: RBSPMatrix

Field type / facets: inland water; salt water; biota fish; biota other; settled sediment; suspended sediment.

Guidance: Required. Select the matrix in which the substance is monitored for the purpose of assessment of ecological status and the type of standard (more than one standard is possible).

Quality check:

Schema element: Category

Field type / facets: RW, LW, TW, CW

Guidance: Required. Select the relevant water categories to which the standard applies.

Quality check:

142

Schema element: RBSPValue

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Provide the value or range of the standard (good-moderate boundary only).

Quality check:

Schema element: RBSPUnit

Field type / facets: µg/l; µg/kg

Guidance: Required. The unit of the standard

Quality check:

Schema element: RBSPType

Field type / facets: AA; MAC;

Guidance: Required. Select the type of Standard Applied. AA: Annual Average; MAC: Maximum Allowable Concentration

Quality check:

Schema element: RBSPTechGuidance

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Indicate whether the standard has been derived in accordance with the 2011 Technical Guidance Document No 2712, or not.

Quality check:

Schema element: RBSPAnalyticalMethod

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Does the analytical method used meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4.1 of the QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC)?

Quality check:

Schema element: RBSPAnalyticalMethodBAT

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Conditional: if the analytical method does not meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4.1 of the QA/QC Directive, does the analytical method comply with the requirements laid down in Article 4.2 of the QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC)?

12 https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-EQS%20CIS-WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf

143

Quality check: required if RBSPAnalyticalMethod is No.

Targeted questions

Classification of ecological status

Schema element: OneOutAllOut

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Has the one-out-all-out principle been applied in deriving the overall classification of the ecological status for a water body?

If no, provide a document with a detailed explanation of the alternative procedure and justifications. Either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

Quality check:

Schema element: GroupingExtrapolation

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Has the grouping of water bodies been used in extrapolating the assessment and classification of status from monitored water bodies to those water bodies with no monitoring sites?

If yes, provide the technical documents describing your methods.

If no, provide a document explaining how the status of non-monitored water bodies is derived.

Either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex <>); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

144

Quality check:

Definition of GEP:

Schema element: GEPDefined

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Has Good Ecological Potential been defined?

Quality check:

Schema element: GEPLevel

Field type / facets: Closed list:

At water body level; For groups of HMWBs/AWBs of the same use/physical modification; Other approach

Guidance: At what level has GEP been defined?

Quality check: Required if GEPDefined is Yes.

Schema element: GEPApproach

Field type / facets: Closed list:

CIS Guidance Approach; Mitigation Measures (Prague) Approach; hybrid CIS/Prague

Guidance: Conditional. What approach has been adopted (select one)?

Quality check: Required if GEPDefined is Yes.

Schema element: GEPBiology

Field type / facets: Closed list:

Yes, No

Guidance: Conditional. Is GEP defined in terms of biology (BQEs)?

Quality check: Required if GEPDefined is Yes

Schema element: MitigationMeasures

Field type / facets: <Enumeration List>

Guidance: Which mitigation measures without significant adverse effects on the use or the wider environment have been identified to define GEP? Please select those mitigation measures identified from the enumeration list (0 to many).

Fish ladders; Bypass channels; Habitat restoration, building spawning and breeding areas;

145

Sediment/debris management; Removal of structures: weirs, barriers, bank reinforcement; Reconnection of meander bends or side arms; Lowering of river banks; Restoration of bank structure; Channel narrowing; Setting of Ecological flows; Inundation of flood plains; Operational modifications for hydro-peaking; Dredging minimisation and/or modification; Restoration of modified bed structure; Retention basins; Other (please specify).

Quality check: Required if GEPDefined is Yes.

Schema element: BQEforMEP&GEP

Field type / facets: Enumeration list of BQEs (1 - ∞)

Guidance: For which biological quality elements (BQEs) were biological values derived to define MEP and GEP? Select all that apply

Quality check: Required if GEPDefined is Yes.

Schema element: GES/GEPComparison

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Have GES and GEP been compared in any way, e.g. measured on a common scale?

If yes, provide a document describing the comparison that has been carried out.

If no, provide a document explaining why a comparison has not been carried out.

Either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

Quality check: Required if GEPDefined is Yes.

7.2.3.3. Guidance on contents of RBMPs/background documents

Information to be included in the relevant technical documents:

Development of ecological status methods.

Method for aggregation of monitoring data from different stations within a water body to derive an overall assessment of status

146

Methodology to deal with the no-deterioration objective when classifying water bodies in particular for water bodies close to the high/good or good/moderate boundary and considering the development of pressures on the water body

Development of fully WFD compliant assessment methods for the biological, hydromorphological and physicochemical QEs;

Remaining gaps and inconsistences in assessment methods and plans for solving them;

Major changes in the assessment methodology of ecological status (from 1st to 2nd cycle);

Methods used for translating the results from intercalibrated types to all other national types;

Application of the “one-out all-out” principle. If this has not been applied, detailed justification and description of the alternative procedure that has been used;

Metholodology for grouping of water bodies and deriving status of non-monitored water bodies;

Methods for assessing the confidence and precision of the different parts of the classification system; confidence and precision achieved; plans in place to improve the level of confidence and precision, if any;

Methodology for the selection of river basin specific pollutants (RBSP).

Development of GEP

Information on the comparison between the Prague approach and the CIS approach for the identification of GEP, if this has been done;

Information on the mitigation measures that have been identified to achieve GEP and the ecological changes/improvements expected to be achieved through these;

Information on how the slight deviation of GEP from MEP has been defined in terms of biological values (CIS approach) or excluded mitigation measures (Prague approach).

Information on the comparison of GES/GEP, if this has been done.

Are the ecological changes that the mitigation measures are designed to achieve discussed/described?

Is it clear which ecological improvements will be achieved by implementing the selected mitigation measures for reaching GEP

Drivers and impacts behind failure

Include the following table in the RBMP or background document on the drivers and impacts behind failure of ecological status (the cells should contain the number of water bodies failing due to the relevant driver and impact; water bodies may fail due to more than one combination of drivers/impacts and therefore figures are not expected to add to the number of water bodies; ideally this table should be developed for each water category or at least differentiating coastal waters from the rest):

147

Impact / Driver Agri-culture

Climate change

Energy hydro

Energy non-hydro

Fisheries and aquaculture

Flood protection

Forestry Industry Tourism and recreation

Transport

Urban development

Unknown/ Other

N pollutionP pollutionOrganic pollutionChemical pollution Saline pollutionAcidificationElevated temperaturesAltered habitats due to hydrological changesAltered habitats due to morphological changesMicrobiological pollutionOther Significant Impacts

To provide RBMPs or background documents Member States should either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

References:

CIS guidance documents

N° 5 - Transitional and Coastal Waters - Typology, Reference Conditions and Classification Systems,

N° 10 - Rivers and Lakes - Typology, Reference Conditions and Classification Systems and

N° 13 - Overall Approach to the Classification of Ecological Status and Ecological Potential

7.3. Methodologies classification chemical status

7.3.1. Introduction

The legislation covering chemical status assessment is presented in detail in the introduction to Section 2.4.

Annex V to the WFD specifies how MS are to monitor and present chemical status classification. The Commission needs to ensure that chemical status has been addressed according to the provisions of the Directive, and in a consistent and comparable way throughout the EU. The

148

normative provisions of Annex V provide a starting point. However, interpretation and application of these provisions may differ, which may lead to a wide range of variation between the MS. It is therefore important to be able to compare the criteria and thresholds that MS have applied.

Information at RBD level on trend monitoring according to Article 3(3) of the Environmental Quality Standards Directive (Directive 2008/105/EC, EQSD) and on the designation of mixing zones according to Article 4 thereof should be included in the RBMPs. In particular, where a Member States designates mixing zones the RBMP must include a description of:

The approaches and methodologies applied to define such zones; and

The measures taken with a view to reducing the extent of the mixing zones in the future.

7.3.2. How will the Commission and the EEA use the information requested.

Information provided by Member States on will be used to establish whether Member States have properly implemented the requirements of the WFD and EQSD in relation to the application of EQSs for priority substances, trend monitoring and the implementation of the provisions relating to mixing zones. Statistical tables of the main methodological methods used will be produced.

7.3.3. Contents of the 2016 reporting

7.3.3.1. Schema Sketches

149

7.3.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Provide information on all the standards used for the assessment of chemical status for all substances. This part of the schema will be pre-filled in the reporting tools with the values from the version of Directive 2008/105/EC in force on 13 January 2009, except for the AA-EQS for naphthalene in transitional and coastal waters, which will be from the version of that Directive in force since 14 September 201313.

Schema element: PrioritySubstance

Field type / facets: List of all 45+8 Priority Substance

Guidance: Required. This part of the schema will be pre-filled (there will be one entry per substance to provide the information below).

Quality check:

Schema element: PSStatusAssessment

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. For each priority substance state whether it has been used in the status assessment, or not.

Quality check:

Schema element: PSMatrix

13 See recital 9 of Directive 2013/39/EU and Article 3 paragraph 1a of Directive 2008/105/EC as amended by Directive 2013/39/EU. Directive 2013/39/EU adopts a less stringent AA-EQS for Naphthalene in transitional and coastal waters. In the case of Naphthalene this standard should be applied in the determination of chemical status. For all other substances the standards from Directive 2008/105/EC as in force on 13 January 2009 should be applied.

150

Field type / facets: Closed list:

Inland water; salt water; biota fish; biota other; settled sediment; suspended sediment.

Guidance: Required. For each Priority Substance select the matrix/es in which the standard has been applied.

Quality check:

Schema element: PSType

Field type / facets: AA; MAC;

Guidance: Required. For each Priority Substance and Matrix select the type(s) of standard applied

Quality check:

Schema element: Category

Field type / facets: RW, LW, TW, CW

Guidance: Required. For each standard, select the water category in which it is used.

Quality check:

Schema element: PSValue

Field type / facets: number

Guidance: Required. For every combination of priority substance, matrix, standard type and water category combination, provide the value of the standard applied

Quality check:

Schema element: PSUnit

Field type / facets: µg/l; µg/kg wet weight

Guidance: Required. Indicate the unit of the standard

Quality check:

Schema element: PSEUlevel

Field type / facets: Identical to EQS Directive, International RBD, National, Regional, RBD, local, other

Guidance: Required. Indicate if the standard is identical to that in the EQS Directive or, if not, at which level the standard has been set.

Quality check:

Schema element: PSAnalyticalMethod

151

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Does the analytical method used meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in Article 4.1 of the QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC), for the strictest standard applied? see Section 7.3.1 on fulfilment of the QA/QC directive

Quality check:

Schema element: PSAnalyticalMethodBAT

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Conditional: if the analytical method does not meet the minimum performance criteria laid down in article 4(1) of the QA/QC Directive, does the analytical method comply with the requirements laid down in Article 4.2 of the QA/QC Directive (2009/90/EC), for the strictest standard applied?

Quality check: Required if PSAnalyticalMethod is No.

Information to be provided at the level of the RBD:

Schema element: PercentageSWBNotMonitored

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Provide the overall percentage of surface water bodies (all water categories) for which there is no monitoring of chemical status at all.

Quality check: Number must not be higher than 100.

Schema element: ApproachSWBNotMonitored

Field type / facets: Closed list (1 - ∞):

Not relevant as all surface water bodies have been sufficiently monitored for chemical status;

Surface water bodies not monitored for chemical status are reported as good status; Surface water bodies not monitored for chemical status are reported as unknown status; The status of surface water bodies not monitored for chemical status has been

derived/extrapolated from monitoring available for comparable water bodies.

Guidance: Required. Please indicate what the approach is for the chemical status assessment in water bodies which have not been monitored. In case the status is derived/extrapolated from monitoring in other comparable water bodies please provide further explanation in background documents (see section on guidance on contents of RBMP/background documents below).

Quality check:

Schema element: LimitofQuantification

152

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Is the method of dealing with measurements lower than the limit of quantification as specified in Article 5 of Directive 2009/90/EC?

Quality check:

Schema element: BackgroundConcentrations

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Are natural background concentrations for metals and their compounds taken into consideration where such concentrations prevent compliance with the relevant EQS? If yes, provide more detail in the RBMP or accompanying background documents, specifically the list of metals concerned (see Section <> below).

Quality check:

Schema element: Bioavailability

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Are hardness, pH, dissolved organic carbon or other water quality parameters that affect the bioavailability of metals taken into consideration when assessing monitoring results against relevant EQSs? If yes, provide details of the methodology used in the RBMP or accompanying background documents, specifically the list of metals concerned. (see Section <> below).

Quality check:

Schema element: LongTermTrendAnalysis

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Are arrangements in place for the long-term trend analysis of concentrations of those priority substances listed in Part A of Annex I of Directive 2008/105/EC (EQSD) that tend to accumulate in sediment and/or biota (article 3(3) of EQSD)? If yes provide details of the methodology used in the RBMP or accompanying background documents, specifically the list of pollutants monitored (see Section 7.3.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: MixingZoneDesignation

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Have mixing zones been designated (article 4 EQSD)?

Quality check:

Schema element: MixingZoneMethodology

Field type / facets: Yes, No

153

Guidance: Conditional. Does the methodology for the designation of mixing zones in the RBD/sub-unit follow the tiered approach as laid down in the “Technical Background Document on Identification of Mixing Zones”? If No, provide a detailed description of the methodology used in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 7.3.3.3 below).

Quality check: Required if MixingZoneDesignation is Yes.

Schema element: MixingZoneMeasures

Field type / facets: Measures according to Article 11(3)(k) of Directive 2000/60/EC; Review of permits referred to in Directive 2008/1/EC; Prior regulations referred to in Article 11(3)(g) of Directive 2000/60/EC; Other

Guidance: Conditional. Indicate the measures taken with a view to reducing the extent of the mixing zones in the future. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 7.3.3.3 below).

Quality check: Required if MixingZoneDesignation is Yes.

7.3.3.3. Guidance on contents of RBMPs/Background Documents

MS are expected to include in the relevant chapter of the RBMP or in background documents which are made available the following information:

Information on the significant changes that have taken place, if any, since the first RBMP on the methodology or the information base used for the assessment of chemical status;

Information on the approach towards assessment of chemical status in water bodies for which there is no monitoring. If status has been derived/extrapolated from monitoring data in comparable water bodies, explain how this has been done in how many instances.

Detailed information on how measurements lower than the limit of quantification are dealt with, if different from Directive 2009/90/EC

Detailed information on methodologies used for dealing with natural background concentrations

Detailed information on the methodology for dealing with pH, DOC or other water quality parameters that affect the bioavailability of metals

Detailed information on the methodology for long term trend analysis of PSs;

Detailed information on the measures to be taken to reduce the extent of mixing zones;

Detailed methodology for the designation of mixing zones.

To provide RBMPs or background documents Member States should either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

154

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

7.4. Overall management objectives (nutrients, river continuity)

7.4.1. Introduction

Some Member States have established specific management objectives to address a specific issue. Reporting on these objectives can provide useful quantitative information about objectives at RBD level.

Only Member States that have developed overall management objectives should provide this information.

7.4.2. Contents of the 2016 reporting

7.4.2.1. Schema sketch

7.4.2.2. Information to be reported using the schema

Schema element: ManagementObjectivesNutrients

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Have overall management objectives been set for nutrient pollution?

Quality check:

Schema element: ManagementObjectivesNutrientsQuantitativeN

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Conditional. Have quantitative objectives in terms of nitrogen load reduction been set?

155

Quality check: Required if ManagementObjectivesNutrients is Yes.

Schema element: ManagementObjectivesNutrientsQuantitativeP

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Conditional. Have quantitative objectives in terms of phosphorus load reduction been set?

Quality check: Required if ManagementObjectivesNutrients is Yes.

Schema element: ManagementObjectivesContinuity

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Have overall management objectives been set for river continuity?

Quality check:

Schema element: ManagementObjectivesContinuityQuantitative

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Conditional. Have quantitative objectives in terms of river continuity been set? (e.g. km of rivers connected, number of obstacles to be made passable, etc).

Quality check: Required if ManagementObjectivesContinuity is Yes.

Schema element: ManagementObjectivesReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional. Reference to the document where further information on the management objectives can be found.

Quality check: Required if ManagementObjectivesContinutiy is Yes.

Schema element: WaterResourcePlans

Field type / facets: Yes, No, RBMP (0 to ∞)

Guidance: Required. Have separate Water Resource Plans been developed in relation to abstractions and e-flows or is this topic included in the RBMP?

Quality check:

7.4.2.3. Guidance on contents of RBMPs/Background Documents

MS are expected to include the following in the relevant chapter of the RBMP or in background documents:

156

For nutrient load (if objectives set) the current nutrient load, the target nutrient load for each RBD/Sub-unit and the load reduction required for the impacted groups of Water Bodies;

For connectivity (if objectives set), current status of connectivity for each Sub-unit (yes, no, partial). This question should be answered for 2015, 2021, 2027 and the target date by when the Sub-unit will be connected to the river network.

Member States may also include information on other management objectives that they have set for other parameters.

To provide RBMPs or background documents Member States should either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

7.5. Definition of significant pressures and impacts

7.5.1. Introduction

A key part of the characterisation of water bodies, is the assessment of the risk that a water body may fail (in 2015) the objectives of the Directive unless appropriate measures are taken. The results of the risk assessment inform the monitoring of water bodies and the subsequent classification of status. It is crucial that methodologies used in risk assessment are fit for purpose in the sense of being able to identify and quantify all significant pressures within the RBD and their potential impact on status of water bodies (CIS Guidance Document 3). If not, (expensive) measures may be incorrectly targeted and objectives may (unexpectedly) not be met.

7.5.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

The information will be used by the Commission to ensure that the analysis of pressures and measures has been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the WFD, and in a consistent and comparable way throughout the EU.

In addition to the compliance assessment, a series of outputs will be produced identifying the most common tools used for the assessment of pressures and impacts, in order to promote best practice.

157

7.5.3. Contents of the 2016 reporting

7.5.3.1. Schema Sketch

7.5.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the Schemas

Schema element: PressuresNotAssessed

Field type / facets: Closed list of pressures (see Annex) (0 - ∞)

Guidance: Required. Indicate whether any of the pressures on the list has not been assessed (i.e. whether any of the pressures have not been considered from the start because they were deemed not important in the RBD or no information was available or any other reason).

Quality check:

Schema element: SWSignificantPressurePointSourceTools

Field type / facets: Numerical Tools; Expert Judgment; Combination of Both; Not Assessed

Guidance: Required. Which kind of tools have been used to define significant pressures from point sources? Numerical tools includes modelling tools. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 7.5.33 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: SWSignificantPressureDiffuseSourceTools

Field type / facets: Numerical Tools; Expert Judgment; Combination of Both; Not Assessed

Guidance: Required. Which kind of tools have been used to define significant pressures from

158

diffuse sources? Numerical tools includes modelling tools. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 7.5.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: SWSignificantPressureWaterAbstractionTools

Field type / facets: Numerical Tools; Expert Judgment; Combination of Both; Not Assessed

Guidance: Required. Which kind of tools have been used to define significant pressures from water abstractions? Numerical tools includes modelling tools. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section below).

Quality check:

Schema element: SWSignificantPressureWaterFlowTools

Field type / facets: Numerical Tools; Expert Judgment; Combination of Both; Not Assessed

Guidance: Required. Which kind of tools have been used to define significant pressures from water flow regulation and morphological alterations? Numerical tools includes modelling tools. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 7.5.3.3).

Quality check:

Schema element: SWSignificantPressureOtherSourceTools

Field type / facets: Numerical Tools; Expert Judgment; Combination of Both; Not Assessed

Guidance: Required. Which kind of tools have been used to define significant pressures from other sources? Numerical tools includes modelling tools. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 7.5.3.3).

Quality check:

Schema element: SWSignificanceDefinition

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Has significance been defined in terms of thresholds? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 7.5.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: SWSignificanceLinkFailure

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Is the definition of significance linked to the potential failure of objectives or not? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section below).

Quality check:

159

Schema element: SWPressuresReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Reference to further information.

Quality check:

7.5.3.3. Guidance on contents of RBMPs/background documents

MS are expected to include the following information in the relevant chapter of the RBMP or in a background document:

Include an explanation of any major change in the criteria for the identification of pressures since the first RBMP such as adding new pressures (e.g. invasive alien species) or not reporting pressures (e.g. diffuse pollution due to mercury pollution). Also report an explanation of the changes in the methodology or the criteria (e.g. thresholds) used for the assessment of significance as regards pressures and impacts.

The approach to the definition of significant pressure in particular its relationship with thresholds which may have been set, the relationship with the risk assessment (i.e. the presence of any significant pressures mean water body at risk) and with status (i.e. significant pressures are compatible or not with good status).

The tools used to define significant pressures from:

o Point sources;

o Diffuse sources;

o Abstractions;

o Water flow regulation and morphological alterations

o Other sources

The reasons why certain pressures have been excluded from the pressure and impact analysis (if this is the case);

The thresholds used for the determination of significance;

If thresholds have not been used, how significance has been defined;

To provide RBMPs or background documents Member States should either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the

160

hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

7.6. Methodologies exemptions

7.6.1. Introduction

The WFD defines its environmental objectives in Article 4 and sets the aim for long-term sustainable water management. Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objective to be achieved in all surface and groundwater bodies, i.e. good status or potential (for HMWBs) by 2015, and introduces the principle of preventing any further deterioration of status. A number of exemptions to the general objectives are possible under certain conditions. Article 4(4) allows for an extension of the deadline beyond 2015, Article 4(5) allows for the achievement of less stringent objectives, Article 4(6) allows a temporary deterioration in the status of water bodies and Article 4(7) sets out conditions in which deterioration of status or failure to achieve certain of the WFD objectives may be permitted for new modifications to the physical characteristics of surface water bodies, and deterioration from high to good status may be possible as a result of new sustainable human development activities.

The WFD provides the general framework on exemptions but there is scope for differences in understanding and implementation. From the outset of implementation it was clear that the use of exemptions needed to be explained further and the rules for application had to be made clearer. These clarifications can be found in the guidance document on exemptions, which was developed over several years.

7.6.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

The Commission will use the information provided to determine whether the methodology used to justify exemptions is robust and complies with the requirements of the WFD.

In addition to the compliance assessment, a series of outputs will be produced identifying the most common tools used for the assessment of pressures and impacts, in order to promote best practice.

161

7.6.3. Contents of 2016 Reporting

7.6.3.1. Schema Sketch

162

7.6.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Schema element: SWExemption4.4Impact

Field type / facets: Closed list of impacts (see Annex 1) (1 - ∞)

Nutrient pollutionOrganic pollutionChemical pollution Saline pollutionAcidificationElevated temperaturesAltered habitats due to hydrological changesAltered habitats due to morphological changesMicrobiological pollutionOther significant impacts

Guidance: Required. Select the impacts that are causing the application of exemptions under Article 4.4.

Quality check:

Schema element: SWExemption4.4Driver

Field type / facets: Agriculture; Climate Change; Energy (Hydropower); Energy (non-hydro); Forestry; Industry; Transport; Urban Development

Guidance: Required. Select the drivers that are causing the application of exemptions under Article 4.4.

Quality check:

Schema element: SWExemption4.5Impact

Field type / facets: Nutrient pollution; Organic pollution; Chemical Pollution; Saline pollution; Acidification; Elevated temperatures; Altered habitats due to hydrological changes; Altered habitats due to morphological changes; Microbiological pollution; Other significant impacts

Guidance: Required. Select the impacts that are causing the application of exemptions under Article 4.5.

Quality check:

Schema element: SWExemption4.5Driver

Field type / facets: Agriculture; Climate Change; Energy (Hydropower); Energy (non-hydro); Forestry; Industry; Transport; Urban Development

Guidance: Required. Select the drivers that are causing the application of exemptions under Article 4.5.

Quality check:

163

Schema element: SWDisproportionateCostScale

Field type / facets: MS; RBD; Sub-Unit; Regional; Municipality; Water Body; Other

Guidance: Required. Select the scale at which the calculation of costs was carried out in order to assess disproportionality.

Quality check:

Schema element: SWDisproportionateCostAnalysis

Field type / facets: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Benefits Assessment; Assessment of the consequences of non-action; Distribution of costs; Social and sectoral impacts; Affordability; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Other

Guidance: Required. Select all the analysis tools that were used in assessing disproportionate cost. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 7.6.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: SWDisproportionateCostAlternativeFinancing

Field type / facets: Distribution of costs among polluters and users; Use of public budget (national level); Use of public budget (regional level); Use of public budget (local level); Private Investment; EU funds; International funds; Other

Guidance: Required. Select the alternative financing options that have been considered to overcome the costs being disproportionate. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 7.6.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: SWDisproportionateCostOtherEULegislation

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Have the costs of basic measures listed in Article 11(3)(a) of the WFD been explicitly excluded from the assessment of disproportionate cost? If No, provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 7.6.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: SWTechnicalInfeasibility

Field type / facets: No technical solution is available; It takes longer to fix the problem than there is time available; There is no information on the cause of the problem so the solution cannot be identified; Other

Guidance: Required. Select the definitions of Technical Infeasibility used. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 7.6.3.3 below).

164

Quality check:

Schema element: SWNaturalConditions

Field type / facets: Re-establishment of flora and fauna; Natural Hydrogeological conditions; Other

Guidance: Required. Select the elements considered when determining that natural conditions require an exemption under Article 4.4 or 4.5. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 7.6.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: SWArt4(6)Application

Field type / facets: Yes (accidents), Yes (extreme floods), Yes (prolonged droughts), No (0 - ∞)

Guidance: Required. Indicate whether article 4(6) has been applied and in that case, for what reason.

Quality check:

Schema element: SWArt4(7)ExemptionModifications

Field type / facets: Closed list (0 - ∞)

Hydropower Plants; Flood Protection Schemes; Navigation Projects; Impoundment for drinking water supply; Other; Article 4(7) has not been applied.

Guidance: Required. Select the modifications that have led to the application of the exemption under Article 4(7).

Quality check:

Schema element: SWExemptionsTransboundary

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Has the application of exemptions be co-ordinated in a transboundary context? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section below).

Quality check:

7.6.3.3. Guidance on contents of RBMPs/background documents

MS are expected to include the following information in the relevant chapter of the RBMP or in background documents:

Analysis tools that were used in assessing disproportionate cost;

Alternative financing options considered to overcome disproportionate cost;

165

Whether the costs of basic measures have been excluded from the assessment of disproportionate cost;

The definition of technical infeasibility;

The elements considered when determining that natural conditions require an exemption under Articles 4.4 and/or 4.5.

If article 4(6) is applied

o Description of the conditions under which circumstances that are exceptional or that could not reasonably have been foreseen may be declared, including the indicators used.

o Description of the instances where 4(6) has been applied, the reasons behind it, the levels of the indicators which make the circumstances exceptional, the water bodies affected and the extent of impacts, the measures taken to restore WBs affected and the effects of such measures.

For each application of article 4(7), justification and explanation of the reasons for the project and the fulfilment of the conditions under article 4(7), including

o How the assessment of cumulative effects has been considered in the application of Article 4.7.

o The mitigation measures that are in place in relation to the application of Article 4.7.

o The methodology for assessing over-riding public interest in the application of Article 4.7.

o The methodology for assessing the benefits in the application of Article 4.7.

o Details of the better environmental options that have been considered in the application of Article 4.7.

Details of the transboundary co-ordination that has taken place for the application of exemptions.

Drivers and impacts behind exemptions

Include the following table in the RBMP or background document on the drivers and impacts behind exemptions to good status (the cells should contain the number of water bodies in which an exemption of any kind is applied relevant to each driver and impact; water bodies may be exempted due to more than one combination of drivers/impacts and therefore figures are not expected to add to the number of exempted water bodies; ideally this table should be developed for each water category or at least differentiating coastal waters from the rest):

Impact / Driver Agri-culture

Climate change

Energy hydro

Energy non-hydro

Fisheries and aquaculture

Flood protection

Forestry Industry Tourism and recreation

Transport

Urban development

Unknown/ Other

N pollutionP pollutionOrganic pollutionChemical pollution

166

Impact / Driver Agri-culture

Climate change

Energy hydro

Energy non-hydro

Fisheries and aquaculture

Flood protection

Forestry Industry Tourism and recreation

Transport

Urban development

Unknown/ Other

Saline pollutionAcidificationElevated temperaturesAltered habitats due to hydrological changesAltered habitats due to morphological changesMicrobiological pollutionOther Significant Impacts

To provide RBMPs or background documents Member States should either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

8. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR GROUNDWATER (SCHEMA GWMET)

8.1. Methodologies characterisation groundwater bodies

8.1.1. Introduction

Article 5 requires MS to identify the location and boundaries of groundwater bodies that will be used for assessing progress with, and achievement of the WFDs environmental objectives. Identifying the size of water bodies is an important parameter that has implications for the design of the monitoring programmes and on the development of appropriate programmes of measures. For Groundwater Bodies, the WFD requires MS to further characterise groundwater bodies at risk taking account of the relevant information listed in Annex II 2.2. of the Directive. Full identification should have been completed by 2010 for publication in the first RBMP. The characterisation of

167

groundwater bodies may have been reviewed and revised as part of the review and update (if necessary) of the Article 5 analysis, required by December 2013.

Article 5 of the WFD also requires MS to analyse the characteristics of groundwater bodies and provide a summary report on groundwater body characterisation.

8.1.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information provided

Information provided by Member States will be used to check whether they have established and applied methodologies, in accordance with the WFD and GWD, and whether the methods applied are comparable between Member States and River Basin Districts.

8.1.3. Contents of the 2016 reporting

8.1.3.1. Schema Sketch

Not required

8.1.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Schema element: GWCharacterisation

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: There are no standard methodologies for the delineation and characterisation of groundwater bodies, therefore no targeted questions have been developed. Member States should upload to the CDR (and provide a reference), or provide a static hyperlink, to the relevant sections of the RBMP or accompanying documents describing the methodology used for the initial characterisation and further characterisation of groundwater bodies. See Section 8.1.3.1 for the detailed information that is required.

Quality check:

8.1.3.1. Guidance on contents of RBMPs/background documents

In relation to the initial characterisation (Annex II 2.1 WFD) of GWBs the information provided in the RBMP/Background Documents should include:

How the groundwater uses and the degree to which they are at risk were assessed

Whether grouping was used and how

How significant flow has been identified in order to identify aquifers;

How significant abstractions have been identified in order to identify aquifers;

The specific criteria used for the delineation of groundwater bodies. The criteria may cover the following aspects:

o significant water flow

o flow characteristics of geological strata, 168

o flow between strata within aquifer

o geological boundaries

o other hydraulic boundaries

o differences in status

o connection to directly dependent surface water or terrestrial ecosystems

o other

How the methodology for the initial characterisation of groundwater bodies has been refined in the second river basin management planning cycle.

In relation to the further characterisation of water bodies at risk (Annex II 2.2 WFD), it should include information on how the following items have been addressed:

Geological characteristics of the groundwater body including the extent and type of geological units;

Hydrogeological characteristics of the groundwater body including hydraulic conductivity, porosity and confinement,

Characteristics of the superficial deposits and soils in the catchment from which the groundwater body receives its recharge, including the thickness, porosity, hydraulic conductivity, and absorptive properties of the deposits and soils,

Stratification characteristics of the groundwater within the groundwater body;

Associated surface systems, including terrestrial ecosystems and bodies of surface water, with which the groundwater body is dynamically linked, including the direction and rates of exchange of water;

The calculation of the long term annual average rate of overall recharge;

The chemical composition of the groundwater;

Any typologies for groundwater characterisation that have been developed.

To provide RBMPs or background documents Member States should either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

169

8.2. Methodologies classification chemical status, upward trend assessment, trend reversal, quantitative status and transboundary coordination

8.2.1. Introduction

Annex V of the Water Framework Directive specifies how Member States are to monitor groundwater, present chemical and quantitative status classification results and identify groundwater bodies with significant and sustained upward trends14 in pollutant concentrations. The detailed provisions and criteria for chemical status and trend assessments are laid down in the Groundwater Directive.

In addition to the WFD reporting requirements, the Groundwater Directive introduces several additional reporting requirements to ensure that groundwater body status and trends have been defined according to the provisions of the Directive, and in a consistent and comparable way across the EU.

The reporting requirements include threshold values (groundwater quality standards set by Member States). These have to be reported along with a summary of the methodology used for identifying the pollutants (or their indicators) and deriving the threshold value(s). The criteria for establishing threshold values are included in Article 3 and Annex I and II of the GWD (reporting obligations in GWD Article 3.5 and Annex II Part C). This is linked to the pressure and impact analysis required by Article 5 of the WFD and Article 17 of the WFD relating to strategies to prevent and control pollution of groundwater. According to Article 3.1(b) of the GWD, threshold values have to be established for pollutants, groups of pollutants and indicators of pollution – the relevant parameters – which have been identified as contributing to the characterisation of groundwater bodies as being at risk of not meeting the WFD Article 4 objectives, taking into account at least the list of the GWD Part B Annex II).

The GWD requires that the methodology used to classify groundwater bodies in respect of chemical status is reported. The requirements are laid down in WFD Annex V, GWD Article 4, and Annex III (reporting requirements in GWD Article 4.4 and Annex III point 5).

In addition, the GWD requires that the method used for trend assessment, including the way in which results from monitoring at individual points has been used, must be reported. The starting point for trend reversal and the reasons for selecting the starting point must also be reported. Requirements for the identification of upward trends and the definition of starting points for trend reversal are laid down in GWD Article 5 and Annex IV (reporting requirements in GWD Article 5.4, 5.5 and Annex IV, Part A point 3).

8.2.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

Information provided by Member States will be used to ascertain whether they have established and applied methodologies, in accordance with the WFD and GWD, for: deriving threshold values; assessing status (chemical and quantitative) and; identifying environmentally significant pollutant trends (and starting points for trend reversal).

The Commission will observe whether the methods applied are comparable between Member States and River Basin Districts. The comparison of assessment criteria and thresholds will make the results of the status assessment more transparent and will allow any differences to be identified. Information on threshold values and the substances for which such values have been established will be summarised and analysed.

14 In this reporting sheet the term 'significant and sustained upward trends' refers to the definition in Article 2.3 of GWD.170

8.2.3. Contents of the 2016 reporting

8.2.3.1. Schema Sketch

171

ClassificationMatrix

PollutantsIndicators

ThresholdValueRange

LevelTVEstablished

StartingPointTrendReversal

1-∞

ThresholdValueRangeUnit

8.2.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Schema element: ClassificationMatrix

Field type / facets: Container of elements (see Schema Sketch above)

Guidance: Required. Information required on groundwater classification - see Table 3 in section 6 of Guidance Document No.21 'Guidance for reporting under the Water Framework Directive'.

Quality check:

Schema element: Diminuation/Damage

Field type / facets: Yes, No, No dependent SW or terrestrial ecosystems exist

Guidance: Required. Has diminution of surface water chemistry and ecology and damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems due to transfer of pollutants from the GWB been considered in the assessment of the chemical status of GWBs? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.2.3.3 below).

Quality check:

172

Schema element: Method/CriterionExtentExceedence

Field type / facets: Method 1: Proportion (%) of the number of monitoring sites exceeding a GW-QS or TV compared to the total number of monitoring sites in the whole GWB.

Method 2: Proportion (%) of the total area of the GWB represented by monitoring sites exceeding a GW-QS or TV compared to the total area of the whole GWB.

Method 3: Proportion (%) of the total volume of the GWB represented by monitoring sites exceeding a GW-QS or TV compared to the total volume of the whole GWB.

Other

None

Not relevant as no monitoring point exceeds any GW-QS or TV for any pollutant.

Guidance: Required. Which method/criterion has been applied to estimate the extent of the GWB which exceeds GW-QSs or TVs and what extent of the GWB exceeding GW-QSs or TVs is considered acceptable for confirming good groundwater chemical status? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.2.3.3 below). This must be provided if “other” is selected.

Quality check:

Schema element: ProportionExceedenceAllowed

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Conditional. If method 1, method 2 or method 3 has been used, state the proportion (%) of monitoring sites, area or volume where exceedence is considered acceptable for confirming good groundwater chemical status.

Quality check:

173

Schema element: ImpactsGWAbstraction

Field type / facets: The available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long term annual average rate of abstraction

Failure to achieve the environmental objectives specified under Article 4 for associated surface water bodies resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions

Significant diminution in the status of surface waters resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions.

Significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems resulting from an anthropogenic water level alteration

Regional saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced sustained changes in flow direction

None.

Guidance: Required. Select those conditions/impacts of groundwater abstractions which have been considered when assessing groundwater quantitative status. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.2.3.3 below). Regarding abstraction please also see CIS Guidance 18 on groundwater status and trend assessment.

Quality check:

Schema element: AvailableGroundwaterResource

Field type / facets: Fully; Partially; Not at all

Guidance: Required. Has the criteria of “available groundwater resource” been applied in accordance with Article 2(27) of the WFD? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.2.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: NeedsTerrestrialEcosystems

Field type / facets: Yes, No, No such systems exist

Guidance: Required. Have the needs of the terrestrial ecosystems associated to groundwater bodies been assessed? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.2.3.3 below).

Quality check:

174

Schema element: BalanceRechargeAbstraction

Field type / facets: Method 1: A comparison of annual average groundwater abstraction against ‘available groundwater resource’ has been reported to be calculated for every groundwater body.

Method 2: A comparison of annual average groundwater abstractions against ‘available groundwater resource’ in the groundwater body has been reported to be calculated for a subset of all GWBs;

Method 3: Where reliable information on groundwater levels across the GWB are available, these data can be used to identify the presence of a sustained long-term decline in water levels caused by long-term groundwater abstraction. Where such a decline is present it will indicate that the conditions for good status are not being met and the body will be of poor status.

Not considered.

Guidance: Required. Select the approach used to assess the balance between recharge and abstraction of groundwater. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.2.3.3 below). Regarding abstraction please also see CIS Guidance 18 on groundwater status and trend assessment.Quality check:

Schema element: TrendAssessmentPerformed

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Has trend assessment in groundwater pollutants been performed.

Quality check:

Schema element: TrendAssessmentMethodology

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: CONDITIONAL. If trend assessment was performed, has a methodology for identifying significant and upward trends in any pollutant’s concentration been applied?

Quality check:

Schema element: TimeSeries

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: CONDITIONAL. If trend assessment was performed state the starting and finishing year for the assessment (year-year)? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.2.3.3 below).

Quality check:

175

Schema element: StatisticalElements

Field type / facets: Statistical significance, Confidence intervals, None

Guidance: CONDITIONAL. If trend assessment was performed, which statistical elements were used? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.2.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: AdditionalTrendAssessment

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Were additional trend assessments applied in order to assess the impacts of existing plumes of pollution (according to Article 5(5) of the GWD)? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.2.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: StartingPointTrendReversal

Field type / facets: All starting points for trend reversal are defined with 75 % of the GW-QS and TVs.

Some/all starting points for trend reversal are different than 75 % of the GW-QS and TVs.

Starting points for trend reversal have not been established.

Guidance: Required. Have starting points for trend reversal been established and at which level and is there already a methodology available for the assessment of trend reversal?

Quality check:

Schema element: PercentageStartingPoint

Field type / facets: Value

Guidance: Required. If the starting points for trend reversal are different to 75% provide the percentage starting point. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.2.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: TrendReversalMethodology

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Has a methodology for assessing trend reversal been established? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.2.3.3 below).

Quality check:

176

Schema element: ThresholdValueElements

Field type / facets: Protection of aquatic ecosystems (surface waters);

Protection of groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (e.g. wetlands)

Actual and potential legitimate uses and functions of groundwater (e.g. drinking water, irrigation, industrial use etc.)

Saline or other intrusions

Guidance: Required. Which elements and environmental quality objectives were considered during the establishment of groundwater threshold values? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.2.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: ThresholdValuesBackgroundLevels

Field type / facets: Background levels have been considered in the TV establishment.

Background levels have been considered in the status assessment but not in the TV establishment.

Background levels are considered in a different way.

Background levels have not been considered.

Guidance: Required. Have background levels of naturally occurring substances been considered within the establishment of threshold values? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.2.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: TransboundaryGWBPresent

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Are there any transboundary GWBs in the RBD?

Quality check:

Schema element: TransboundaryThresholdValues

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: CONDITIONAL. If transboundary groundwater bodies are identified, has the establishment of threshold values been co-ordinated with the neighbouring countries concerned? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.2.3.3 below).

Quality check:

177

Classification Matrix

Schema element: PollutantsIndicators

Field type / facets: Enumeration List

Guidance: Required: Please select one by one from the enumeration list in Annex 9, the pollutants or indicators for which Threshold Values have been established..

Quality check:

Schema element: ThresholdValueRange

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required. Please report the Threshold Value(s) established for each selected pollutant or indicator. The Threshold Values established for nitrates and pesticides, need only be reported if they are more stringent than the groundwater quality standards identified in Annex 1 of GWD. If different TVs are applied at GWB-level within the RBD, please indicate the range of the Threshold Values applied.

Quality check:

Schema element: ThresholdValueRangeUnit

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required: Please provide the unit of the Threshold Value or range of Threshold Values

Quality check:Schema element: LevelTVEstablished

Field type / facets: Enumeration List

Guidance: Required. For each pollutant/indicator and Threshold Value/Range, please provide the level at which the TV is established by selecting one of the following: Member State; international RBD; National part of RBD; GWB

Quality check:

Schema element: StartingPointTrendReversal

Field type / facets: Percentage

Guidance: Required. Please provide the starting points for trend reversal (in percentage of the TV) where they are different from 75% of the applicable TV. If different starting points for trend reversal are applied at GWB-level within the RBD, please indicate the range of the starting points applied.

Quality check:

178

8.2.3.3. Guidance on contents of RBMPs/background documents

Information should be provided in the RBMPs/background documents on the following:

Starting points for trend reversal which are different to 75%

The methodology used in the RBD for assessing trend reversal

Elements and EQOs considered in the establishment of groundwater threshold values.

Consideration of background levels in the establishment of threshold values.

Co-ordination of establishment of Threshold Values for transboundary GWBs.

To provide RBMPs or background documents Member States should either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

8.3. Definition of significant pressures and impacts

8.3.1. Introduction

A key part of the characterisation of water bodies, is the assessment of the risk that a water body may fail (in 2015) the objectives of the Directive unless appropriate measures are taken. The results of the risk assessment inform the monitoring of water bodies and the subsequent classification of status. It is crucial that methodologies used in risk assessment are fit for purpose in the sense of being able to identify and quantify all pressures within the RBD and their potential impact on status of water bodies (CIS Guidance Document 3). If not, (expensive) measures may be incorrectly targeted and objectives may (unexpectedly) not be met.

8.3.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

The information will be used by the Commission to ensure that the analysis of pressures and measures has been carried out in accordance with the provisions of the WFD, and in a consistent and comparable way throughout the EU.

In addition to the compliance assessment, a series of outputs will be produced identifying the most common tools used for the assessment of pressures and impacts, in order to promote best practice.

179

8.3.3. Contents of the 2016 reporting

8.3.3.1. Schema Sketch

8.3.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the Schemas

Schema element: PressuresNotAssessed

Field type / facets: Closed list of pressures (see Annex) (0 - ∞)

Guidance: Required. Indicate whether any of the pressures on the list has not been assessed (i.e. whether any of the pressures have not been considered from the start because they were deemed not important in the RBD or no information was available or any other reason).

Quality check:

Schema element: GWSignificantPressurePointSourceTools

Field type / facets: Numerical Tools; Expert Judgment; Combination of Both; Not Assessed

Guidance: Required. Which kind of tools have been used to define significant pressures from point sources? Numerical tools includes modelling tools. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.3.3.3 below).

Quality check:

180

Schema element: GWSignificantPressureDiffuseSourceTools

Field type / facets: Numerical Tools; Expert Judgment; Combination of Both; Not Assessed

Guidance: Required. Which kind of tools have been used to define significant pressures from diffuse sources? Numerical tools includes modelling tools. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.3.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: GWSignificantPressureWaterAbstractionTools

Field type / facets: Numerical Tools; Expert Judgment; Combination of Both; Not Assessed

Guidance: Required. Which kind of tools have been used to define significant pressures from water abstractions? Numerical tools includes modelling tools. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.3.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: GWSignificantPressureArtificialRecharge

Field type / facets: Numerical Tools; Expert Judgment; Combination of Both; Not Assessed

Guidance: Required. Which kind of tools have been used to define significant pressures from water flow regulation and morphological alterations? Numerical tools includes modelling tools. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.3.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: GWSignificantPressureOtherSourceTools

Field type / facets: Numerical Tools; Expert Judgment; Combination of Both; Not Assessed

Guidance: Required. Which kind of tools have been used to define significant pressures from other sources? Numerical tools includes modelling tools. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.3.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: GWSignificanceDefinition

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Has significance been defined in terms of thresholds? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.3.3.3 below).

Quality check:

181

Schema element: GWSignificanceLinkFailure

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Is the definition of significance linked to the potential failure of good status or not? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.3.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: GWPressuresReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Reference to further information.

Quality check:

8.3.3.3. Guidance on contents of RBMPs/background documents

Detailed information should be provided in the RBMPs/background documents on the following issues:

A description of tools used to define significant pressures from all sources including an assessment of their accuracy and reliability;

If all pressures have not been assessed, the reasons why not;

The definition of significance in terms of thresholds;

How significance is linked to the failure of good status.

To provide RBMPs or background documents Member States should either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

8.4. Methodology exemptions

8.4.1. Introduction

The WFD defines its environmental objectives in Article 4 and sets the aim for long-term sustainable water management. Article 4(1) defines the WFD general objective to be achieved in all surface and groundwater bodies, i.e. good status or potential (for HMWBs) by 2015, and introduces the principle of preventing any further deterioration of status. A number of exemptions to the general objectives are possible under certain conditions. Article 4(4) allows for an extension of the

182

deadline beyond 2015, Article 4(5) allows for the achievement of less stringent objectives, Article 4(6) allows a temporary deterioration in the status of water bodies and Article 4(7) sets out conditions in which deterioration of status or failure to achieve certain of the WFD objectives may be permitted for new modifications to the physical characteristics of surface water bodies, and deterioration from high to good status may be possible as a result of new sustainable human development activities.

The WFD provides the general framework on exemptions but there is scope for differences in understanding and implementation. From the outset of implementation it was clear that the use of exemptions needed to be explained further and the rules for application had to be made clearer. These clarifications can be found in the guidance document on exemptions, which was developed over several years.

In addition, Article 6(3) of Directive 2006/118/EC on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration allows Member States to exempt inputs of pollutants to groundwaters from the programme of measures under certain specified circumstances.

8.4.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

8.4.2.1. Compliance indicators

The Commission will use the information provided to determine whether the methodology used to justify exemptions is robust and complies with the requirements of the WFD.

183

8.4.3. Contents of the 2016 reporting

8.4.3.1. Schema Sketch

184

8.4.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Schema element: GWExemption4.4Impact

Field type / facets: Closed list of impacts (see Annex 1) (1 - ∞)

Nutrient pollutionOrganic pollutionChemical pollution Saline intrusionMicrobiological pollutionDiminution of quality of associated surface waters for chemical/quantitative reasonsDamage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems for chemical/quantitative reasonsAlterations in flow directions resulting in saltwater intrusionAbstraction exceeds available GW resource (lowering water table)Other significant impacts

Guidance: Required. Select the impacts that are causing the application of exemptions under Article 4.4.

Quality check:

Schema element: GWExemption4.4Driver

Field type / facets: Agriculture; Climate Change; Energy (Hydropower); Energy (non-hydro); Forestry; Industry; Transport; Urban Development

Guidance: Required. Select the drivers that are causing the application of exemptions under Article 4.4.

Quality check:

Schema element: GWExemption4.5Impact

Field type / facets: Nutrient pollutionOrganic pollutionChemical pollution Saline intrusionMicrobiological pollutionDiminution of quality of associated surface waters for chemical/quantitative reasonsDamage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems for chemical/quantitative reasonsAlterations in flow directions resulting in saltwater intrusionAbstraction exceeds available GW resource (lowering water table)Other significant impactsGuidance: Required. Select the impacts that are causing the application of exemptions under Article 4.5.

Quality check:

185

Schema element: GWExemption4.5Driver

Field type / facets: Agriculture; Climate Change; Energy (Hydropower); Energy (non-hydro); Forestry; Industry; Transport; Urban Development

Guidance: Required. Select the drivers that are causing the application of exemptions under Article 4.5.

Quality check:

Schema element: GWDisproportionateCostScale

Field type / facets: MS; RBD; Sub-Unit; Regional; Municipality; Water Body; Other

Guidance: Required. Select the scale at which the calculation of costs was carried out in order to assess disproportionality.

Quality check:

Schema element: GWDisproportionateCostAnalysis

Field type / facets: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Benefits Assessment; Assessment of the consequences of non-action; Distribution of costs; Social and sectoral impacts; Affordability; Cost-Effectiveness Analysis; Other

Guidance: Required. Select all the analysis types that were used in assessing disproportionate cost. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.4.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: GWDisproportionateCostAlternativeFinancing

Field type / facets: Distribution of costs among polluters and users; Use of public budget (national level); Use of public budget (regional level); Use of public budget (local level); Private Investment; EU funds; International funds; Other

Guidance: Required. Select the alternative financing options that have been considered to overcome the costs being disproportionate. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.4.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: GWDisproportionateCostOtherEULegislation

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Have the costs of basic measures listed in Article 11(3)(a) of the WFD been explicitly excluded from the assessment of disproportionate cost? If No, provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.4.3.3 below).

Quality check:

186

Schema element: GWTechnicalInfeasibility

Field type / facets: No technical solution is available; It takes longer to fix the problem than there is time available; There is no information on the cause of the problem so the solution cannot be identified; Other

Guidance: Required. Select the definitions of Technical Infeasibility used. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.4.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: GWNaturalConditions

Field type / facets: Natural Hydrogeological conditions; Other

Guidance: Required. Select the elements considered when determining that natural conditions require an exemption under Article 4.4 or 4.5. Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.4.3.3 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: GWArt4.6Application

Field type / facets: Yes (accidents), Yes (extreme flodds), Yes (prolonged droughts), No (0 - ∞)

Guidance: Required. Indicate whether Article 4.6 has been applied and for what reason.

Quality check:

Schema element: GWArt4(7)ExemptionModifications

Field type / facets: Closed list (0 - ∞)

Hydropower Plants; Flood Protection Schemes; Navigation Projects; Impoundment for drinking water supply; Other; Article 4(7) has not been applied.

Guidance: Required. Select the modifications that have led to the application of the exemption under Article 4(7).

Quality check:

187

Schema element: Art6GWDExemptionsMethodology

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Provide a document summarising the methodology used for the determining the application of exemptions according to Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive. See Section <> for further guidance. Either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex <>); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

Quality check:

Schema element: GWExemptionsTransboundary

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Has the application of exemptions been co-ordinated in a transboundary context? Provide further details in the RBMP or accompanying background documents (see Section 8.4.3.3 below).

Quality check:

8.4.3.3. Guidance on contents of RBMPs/background documents

Information should be provided on:

The analysis tools that were used in assessing disproportionate cost;

Which alternative financing options considered to overcome disproportionate cost and if they were not taken further the reasons for this;

Whether the costs of basic measures have been excluded from the assessment of disproportionate cost;

The definition of technical infeasibility used;

The elements considered when determining that natural conditions require an exemption under Articles 4.4 and 4.5.

If article 4(6) is applied

o A description of the conditions under which circumstances that are exceptional or that could not reasonably have been foreseen may be declared, including the indicators used.

188

o A description of the instances where 4(6) has been applied, the reasons behind it, the levels of the indicators which make the circumstances exceptional, the water bodies affected and the extent of impacts, the measures taken to restore WBs affected and the effects of such measures.

For each application of article 4(7), justification and explanation of the reasons for the project and the fulfilment of the conditions under article 4(7), including

o How the assessment of cumulative effects has been considered in the application of Article 4.7.

o The mitigation measures that are in place in relation to the application of Article 4.7.

o The methodology for assessing over-riding public interest in the application of Article 4.7.

o The methodology for assessing the benefits in the application of Article 4.7.

o Details of the better environmental options that have been considered in the application of Article 4.7.

The methodology used for determining exemptions under Article 6(3) of the Groundwater Directive.

Details of the transboundary co-ordination that has taken place for the application of exemptions.

Drivers and impacts behind exemptions

Include the following table in the RBMP or background document on the drivers and impacts behind exemptions to good status (the cells should contain the number of water bodies in which an exemption of any kind is applied relevant to each driver and impact; water bodies may be exempted due to more than one combination of drivers/impacts and therefore figures are not expected to add to the number of exempted water bodies; ideally this table should be developed for each water category or at least differentiating coastal waters from the rest):

Impact / Driver Agri-culture

Climate change

Energy hydro

Energy non-hydro

Fisheries and aquaculture

Flood protection

Forestry Industry Tourism and recreation

Transport

Urban development

Unknown/ Other

N pollutionP pollutionOrganic pollutionChemical pollution Saline pollutionAcidificationElevated temperaturesAltered habitats due to hydrological changesAltered habitats due to morphological changesMicrobiological pollution

189

Impact / Driver Agri-culture

Climate change

Energy hydro

Energy non-hydro

Fisheries and aquaculture

Flood protection

Forestry Industry Tourism and recreation

Transport

Urban development

Unknown/ Other

Other Significant Impacts

To provide RBMPs or background documents Member States should either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

9. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR RBMP (SCHEMA RBMP_POM)

9.1. RBMP dates, table of contents, more detailed programmes, justifications, public participation

9.1.1. Introduction

The RBMP is the main tool for water management of all water bodies within a specified RBD and the contents of the plan are outlined in WFD Annex VII. With respect to water governance, the RBMP shall contain: a general description of the RBD; a summary of the significant pressures and impacts on water bodies; a summary of the measures intended to mitigate the impacts identified; a register of any more detailed plans proposed for sub-basins, sectors, management issues or water categories; a summary of public consultation; and, a list of the competent authorities including the relationship with other authorities co-ordinated within a Member State and a summary of institutional relationships established to ensure co-ordination in international RBDs.

Importantly, the WFD sets environmental objectives for Member States to attain for water bodies, the default being "good status" by 2015 (unless an exemption applies or the water body meets the conditions for an artificial or heavily modified water body). RBMPs are the key tool by which the process to achieve such legally binding environmental objectives can be formally set out as a roadmap to implementation and be subject to review. The WFD sets out a stepwise approach for the development of the RBMP, and if one requirement is not complete or correctly carried out, it may pose obstacles for subsequent steps in the implementation process. In many cases the lack of, for instance, monitoring data or waterbody-specific information on classification, is a result of a lack of implementation in previous steps.

Clear and complete RBMPs are also important for accountability as it is also the main tool for communicating to interested parties, including the public, how integrated water management is, or will be, carried out. Incomplete draft RBMPs, or where draft background documents referred to are not made available upon request in a timely manner in the public consultation process, mean that interested parties are not given sufficient information to enable them to express their views in a meaningful way.

190

9.1.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported.

The Commission will use the information reported to ensure that the Member State has properly implemented the Water Framework Directive; ensuring that a register of more detailed programmes and management plans is in place (CIS Guidance Document 8) and that information has been provided to the public in accordance with the Directive. In particular, the information provided will be used to check the consistency of approach between Member States.

In addition, the Commission will use the information to inform future policy developments. The information will also be used to develop EU wide information through the WISE system. Tables and graphs will be developed showing the differing approaches adopted by the Member States.

9.1.2.1. Products from reporting

In general statistics can be derived of the main methodological approaches and factual information reported.

191

9.1.3. Contents of the 2016 reporting

9.1.3.1. Schema Sketch

9.1.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Schema element: RBMPName

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. RBMP Name

192

Schema element: RBMPTimetablePublicationDate

Field type / facets: Date

Guidance: Required. Date of publication of the timetable for the production of the RBMP

Schema element: RBMPProgrammePublicationDate

Field type / facets: Date

Guidance: Required. Date of publication of the work programme for the production of the RBMP

Schema element: RBMPConsultationPublicationDate

Field type / facets: Date

Guidance: Required. Date of publication of the consultation measures for the production of the RBMP

Schema element: RBMPInterimOverviewDates

Field type / facets: Date

Guidance: Required. Date of publication of the Interim overview of the Significant Water Management Issues

Schema element: RBMPDraftVersionDates

Field type / facets: Date

Guidance: Required. Date of publication of the draft copies of the RBMP

Schema element: FinalRBMPdate

Field type / facets: Date

Guidance: Required. Date of publication of the final RBMP. Provide the Report of public consultation responses and the final RBMP. Either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 9.1.3.3); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

Schema element: SubPlans

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Are there specific sub-plans as mentioned in Article 13.5 of the WFD?

193

Schema element: SubPlansCoverage

Field type / facets: Agriculture; Chemical Industry; Hydropower; Transport; Water Scarcity and Drought; Climate Change; Coastal Erosion; Rural planning; Urban planning; Nutrient enrichment; Chemical pollution; Other (specify) (0 - ∞)

Guidance: Required. If yes, what do they address (select from list above)? Either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 9.1.3.3); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

Quality check:

Schema element: SEA

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Have Strategic Environmental Assessments been undertaken on the RBMP/PoM? If yes, Either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 9.1.3.3); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

Schema element: PublicConsultationInformation

Field type / facets: Media (papers, TV, radio); Internet; Social Networking (Twitter, Facebook etc.) Printed material; Direct mailing; Invitations to stakeholders; Local Authorities; Through meetings; Written consultation

Guidance: Required. How were the public and interested parties informed about the consultations on the draft RBMP? Select all mechanisms used from the list above.

Schema element: RBMPConsultation

Field type / facets: Via internet; Via Twitter; Via Facebook; Via other Social Networking; Direct invitation; Exhibitions; Other outreach methods (e.g. game shows, board games, web-based material for schools); Telephone surveys; other (specify); Direct involvement in drafting RBMP

Guidance: Required. How was the consultation on the draft RBMP carried out? Select all tools used from the options above.

194

Schema element: DocumentProvision

Field type / facets: Closed list:Downloadable; Direct Mailing (e-mail); Direct Mailing (post); Paper Copies distributed at exhibitions; Paper copies available in municipal buildings (Town Hall; Library etc.); Other (specify)

Guidance: Required. How were documents (e.g. draft RBMPs and background documents) provided? Select all tools used from the list above.

Schema element: DocumentAvailability

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Were the consultation documents (e.g. draft RBMPs and background documents) available during the 6 months for feedback?

Schema element: OngoingStakeholderInvolvement

Field type / facets: Closed list:Regular Exhibitions; Establishment Advisory Groups; Involvement in Drafting; Other Outreach Activities (specify); Formation of alliances; Other

Guidance: Required. How has the continued active participation of stakeholders in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive been achieved? Select all the tools used from the enumeration list above.

Schema element: StakeholderGroups

Field type / facets: Closed list:Water supply and sanitation; Agriculture/farmers; Energy/hydropower; Navigation/ports; Fisheries/aquaculture; Industry; NGOs/nature protection; Consumer groups; Local/regional authorities; Other (specify)

Guidance: Required. Which stakeholder groups have been actively involved in the development of the RBMPs? Select from the enumeration list above.

Schema element: ImpactPublicParticipation

Field type / facets: Closed list: Changes to selection of measures; Adjustment to specific measures; Addition of new information; Changes to the methodology used; Commitment to further research; Commitment to action in the next RBMP cycle; Other (specify)

Guidance: Required. What was the impact of the public participation process on the RBMPs? Select all that apply from the enumeration list above. Note: this refers to the whole RBMP process, not just the 6 month consultation on the draft plan.

Schema element: InternationalCo-ordination

Field type / facets: Closed list: International agreement; Informal co-ordination; Permanent Commission; Other (Specify)

Guidance: Required. Which type of international co-operation/co-ordination mechanisms exist between Member States?

Schema element: InternationalCo-ordinationPublicParticipation

195

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Has there been international coordination on public participation and active involvement of interested parties? If yes, provide more information in the RBMP/background documents (see Section 9.1.3.3).

Schema element: IntegrationFloodsDirective

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Have WFD RBMP and Floods Directive Flood Risk Management Plans been integrated into a single plan?

Schema element: Co-ordinationFloodsDirective

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Was joint consultation carried out on the Flood Risk Management Plans? If yes, provide more information in the RBMP/background documents (see Section <>).

Schema element: Co-ordinationMSFD

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Was joint consultation carried out on the Marine Strategy? If yes, provide more information in the RBMP/background documents (see Section <>).

9.1.3.3. Guidance on contents of RBMPs/Background documents

MS are expected to include in the relevant chapter of the RBMP or in background documents a summary of the public consultation carried out and its effectiveness, including international co-ordination.

To provide RBMPs or background documents Member States should either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

196

9.2. Inputs of pollutants to surface waters (and groundwaters), including inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of EQSD Annex I substances

9.2.1. Introduction

Article 5 of the EQSD (2008/105/EC) requires Member States to establish, on the basis of the information collected in accordance with Articles 5 and 8 of the WFD and other available data, such as that collected under Regulation (EC) No 166/206, an inventory of emissions, discharges and losses of all priority substances and the eight other pollutants listed in Part A of Annex I to that Directive for each RBD or part thereof lying within their territory. The CIS Guidance Document No 2815 addresses the preparation of the inventories at national RBD scale.

Article 5 of the WFD requires MS to identify the significant anthropogenic pressures in the RBD likely to cause individual water bodies to be of less than good status (or to be at risk of deterioration). This is the so-called "pressures and impacts analysis". According to Annex II, 1.4 WFD, as part of the identification of pressures, MS are to estimate and identify significant point and diffuse source pollution. According to Annex II, 1.4 WFD, as part of the identification of pressures, MS are to estimate and identify significant point and diffuse source pollution.

Article 5(5) EQSD requires the Commission to verify by 2018 that emissions, discharges and losses as reflected in the EQSD Annex I substances inventory are making progress towards compliance with the reduction or cessation objectives in the WFD, i.e. that there is a downward trend. Since it asks for an inventory covering a reference year (among 2008-2010) and an update with each RBMP, and since the first inventory is now expected only with the RBMP in 2015, the update not officially until 2021, this analysis of progress will have to rely on the voluntary reporting in the 2015 RBMP of inputs of EQSD Annex I substances at two time points or over two periods, one covering the reference year or period and the other a more recent year or period. A reliable trend can only be determined if the basis for the calculation of inputs is the same for each year or period, or a correction is made for additional coverage, for example. In some cases, MS may only be able to provide data for a year or period more recent than 2008-2010, and therefore not be able to determine a trend.

Article 5 WFD effectively requires that Member States carry out a similar analysis of pressures for other substances and parameters, i.e. nutrients, deoxygenating substances (COD, BOD), saline discharges, and river basin specific pollutants (RBSPs), discharged in significant quantities to water bodies in each River Basin District.

Figure 2 on page 16 of the CIS Guidance Document No 28 on inventories, which is reproduced here, illustrates the main routes of pollutant transport into surface waters. It indicates source and pathway apportionment for inputs to surface waters, including via upstream compartments. The annotations a)-m) and P1-P3 in the figure allow each of the source and pathway categories to be referred to when pollution by a chemical substance has been quantified. The combined term “emissions, discharges and losses” refers back to the Esbjerg Declaration of the North Sea Convention combining all categories of inputs of chemical substances to surface water, therefore in this context called “inputs”16. ("Losses" does not refer to any retention or degradation within soil,

15 1. https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/6a3fb5a0-4dec-4fde-a69d-5ac93dfbbadd/Guidance%20document%20n28.pdf

16 Input = movement of a substance into the aquatic environment, i.e. sum of emissions, discharges and losses (inputs) to surface and groundwaters, from land and sea-based sources and from point and diffuse sources, including atmospheric deposition.

197

groundwater or surface water.) The figure identifies four tiers or approaches to establishing inventories, i.e. point source information, riverine load, pathway oriented and source oriented. A number of case studies are included. The first two approaches build in relatively simple ways on monitoring data. Point source information may be limited, because permits do not always require monitoring of the concentrations of priority substances, and quantification is otherwise only required for E-PRTR facilities. If point source information is limited, the use of carefully justified emission factors together with information on the volume discharged may provide a more complete picture at the regional scale required for the inventory.

The riverine load approach is limited by the analytical resolution, and in the case of heavy metals also by the fact that only the dissolved fraction (not the solid phase fraction) may have been quantified. The riverine load approach is considered capable of yielding a rough estimation of total diffuse inputs from a catchment if the point source inputs are known. The guidance recommends cross-checking the outputs of the different approaches using the riverine load as validation information for the more complex methods.

The pathway oriented approach (RPA) involves extensive modelling of transfer processes towards surface waters, and the source-oriented approach takes an even more complex look at the whole system, using, for example, Substance Flow Analysis (SFA). The different approaches provide different results in terms of process information and spatial resolution. So, in general, the RPA provides a better regionalisation of the inputs whereas the SFA provides a more comprehensive view of the actual releases into the environment, but is more limited with respect to spatial resolution. The guidance acknowledges the value of source apportionment for identifying control measures.

198

P1: Atmospheric Deposition directly to Surface Waters

P2: Erosion P3: Surface Runoff from Unsealed Areas

P4 Interflow, Tile Drainage and Groundwater17

P5: Direct Discharges and Drifting P6: Surface Runoff from Sealed Areas

P7: Storm Water Outlets, Combined Sewer Overflows and Unconnected Sewers

P8: Urban Waste Water Treated P9: Individual - Treated and Untreated- Household Discharges

P10 Industrial Waste Water treated P11: Direct Discharges from Mining Areas18 P12: Direct Discharges from Navigation19

P13 Natural Background

The encoding a) – m) has been inserted in the figure to enable identification of source categories in relation to their pathways P1-P13.

Figure 2 from CIS Guidance No 28: General working scheme of the inventory

Guidance Document 28 suggests a two step approach in compiling the inventory. In the first step substances not relevant in the RBD should be identified based on the information from the WFD Article 5 analysis. For those substances only a basic estimation based on riverine loads should be performed whereas for the remaining substances a more in-depth analysis based on the higher-tier methods should be performed in a second step.

For the first inventories, the minimum expectation from the more in-depth assessment is the quantification of total point and total diffuse source inputs of the EQSD Annex I substances.

17 pathway comprises also emissions from contaminated land

18 A portion of the total emissions from abandoned and historic mining sites is discharged to groundwater. Active mines are covered under "Industry".

19 Inland navigation also comprises waterway construction materials.199

a

b c

e

f g

l

d

i

h

j

k

m

RLout)

RLin

However, due to data gaps and the analytical uncertainty mentioned above, this may not be possible in all cases. For the evaluation of data reliability, information on the methods used is required.

A more detailed reporting of information on source (or pathway) apportionment would add substantially to the value of the exercise, and is provided for in the schema elements on an optional basis. Voluntary reporting of total point, total diffuse, and individual sources of RBSPs is also provided for.

The EEA has since 2009 been collecting data on pollutant loads through the State of the Environment (SoE) reporting by countries in the EIONET (see Reporting obligation for: Water emission (WISE-1) -) on an annual basis20. The source categories (for apportioning inputs) are similar in some respects to the inputs P1-P13 identified in Figure 2 of the CIS Guidance on inventories, and in that respect they provide an adequate indication of the apportionment.

Other countries may have used the WFD list of pressures (in Annex 1 to this document), which may also provide an adequate indication.

It is possible to roughly correlate the SoE source categories and WFD pressures with the pathways identified in the inventory guidance. An indication of how the various categorisations can be correlated is provided in Annex 7. Depending upon the data provided by MS, i.e. on the categorisation used, the Commission may use these correlations to analyse and compare the source apportionment in different MS. Discussion and further follow-up in the Eionet framework could lead to greater harmonisation of the categorisation.

It would not be appropriate to limit reporting to inputs known to be causing EQS failures. This is because one purpose of the WFD Article 5 analysis is to identify where to monitor (therefore concentrations and EQS failure might not yet have been determined), and because at least for priority hazardous substances, any knowledge of quantifiable inputs should be considered relevant and therefore included in the inventory.

9.2.2. How will the Commission and the EEA use the information reported

As required by the legislation, the inventories will be used by the Commission for compliance checking with the environmental objectives of the WFD (WFD Article 4) on the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses (inputs) of priority substances and cessation or phase out of inputs of priority hazardous substances, and of the eight "other pollutants" in EQSD Annex I. The inventories will be an important input for the Commission review according to Article 7(1) of the EQS Directive on the possible need to amend existing acts or introduce additional specific Community-wide measures such as emission controls, as well as to the report according to Article 7(2). The information should throw light on the relevance of pollutants including priority substances at the spatial scale of the RBD or the national part of an international RBD, and on the loads reaching the aquatic environment, thus supporting MS in subsequent river basin management and WFD implementation. However, it is recognised that differences in methodology will mean that comparison between the datasets from different MS will be subject to caveats, and work will be needed to improve comparability. In addition, since the basis for the emission inventory in each MS could change, proper comparison to determine a trend might require recalculation of the data for an earlier reference year/period, and this might not always be possible. For the public, the information should provide greater transparency regarding the possible origin of existing problems and the need for measures to address them.

20 http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/632 200

It should be possible to illustrate trends in inputs for substances other than the EQSD Annex I substances, as has been done already for nitrogen and phosphorus, and to relate reductions to measures.

Information on source/pathway apportionment will be used to provide European overviews of the contribution made by different sources and pathways to the loads of pollutants. With good data coverage and an update every RBMP cycle, the information may also become a source of data to support the refinement of water resource efficiency indicators relating to emission intensities21,22,23, developed by the EEA.

9.2.2.1. Products from reporting

The following charts, tables and/or maps will be developed. The extent to which products relating non-EQSD substances can be developed will depend upon the extent of reporting. The extent to which products relating to trends can be produced will depend upon the provision of data for more than one year. The products will focus on total inputs to surface waters, but some could distinguish between inputs specifically to surface waters and inputs to groundwaters if sufficient information is provided. Similarly, products presenting inputs from individual sources might be produced if sufficient source or pathway apportionment data are reported.

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

- Total (significant) point source inputs of EQSD Annex I substances (by substance)

Chart, table or map

EU/National/RBD

Inputs from point source categories

Information reported at RBD or subunit level

- Total (significant) diffuse source inputs of EQSD Annex I substances (by substance)

Chart, table or map

EU/National/RBD

Inputs from diffuse source categories

Information reported at RBD or subunit level

- Trends in total inputs of EQSD Annex I substances (by substance)

Chart or table

EU/National/RBD

Trend in total point and diffuse source inputs (including by self-assessment if provided)

Information reported at RBD or subunit level

21 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/untitled-indemission-intensity-of-agriculture/assessment;

22 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/emission-intensity-of-domestic-sector/assessment

23 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/emission-intensity-of-manufacturing-industries/assessment201

- Total (significant) point source inputs of other substances/parameters (by substance)

Chart, table or map

EU/National/RBD

Inputs from point source categories

Information reported at RBD or subunit level

- Total (significant) diffuse source inputs of other substances/parameters (by substance)

Chart, table or map

EU/National/RBD

Inputs from diffuse source categories

Information reported at RBD or subunit level

- Trends in total inputs of other substances/parameters (by substance)

Chart or table

EU/National/RBD

Trend in total point and diffuse source inputs (including by self-assessment if provided)

Information reported at RBD or subunit level

9.2.3. Contents of 2016 reporting

The schema elements address the minimum requirement to report total point and total diffuse source inputs of the EQSD Annex I substances, by substance, for at least one year. Similar reporting for other substances/parameters is optional.

The reporting of a second, more recent, year of data, and of a self-assessed trend (taking into account difference in the coverage of actual inputs between the two time points), is optional.

Schema elements on methodology and on data quality are included to enable better assessment of the data.

More detailed reporting of information on source or pathway apportionment (categorisation) for all substances is also optional. MS may select the system they have used to categorise inputs. If MS are reporting under the SoE process, they may specify that a particular year of data be taken into account for source apportionment.

Depending upon the level of detail reported, and the approach used to establish the inventory, it is possible to report inputs to surface water specifically via groundwater.

9.2.3.1. Schema sketch

The schema sketch illustrates the relationship between the schema elements, namely

202

EURBDSubUnitCode

ChemicalSubstanceID

RelevanceRBDScale

Methodology

InputDataQuality

InputMethodLink

InputTotalValue

InputCategory

InputCategoryValue

InputCategoryCoverage

InputUnit

InputYearPeriod

InputTrend

InputTrendPeriod

InputPollutants

TwoStepApproach

InputTotalType

RLCode

9.2.3.2. Information and data to be reported

Member States should report inputs by substance, and by source or pathway (input category) if wished, according to the schema elements below.

Schema element: EURBDSubUnitCode

Field type/ facets: String

203

Guidance on completion of schema element: Required. Either a unique EU code for the RBD/national part of an international RBD or the unique EU code for the Sub-unit (the two-character ISO country code if necessary followed by the Member State unique ID, up to 42 characters in total).

Quality assurance checks: First two characters should be ISO country code

Schema element: TwoStepApproach

Field type / facets: Closed list: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Has the two-step approach in CIS-Guidance No 28 been followed? Together with Schema element RelevanceRBDScale this element determines the data-set to be reported.

Quality check:

Schema element: ChemicalSubstanceID

Field type / facets: String x 2

Guidance: Required for all EQSD Annex I substances. Unique code (CAS No) and name. Conditional for other substances/parameters, i.e. no others need to be reported on, but if they are, the ID is required: for RBSPs, unique code (CAS No) and name; for nutrients and deoxygenating substances, unique parameter names. Codes should be consistent with EIONET codes for the same substances.

Quality check: Inclusion of all EQSD Annex I substances; consistency between codes and names.

Schema element: RelevanceRBDScale

Field type / facets: Closed list: Yes, No

Guidance: Conditional, i.e. to be answered for reported substances. "Yes" if proceeding to second step of two-step approach. (See criteria on pages 9-10 of the CIS inventory guidance.) "No" leads to optional point source assessment. Any knowledge of quantifiable inputs of priority hazardous substances should be reported.

Quality check: Are all substances included that are also identified as causing failure of good chemical status? (Ideally, though optional, all substances identified as causing failure of good ecological status should also be included.)

Schema element: Methodology

Field type / facets: Closed list: Tier 1 (Point source information); Tier 2 (Riverine Load); Tier 3 (Pathway-oriented); Tier 4 (Source-oriented, e.g. SFA); Tiers 1 + 2; Tiers 1 + 2 + 3; Tiers 1 + 2 + 4; Tiers 1-4; Other

Guidance: Required for all substances reported. Indicates the approach used to determine the reported InputValue (and InputCategoryValue if reported). Further descriptions of Tiers 1-4 in CIS Guidance Document 28. Other methodology to be detailed (see InputMethodLink). May be different for different substances and individual input categories. Tier 1 automatic if

204

"No" re "RelevanceRBDScale".

Quality check: InputMethodLink provided if "Other" is specified

Schema element: InputDataQuality

Field type / facets: Closed list: very good; good; medium; uncertain; very uncertain

Guidance: Optional, and depending on whether quantitative data are reported. To reflect the reliability and variance of the data provided, taking into account issues such as the availability of monitoring data, the reliability of emission factors used in calculations, the difficulty of taking account of seasonal influences in areas with high seasonal variation etc.

e.g. Very good would imply a substantial monitoring basis, very uncertain would imply a very weak or absent monitoring basis (heavy reliance on estimation).

Quality check: n. a.

Schema element: InputMethodLink

Field type / facets: URL

Guidance: Conditional, required if "Other" methodology is specified, desirable if CIS Guidance approaches have been elaborated or described in an electronic freely accessible version of the national emission inventory for EQSD Annex I substances, in specific documents as part of RBMP reporting, in international seas convention guidance documents or similar. URL-Reference to specific documents.

Quality check: URL is functional

Schema element: InputTotalType

Field type / facets: Closed list: Total point sources; Total diffuse sources; Total point and diffuse sources

Guidance: Required for all EQSD Annex I substances reported. Optional for other substances/parameters. Distinction between total point and total diffuse expected for EQSD Annex I substances.

Quality check: Point and diffuse for each EQSD Annex I substance identified as a significant pressure, where relevant.

Schema element: InputTotalValue

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required for all EQSD Annex I substances reported. Optional for other substances/parameters. Input = emissions, discharges and losses.

Quality check: Together with InputUnit, QA rules for emission intensity may be developed ((per area of RBD/subunit or population) to detect outliers, e.g. caused by unit errors.

Schema element: InputCategory

205

Field type / facets: Closed lists referring to either CIS inventory guidance, SoE Emissions or WFD list of pressures :

CIS inventory Guidance: a)..m) for Principal Sources; P1..P13 for Pathways to surface water, and RLin or RLout for riverine loads into or out of the RBD/subunit (ref. to Fig 2);

SoE categories: U, I, O, G7, PT; NP1-NP7, NP; D0; R (leads to all SoE categories and the alternative option to specify a reported year);

WFD list of pressures 1.1–1.9; 2.1–2.9 (leads to all categories in Annex 1).

Guidance: Optional. Allows apportionment of inputs between different sources/pathways. Where annual reporting of inputs from individual sources is being undertaken through the SoE Emissions reporting process, this may be indicated.

Quality check: Reasonable correspondence with methodology applied

Schema element: InputCategoryValue

Field type / facets: Number (or SoE reporting year as “-yyyy”)

Guidance: Optional. Input by source/pathway.

No need to report inputs from individual source categories if an SoE reporting year has been specified under InputCategory.

Quality check: Together with InputUnit, QA rules for emission intensity may be developed ((per area of RBD/subunit or population) to detect outliers, e.g. caused by unit errors.

Schema element: InputCategoryCoverage

Field type / facets: Closed list

Guidance: Conditional; required if categories for Urban Waste Water Treatment Plants or Industrial Waste Water Treatment plants are reported.

Urban waste water: Treatment plant capacities included: U100 (> 100,000 p.e.); U10 (> 10,000 p.e.); U2 (> 2,000 p.e.); all (extrapolation to all treatment plants)

Industry: “1” (E-PRTR), “2” (National business registers not in E-PRTR), “3” (extrapolation to all manufacturing industries)

Quality check:

Schema element: InputUnit

Field type / facets: Closed list: tonnes/year; kg/year

Guidance: Required where an InputValue or InputCategoryValue is reported.

Quality check: QA rules (with a tolerance range) for emission intensity may be developed

206

(to detect unit errors)

Schema element: RLcode

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Optional. If reporting InputCategoryValues as riverine loads, IMHO monitoring code

Quality check:

Schema element: InputYearPeriod

Field type / facets: 4-digit number / two 4-digit numbers

Guidance: 4-digit number (should ideally be 2008, 2009 or 2010 as reference year) required for EQSD Annex I substances and for other substances for which an InputValue is reported. Calendar year to which the load applies. A period of up to six years within the relevant RBMP period may be indicated by two numbers.

Optional reporting, to enable trend assessment, of at least a second InputYear or InputYearPeriod for all substances, coupled with corresponding InputValues.

Quality check: 2000 < InputYear < 2015..If two periods, should not overlap with each other.

Schema element: InputTrend

Field type / facets: closed list: Number (unit: % per year (+ or -); average over trend interval);

Guidance: Optional. For each chemical substance a trend (positive or negative) can be reported directly (self-assessed), independently of any trend that might calculated directly from the datasets reported for those years.

Quality check: 2000 < first and last years < 2015

Schema element: InputTrendPeriod

Field type / facets: closed list: two 4-digit numbers (first and last years of trend assessment)

Guidance: Conditional if InputTrend is reported – similar to InputYearPeriod.

Quality check: 2000 < first and last years < 2015

9.2.3.3. Guidance on the contents of RBMPs/background documents

Member States should in their RBMPs/background documents include a description of the method for estimating the inputs of pollutants from the different sources/pathways, or refer to another document, i.e. Member States should either:

207

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the SoE Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 7); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member State's server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

References

CIS Guidance Document No 28 – Technical Guidance on the Preparation of an Inventory of Emissions, Discharges and Losses of Priority and Priority Hazardous Substances24

EIONET SoE reporting guidance25

E-PRTR Diffuse Sources project26,

LIFE WEISS project27

9.2.3.4. Glossary of terms

See CIS Guidance No 28 - Preparation of Priority Substances Emissions Inventory and EIONET SoE reporting guidance.

24 https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/6a3fb5a0-4dec-4fde-a69d-5ac93dfbbadd/Guidance%20document%20n28.pdf

25 http://rod.eionet.europa.eu/obligations/632

26 http://prtr.ec.europa.eu/DiffuseSourcesWater.aspx

27 http://weiss.vmm.be/ 208

9.3. Water abstractions and exploitation of water resources

9.3.1. Introduction

Recital 19 of the WFD reads as follows: "This Directive aims at maintaining and improving the aquatic environment in the Community. This purpose is primarily concerned with the quality of the waters concerned. Control of quantity is an ancillary element in securing good water quality and therefore measures on quantity, serving the objective of ensuring good quality, should also be established".

Although the WFD is primarily focused on water quality, the management of water quantity plays a very important role through the objective of good quantitative status for groundwater and the hydromorphological component of good ecological status. Ultimately, it is only possible to achieve the WFD objectives of good status if sufficient quantity of water is available.

The need to integrate the management of water quality and quantity has been highlighted in several occasions at EU level28. Different CIS groups and networks are also dealing with water quantity issues since several years. The current CIS Work Programme includes a CIS Working Group on E-flows and an activity on Water Accounts.

Reporting of the quantitative use of water is therefore highly relevant for the WFD. It is clear, however, that that the situation as regards quantitative pressures in the EU is very diverse. Therefore, any reporting linked to this issue has to take into account this diverse situation, in order to avoid unnecessary burden for those Member States where water abstraction is not an issue and is not even likely to be in the future.

Article 5 of the WFD requires MS to identify the key pressures present in the RBD likely to cause water bodies to be of less than good status. It also requires MS to assess the impacts on water bodies to support the determination of status. This analysis should include water quantity related considerations where relevant.

In scarcity prone RBDs water balances are often calculated already on RBD level, e.g. as part of water resources management or development of RBMPs and drought management plans. Significant abstractions and volumes abstracted on an annual and/or seasonal temporal scale, by source and category of abstraction (see pressure list in Annex 1) have frequently been reported in RBMPs in the first cycle at RBD/national part of RBD or Sub-unit level.

In 2012 Water Directors agreed a formula for calculating the Water Exploitation Index Plus (WEI+) (link) of a particular area is the total consumption of water divided by the renewable freshwater resources'. The WEI+ was developed by the CIS Expert Group on Water Scarcity and Drought to provide an indication of the pressure on the water resources of a certain territory as a consequence of water withdrawals.

WEI+ = (Abstractions – Returns) / Renewable Water Resources

This information is highly relevant to reinforce the link between water quantity and water quality, and the interaction between surface and groundwater bodies.

28 E.g. in the Communication from the Commission on Water Scarcity and Droughts COM(2007)414, on the Council Conclusions of June 2010 on the same subject and lately on the Blueprint to Safeguard Europe's Water Resources COM(2012)673.

209

The reporting under the WFD in the context of the pressure analysis generally focuses on water use which needs to be specified into water abstraction and consumptive water use (Abstraction minus returns). However, the pressures due to the consumptive use need to be put into the context of water availability since only an imbalance between consumptively used water and the freshwater availability gives an indication of the real pressure on the water ecosystem..

The selection of appropriate spatial and temporal scales is important to specify the regional and seasonal differences in the assessments. For the purpose of reporting the following scales are considered:

Spatial Scale

National, River Basin Districts or - following the diction of Art. 5(1) of the WFD - the portion of an international RBD falling within a Member states territory.

Temporal Scale

In some basins, water scarcity is reflected only when calculating the indicator at the monthly WEI+ but not necessarily by the annual WEI+. It is recognized that the monthly index level best represents seasonal shortages that may not be revealed in the annual scale, while the annual WEI+ may be enough where the absence of water scarcity problems is evident. However, the application of the index on a monthly basis and associated reporting requires considerable effort in data acquisition and therefore should only be required in those RBDs where water abstraction is a significant pressure.

In order to adapt the reporting effort to the situation in the respective RBDs, the following two-step approach is devised for reporting purposes:

Required for all RBDs: indication of whether, on the basis of the pressure and impact analysis, the annual WEI+ and/or any other available information, the Member State considers that water abstraction (understood as net consumption) is a significant pressure at the level of the (national part of the) RBD (or significant portions of it). If water abstraction is not a significant pressure in the RBD, no further reporting is required. An estimate of the RBD or national annual WEI+ may be provided if available (optional).

Required only for those RBDs where water abstraction is considered a significant pressure: report the annual WEI+ and the WEI+ for the worst month where water scarcity situations could be expected in the RBD as well as supplementary information about the consumptive water use (water consumption) by source and sector as well as support parameters.

An alternative reporting is provided for those Member States where the WEI+ is not yet available and use other indicators.

Regarding the reporting of the consumptive use it is recognised that MS have different approaches to obtain this figure from the statistics. Focus needs to be given to clarify the share of the consumptive use (water consumption) as the only relevant under the aspect of water scarcity and to make sure the volumes that are abstracted but returned (like for cooling water and hydropower) are not included into the reported figure. Estimates for the water consumption can be done on the basis of percentage factors of abstraction per type of use (please specify method under WQCalculationMethod).

210

9.3.2. How will the Commission and the EEA use the information reported

Information provided by Member States on the WEI+ and where appropriate the water abstracted by sector from surface waters or groundwater will be used to provide European overviews of water quantity related challenges.

9.3.2.1. Products from reporting

The products below will focus on these RBDs and MS where water abstraction is a pressure. For the rest, an indication will be displayed to state that water abstraction has not been identified as a problem.

As for the WEI+, thresholds have not been agreed yet29. Until this is done, the presentation of the products should be for comparison purposes only and should not include any classification unless previously agreed by Member States. The products from reporting will need approval by the SCG/WD whenever EU-wide visualisation is involved.

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

- WEI+ national Chart, table or map

EU/National/ Indication of the pressure on the water resources at national level as a consequence of water withdrawals

Information reported at national level for a 5 year period.

- WEI+ seasonal for worst month in the year period

Chart, table or map

RBD Indication of the pressure on the water resources at national level as a consequence of water withdrawals

Information reported at RBD level

- Water abstraction by source

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD

Share of abstraction between surface and groundwater resources

Information reported at RBD or subunit level, at annual or monthly resolution

- Trends in water use by sector

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD

Trends in water use by sector. Identification of the main water users across Europe

Information reported at RBD level

Overview of losses and leakages

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD

Overview of loss and leakages and trends of their improvements

Information reported at RBD level

Water transfers, returns and reuse

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD

Overview of returned waters, amounts reused and intra and inter-basin transports in and out of the RBD (e.g. to big cities)

Information reported at RBD level

- Water exploitation and Water balance and their trends per RBD

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD

Water balance information displayed as index

Information reported at RBD level for a 5 year period

29 See conclusions from Informal Meeting of Water and Marine Directors of the European Union, Candidate and EFTA Countries Copenhagen, 4-5 June 2012

211

9.3.3. Contents of 2016 reporting

9.3.3.1. Schema sketch

WaterQuantity

EURBDCode

WEI+RBD

WQPressure

WEI+National

WEI+NationalYear

WEI+RBDYear

WEI+Worst

WEI+WorstMonth

∞ ∞

AlternativeIndicator

ConsumptiveUseAgricultureSW

ConsumptiveUseAgricultureGW

ConsumptiveUseWaterSupplySW

ConsumptiveUseIndustrySW

ConsumptiveUseIndustryEnergy

ConsumptiveUseIndustrySW

ConsumptiveUseWaterSupplyGW

ReusedWater

DesalinatedWater

WaterImports

WaterExports

WQVolumeReferenceYear

WQCalculationParameter WQCalculationMethod

9.3.3.2. Data and information to be reported using the schemas

Schema element: EURBDCode

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: The unique EU code for the RBD being reported.

Quality check:

Schema element: WQPressure

212

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Has water abstraction (understood as consumptive use or net consumption) been identified as a significant pressure at level of the (national part of the) RBD (or in significant portions of it)?

Schema element: WEI+National

Field type / facets: value (%);

Guidance: Optional. Annual WEI+ at national level for the latest available reference year or an average of the latest available 5 year period

Schema element: WEI+NationalYear

Field type / facets: value (year) or value range for 5 year period

Guidance: Optional. Reference year or range of a 5 year period for the calculation of the annual WEI+ at national level.

Schema element: WEI+RBD

Field type / facets: value (%)

Guidance: Conditional. Annual WEI+ at the level of the (national part of) RBD for the latest available reference year or, if available, an average of the latest available 5 year period

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: WEI+RBDYear

Field type / facets: value (year) or value range for 5 year period

Guidance: Conditional. Reference year or range of a 5 year period for the calculation of the annual WEI+ at the level of the (national part of) RBD.

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: WEI+Worst

Field type / facets: value (%)

Guidance: Conditional. WEI+ for the worst month at the level of the (national part of) RBD

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: WEI+WorstMonth

Field type / facets: month and year (String format: MM-YYYY)

Guidance: Conditional. Month of the year taken as reference for the WEI+Worst.

213

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: AlternativeIndicator

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: In case it is not possible to report WEI+ values please provide a reference to the documents where alternative indicators or equivalent water balances are developed. Either:

1. Upload a copy of the documents to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the documents stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

Quality check: required if WEI+ values are not reported.

Schema element: ConsumptiveUseAgricultureSW

Field type / facets: value (Hm3)

Guidance: Conditional. Provide the annual volume of surface water consumption from agriculture in the RBD (consumption = abstractions – returns).

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: ConsumptiveUseAgricultureGW

Field type / facets: value (Hm3)

Guidance: Conditional. Provide the annual volume of groundwater consumption from agriculture in the RBD (consumption = abstractions – returns).

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: ConsumptiveUseIndustrySW

Field type / facets: value (Hm3)

Guidance: Conditional. Provide the annual volume of surface water consumption from industry in the RBD (consumption = abstractions – returns). Industry includes energy production (e.g. consumption of water due to evaporation of cooling water)

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: ConsumptiveUseIndustryEnergy

Field type / facets: value (%)

Guidance: Optional. If available provide the percentage of the annual volume of surface 214

water consumption from energy production in the RBD (consumption = abstractions – returns), e.g. due to evaporation of cooling water.

Quality check:

Schema element: ConsumptiveUseIndustryGW

Field type / facets: value (Hm3)

Guidance: Conditional. Provide the annual volume of groundwater consumption from industry in the RBD (consumption = abstractions – returns).

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: ConsumptiveUseWaterSupplySW

Field type / facets: value (Hm3)

Guidance: Conditional. Provide the annual volume of surface water consumption from public water supply in the RBD (consumption = abstractions – returns).

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: ConsumptiveUseWaterSupplyGW

Field type / facets: value (Hm3)

Guidance: Conditional. Provide the annual volume of groundwater consumption from public water supply in the RBD (consumption = abstractions – returns).

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: ReusedWater

Field type / facets: value (Hm3)

Guidance: Conditional. Provide the annual volume of water reused in the RBD.

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: DesalinatedWater

Field type / facets: value (Hm3)

Guidance: Conditional. Provide the annual volume of desalinated water used in the RBD.

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: WaterImports

Field type / facets: value (Hm3)

Guidance: Conditional. Provide the annual volume of water imports to the RBD.

215

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: WaterExports

Field type / facets: value (Hm3)

Guidance: Conditional. Provide the annual volume of water exports from the RBD.

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: WQVolumeReferenceYear

Field type / facets: value or value range for 5 year period

Guidance: Conditional. Provide the reference year or period of the estimates of water consumption or the values of non-consumptive use, imports or experts from above schemas.

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: WQCalculationParameter (1-∞)

Field type / facets: Closed list- WEI+- ConsumptiveUseAgricultureSW- ConsumptiveUseAgricultureGW- ConsumptiveUseIndustrySW- ConsumptiveUseIndustryEnergy- ConsumptiveUseIndustryGW- ConsumptiveUseWaterSupplySW- ConsumptiveUseWaterSupplyGW- ReusedWater- DesalinatedWater- WaterImports- WaterExports

Guidance: Conditional: specify the parameter for which the method is given under element WQCalculationMethod.

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

Schema element: WQCalculationMethod (1-∞)

Field type / facets: Closed list- Based on direct measurements / monitoring- Assimilation and processing (e.g. aggregation, extrapolation, clipping, etc.) from

statistical data at different spatial scale (e.g. NUTS, Country level)- Based on local surveys and statistical sampling- Based on process-based deterministic hydrological and water balance modelling - Based on stochastic hydrological and water balance modelling- Empirical modelling and/or proxy values (e.g. based on water-rights allocation and

permits, average water production, water supply deliveries, data from wastewater treatment plans, etc.)

- Calculated based on theoretical water needs and theoretical consumption values216

- Estimated based on established water-use coefficients (e.g. water use per capita, per unit of production, per unit of electricity generated, per animal-head, per crop water consumption, per fish, per pound of organism produced, etc. ) and ancillary data (e.g. population, crops cover hectares, livestock counts, number of employees in industries, crop yields, power generation etc.)

- Estimated based on representative indicators (e.g. % deviation from the theoretical streamflow regime as an indicator of water balance, water demand as an indicator of water abstraction, etc.)

- For WEI+ which method has been used for estimation of renewable water resources: Option 1. RWR = ExIn + P – Eta – ΔSnatOption 2. RWR = Outflow + (Abstraction – Return) – ΔSart

- Other method, not included in the list

Guidance: ConditionalRequired: specify the method(s) used for the estimation of the water quantity valuesthis parameter. Documentation on the calculation methods must be provided as specified in section 9.3.3.34

Quality check: required if WQPressure is Yes

9.3.3.3. Guidance on the contents of RBMPs/background documents

Member States which consider that water abstraction is a significant pressure in the RBD should in their RBMPs/background documents include a description on the method for estimating the water balance, water abstractions and water uses.

In case the data have resulted from hydrological and water balance modelling, a short review of the robustness of the used models, their ability to represent the salient features of the physical system, and the accuracy and bias of the simulations should be described in the background documents.

In case indicators have been used, their representativity, robustness and sensitivity should be described in the background documents

To provide RBMPs or background documents Member States should either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex <>); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

9.3.3.4. Glossary of terms

- Water consumptive use, from public supply: Total volume of freshwater used by end-users for a specific purpose within a territory, and which is provided to them by public water supply systems. Public water supply refers to water supplied by economic units engaged in collection, purification and distribution of water (excluding system operation for agricultural purposes and treatment of waste water solely in order to prevent pollution). It corresponds to division 41 NACE/ISIC independently of the sector involved. Deliveries of water from one

217

public supply undertaking to another are excluded. Public water supply services provide water for domestic use, use at offices, restaurants and hotels, factories, municipal use etc. (all or some of these uses). Thus, since this depends on the system it may not be possible to separate which amount is intended for each user. In some cases of course this might be possible.

- Reused water: Volume of water which has undergone wastewater treatment and is delivered to a user as reclaimed wastewater for reuse within the RBD. This means the direct supply of treated effluent to the user. Excluded is waste water discharged into a watercourse and used again downstream. Recycling is excluded. If this amount of water is made available for reuse to recipients which are located outside the RBD -in other words the water is exported for reuse elsewhere- this should not be reported here

- Water use, produced from Desalination process: Total volume of water obtained from desalination processes for supply to water users

- Water imports and exports: total volume of traded bulk water imported from, or exported to, another territory outside the RBD as a water transfer

For ease of reference, common understanding and possible use of complementary reporting flows, annex 2 provides an allocation of the relevant statistical classes (NACE) to the WFD list of pressures.

218

10. PROGRAMME OF MEASURES REPORTED AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL (SCHEMA RBMP_POM)

10.1. Key Types of Measures to tackle significant pressures

10.1.1. Introduction

The WFD requires, that within each RBD, a Programme of Measures (PoM) is established to address the significant issues identified and to allow the achievement of the objectives established under Article 4. The Directive further specifies that the PoM shall include as a minimum 'basic measures' and where necessary to achieve objectives 'supplementary measures'.

Basic measures as a minimum must comprise:

a) Measures required in order to implement existing Community water legislation and other environmental legislation (set out in Article 10 and in Part A of Annex VI – detailed below).

b) Measures to implement Article 9 (cost recovery).

c) Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use.

d) Measures to protect drinking water quality and reduce level of treatment required.

e) Measures to control abstraction from surface and groundwater.

f) Measures to control recharging of groundwater.

g) Measures to control point source discharges.

h) Measures to prevent or control inputs of diffuse pollutants.

i) Measures to address any other significant impacts on status, in particular the hydromorphological condition.

j) Measures to prohibit direct discharges to groundwater

k) Measures to eliminate or reduce pollution by priority substances.

l) Measures to prevent accidental pollution.

Legislation in Article 10 and in Part A of Annex VI:

(i) The Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC).

(ii) The Birds Directive (79/409/EEC).

(iii) The Drinking Water Directive (80/778/EEC) as amended by Directive (98/83/EC).

(iv) The Major Accidents (Seveso) Directive (96/82/EC).

(v) The Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC).

(vi) The Sewage Sludge Directive (86/278/EEC).

(vii) The Urban Waste-water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC).

219

(viii) The Plant Protection Products Directive (91/414/EEC).

(ix) The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC).

(x) The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC).

(xi) The Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC).

Supplementary measures are those measures designed and implemented in addition to the basic measures, where it is necessary to achieve the environmental objectives of the WFD as established in Article 4 and Annex V. Supplementary measures can include additional legislative powers, fiscal measures, research, educational campaigns that go beyond the basic measures and are deemed necessary for the achievement of objectives.

According to Article 11(5), additional measures may be necessary when a water body is unlikely to achieve the objectives under Article 4, after the adoption of the measures under the first RBMP. If the implementation of an additional measure lasts longer than one river basin management planning cycle this measure becomes either a basic or supplementary measure.

Measures should be targeted in terms of their type and extent to ensure that pressures are addressed and that this will deliver improvements towards achieving good status or potential in the individual water bodies. The measures should be designed based on the assessment of the actual status of the water body, supplemented with the information from the analysis of pressures and impacts affecting the water body.

10.1.2. Role of Key Types of Measures

The concept of Key Types of Measures (KTMs) was developed in 2012 to simplify reporting. This approach was the consequence of the large differences in level of detail reported in 2010. Some Member States reported 10-20 measures whilst others reported hundreds or even thousands. KTMs are groups of measures identified by Member States in the PoMs which target the same pressure or purpose. The individual measures included in the (summary of the) PoM (being part of the RBMP) are grouped into KTMs for the purpose of reporting. The same individual measure can be part of more than one KTM because it may be multi-purpose, but also because the KTMs are not completely independent silos. There is certain degree of overlap to ensure that the Member States can more easily find the way to report their PoM.

Key Types of Measure are expected to deliver the bulk of the improvements through reduction in pressures required to achieve WFD objectives. A Key Type of Measure may just be one national measure but it would typically comprise more than one national measure. For example, in some Member States, the Nitrates Action Plan may be enough to reduce diffuse nutrient pollution from agriculture to levels consistent with the achievement of good ecological status or potential. In this case KTM2 may just be associated with one Article 11.3.a basic measure (i.e. implementation of the Nitrates Directive). In other MSs, basic measures under Article 11.3.h (binding rules for the control of diffuse pollution) and supplementary measures (Article 11.4) may also be required to achieve WFD objectives: in the latter case KTM2 would be associated with at least 3 national measures.

It is expected that the Member States will be able to report their programme of measures by associating their national measures to the predefined KTMs. Given the fact that the predefined KTMs cover the main water management issues in the EU, the use of additional KTMs defined by the Member States is expected to be exceptional.

220

To provide information on the relative contribution of Article 11.3.a and 11.3. b to l basic measures and supplementary measures to KTMs and the achievement of WFD objectives, Member States are required to report on the national measures associated with the Key Types of Measures. Details of the individual measures are, however, not requested to be reported except for some targeted questions on basic measures and other specific aspects.

10.1.3. Predefined KTMs

Predefined Key Types of Measure (KTM) for the 2016 reports are based on the KTMs defined for the 2012 progress reports on implementation of programme of measures, the new ones reported by Member States in 2012 and commonly reported significant pressures not previously incorporated by predefined KTMs.

It is expected that most Member States will be able to report their measures in terms of predefined KTMs. The use of additional "new" KTMs should be very limited to facilitate comparability and the consolidation of information at EU level. The Member States are expected to "bundle" their national measures (usually much more detailed than the KTMs) to report them in an aggregated way as KTMs (see sections 10.1.2 Role of KTMs and below Mapping KTMs to individual measures). Quantitative indicators are reported at the level of KTMs.

The 25 predefined KTMs are listed below.

KTM number

KTM description

1 Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants 2 Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 3 Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture. 4 Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil). 5 Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams). 6 Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity (e.g. river

restoration, improvement of riparian areas, removal of hard embankments, reconnecting rivers to floodplains, improvement of hydromorphological condition of transitional waters, etc.).

7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows. 8 Water efficiency technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households9 Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from

households10 Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from

industry11 Water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from

agriculture12 Advisory services for agriculture13 Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc)14 Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty. 15 Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances or for

the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances.  16 Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms) 17 Measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off 18 Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species and introduced diseases19 Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation including angling20 Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and

plants21 Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure22 Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry23 Natural water retention measures24 Adaptation to climate change25 Measures to counteract acidification

221

10.1.4. Mapping of pressures to KTMs

Guidance is provided on how KTMs might be applicable to significant pressures and chemical substances causing failure of objectives. This is done by mapping significant pressures, priority substances causing failure of good chemical status or other relevant objectives, and river basin specific pollutants causing failure of good ecological status or potential against the predefined KTMs. More than one KTM may apply to any particular pressure or substance depending on the impacts of the pressure (e.g. nutrient pollution, organic pollution or chemical pollution), and the specific conditions in a Member State. The results of the mapping are given in Annex 3.

10.1.5. Quantitative indicators for the scale of pressures

In addition quantitative indicators for the scale of the pressure or chemical substance failure are given for each significant pressure and, generically, for priority substances or river basin specific pollutants. These quantitative indicators are intended to provide information on the expected gap to be filled at the start of the second planning cycle in 2015 in terms of the scale of the pressure that needs to be reduced to achieve WFD objectives. In terms of the achievement of good ecological status or potential, the gap to be filled would equate to the required reduction in pressures (e.g. loads of nutrients) so that water bodies at (or expected to be at) less than good in 2015 would achieve good. Values of the quantitative indicators are also required for 2021 and 2027 reflecting the scale of the pressure that would still be required to be tackled so that WFD objectives can be achieved: values for 2021 and 2027 would therefore expected to lower than the 2015 value.

Member States are recommended to report for all pressure one standard indicator (number and length/area of water bodies affected by the relevant significant pressure or chemical substance) and at least one other predefined indicator specifically relevant for the relevant pressure (and as many as the Member State wishes). This will on the one hand provide comparable information on the starting point and the expected progress (through the number and length/area of water bodies affected) and on the other hand will enable the Member States to choose the specific indicator for the pressure/chemical substance which is more suitable to their specific condition or for which information is readily available. In case Member States cannot report the predefined quantitative indicators, they are able to select and report their own quantitative indicators that best meet their specific conditions and situation. Predefined indicators are provided in Annex 3.

Quantitative indicators are considered a management tool, and represent the best estimate that the Member State can provide to show the gap to good status/potential and the intended progress by a certain deadline. The quantification of pressures, as any other process in the planning cycle, is subject to uncertainties. Still, there will be cases where data and information is not available to produce a useful quantitative indicator. This may be particularly the case for certain pressures which are more difficult to quantify and/or in complex RBDs subject to many pressures, where it is difficult to disaggregate the pressure-measure relationships.

On this basis, the Member States are requested to report quantitative indicators to the extent possible and for the pressures where this information is available or can be derived on the basis of a reasonable effort. In this regard, the lack of reporting of quantitative indicators does not imply a failure to comply with the WFD obligations.

Indicators are developed in such a way that they represent the gap to achieve good status for each given significant pressure. Therefore, an indicator value of 0 would mean a level of pressure compatible with 100% good status/potential, i.e. which would enable the affected water bodies to achieve good status/potential. However, given that the affected water bodies may be subject to other

222

pressures, they may still not achieve good status/potential; in addition, good status may not be achieved immediately, as natural conditions or delayed response of the ecosystem may delay the achievement of the objectives.

A value of the pressure indicator larger than 0 in 2027 would be interpreted as meaning that the Member State expects to rely on article 4(5) (setting lower environmental objectives).

10.1.6. Quantitative indicators for the scale and progress with implementation of measures

Quantitative indicators have also been predefined for each Key Type of Measure. These are intended to provide information on the scale of the measure that is expected to reduce the pressure to levels that enable WFD objectives to be achieved. The value of the indicator at the start of the second planning cycle in 2015 would give information on the scale of the measure (e.g. number of waste water treatment plants that need upgrading, the number of barriers that need modification to enable continuity, the length of buffer strips required to reduce diffuse emissions, etc) that would reduce the pressures to a level which would enable affected water bodies to achieve WFD objectives (as in the case of pressures, implementing certain KTM may not suffice to achieve the objectives in a multi-pressure context). Values of the quantitative indicators are also required for 2021 and 2027 to provide information on the expected progress with the measures over the second and third planning cycles. If all measures planned in 2015 were fully implemented and made operational by 2021, then the value of the indicator in 2021 would be 0. If the values of the indicator in 2015 and 2021 are the same it means no progress is expected between these dates (i.e. in the second planning cycle). The indicator values get smaller with the progress in the implementation of the measures.

Member States are able to select as many of the predefined quantitative indicators of KTM implementation as is appropriate to their conditions and situation but are asked to select at least one predefined indicator for each KTM. Member States are also able to select and report their own quantitative indicators that best meet their specific conditions and situation. Predefined indicators are provided in Annex 3.

The quantification of measures to achieve the environmental objectives is considered part of the WFD implementation. However, it can be a challenging task, in particular for pressures for which the pressure-measure relationship is subject to larger uncertainties and also in complex RBDs subject to many pressures. There will be cases where data and information is not available to produce a useful quantitative indicator.

As with the quantitative indicators for pressures, the Member States are requested to report quantitative indicators for measures to the extent possible and for the measures where this information is available or can be derived on the basis of a reasonable effort. In this regard, the lack of reporting of quantitative indicators for measures does not imply a failure to comply with the WFD obligations.

KTMs can be relevant for several pressures. And for single pressure, several KTMs may be applicable. This many-to-may relationship requires a flexible reporting structure. The same significant pressures can be chosen more than once if it is linked to several KTMs. The table below provides an example of this for diffuse pollution agriculture, where KTM2 and KTM3 are relevant.

It will be possible to add other new Key Types of Measure that are important in a particular RBD where the significant pressure being tackled is not covered by one of the predefined KTMs. In this case a quantitative indicator of the expected progress with the measure over the second planning

223

cycle would need to be provided by the MS, including definition of the indicator, units, value representing the situation in 2015 and expected situation in 2021 at the end of the second planning cycle.

All KTM indicators should be defined in terms of what needs to be done to achieve good status. This means that the value of the indicator will be reduced with time as the measures are being implemented. A value of 0 will be compatible with 100% good status for the given pressure. Any "other" indicator reported by Member States should be constructed in the same way.

A value of the KTM indicator larger than 0 in 2027 would be interpreted as meaning that the Member State expects to rely on article 4(5) (setting lower environmental objectives).

The following table shows an example of the kind of information that could be derived from reporting (this table is a theoretical example given for illustrative purposes only):

224

For a particular RBD/SU:

SW or GW

Significant pressure or substance failing

Percentage of water bodies affected by significant pressure or by substance failure

Indicator for pressure (element IndicatorGap)

Indicator for scale of pressure 2015 (Value Indicator Gap2015)

Indicator for scale of pressure 2021 (Value Indicator Gap2021)

Indicator for scale of pressure 2027 (Value Indicator Gap2027)

KTM used to address this pressure or substance

Indicator for KTM (KTM Indicator)

Indicator of the scale of measure needed to achieve 100% GES/GEP/GCS (KTM Indicator Value2015)

Indicator of the remaining scale of measure needed to achieve 100% GES/GEP/GCS (KTM Indicator Value2021)

Indicator of the remaining scale of measure needed to achieve 100% GES/GEP/GCS (KTM Indicator Value2027)

SW1.1. Point - urban waste water

25%

Number of water bodies affected

250 180 0

KTM1 construction or upgrade of WWTP

Number of WWTPs to be constructed or upgraded

53 25 0

Length of water bodies affected (km)

2000 1300 0

Load of BOD to be reduced (in tonnes) to achieve objectives

50000 20000 0

Load of nitrogen to be reduced (in tonnes) to achieve objectives

4500 3250 0

Load of phosphorus to be reduced (in tonnes) to achieve objectives

300 200 0

225

SW or GW

Significant pressure or substance failing

Percentage of water bodies affected by significant pressure or by substance failure

Indicator for pressure (element IndicatorGap)

Indicator for scale of pressure 2015 (Value Indicator Gap2015)

Indicator for scale of pressure 2021 (Value Indicator Gap2021)

Indicator for scale of pressure 2027 (Value Indicator Gap2027)

KTM used to address this pressure or substance

Indicator for KTM (KTM Indicator)

Indicator of the scale of measure needed to achieve 100% GES/GEP/GCS (KTM Indicator Value2015)

Indicator of the remaining scale of measure needed to achieve 100% GES/GEP/GCS (KTM Indicator Value2021)

Indicator of the remaining scale of measure needed to achieve 100% GES/GEP/GCS (KTM Indicator Value2027)

SW1.2 Point - Storm overflows

13%

Number of water bodies affected

130 70 0

KTM1 construction or upgrade of WWTP

Number of urban areas where sewer systems need upgrading

11 5 0Length of water bodies affected (km)

900 500 0

Number of urban areas with excessive overflows

11 5 0

SW 1.3 Point - IED plants 5%

Number of water bodies affected

50 0 0

KTM16 upgrades of industrial WWTP

Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

16 0 0Length of water bodies affected (km)

300 0 0

Number of permits not compatible with objective

16 0 0

SW1.4 Point - non-IED plants

4%

Number of water bodies affected

40 0 0

KTM16 upgrades of industrial WWTP

Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

7 0 0Length of water bodies affected (km)

230 0 0

Number of permits not compatible with objective

7 0 0

226

SW or GW

Significant pressure or substance failing

Percentage of water bodies affected by significant pressure or by substance failure

Indicator for pressure (element IndicatorGap)

Indicator for scale of pressure 2015 (Value Indicator Gap2015)

Indicator for scale of pressure 2021 (Value Indicator Gap2021)

Indicator for scale of pressure 2027 (Value Indicator Gap2027)

KTM used to address this pressure or substance

Indicator for KTM (KTM Indicator)

Indicator of the scale of measure needed to achieve 100% GES/GEP/GCS (KTM Indicator Value2015)

Indicator of the remaining scale of measure needed to achieve 100% GES/GEP/GCS (KTM Indicator Value2021)

Indicator of the remaining scale of measure needed to achieve 100% GES/GEP/GCS (KTM Indicator Value2027)

SW 2.2 Diffuse - agriculture 60%

Number of water bodies affected

600 450 200

KTM2 Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture

Area of agricultural land covered by measures (km2) to achieve objectives

6000 3000 700

Length of water bodies affected (km)

4200 3100 1000

Load of nitrogen to be reduced (in tonnes) to achieve objectives

26000 20000 8000

SW 2.2 Diffuse - agriculture 40%

Number of water bodies affected

400 250 100

KTM2 Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture

Area of agricultural land covered by measures (km2) to achieve objectives

2400 1500 350

Length of water bodies affected (km)

2200 1100 300

Load of phosphorus to be reduced (in tonnes) to achieve objectives

3500 1500 1000

SW 2.2 Diffuse - agriculture 20%

Number of water bodies affected

200 100 0 KTM3 Reduce pesticide pollution from agriculture

Area of agricultural land covered by measures (km2) to achieve objectives

1000 500 0Length of water bodies affected (km)

1200 600 0

227

SW or GW

Significant pressure or substance failing

Percentage of water bodies affected by significant pressure or by substance failure

Indicator for pressure (element IndicatorGap)

Indicator for scale of pressure 2015 (Value Indicator Gap2015)

Indicator for scale of pressure 2021 (Value Indicator Gap2021)

Indicator for scale of pressure 2027 (Value Indicator Gap2027)

KTM used to address this pressure or substance

Indicator for KTM (KTM Indicator)

Indicator of the scale of measure needed to achieve 100% GES/GEP/GCS (KTM Indicator Value2015)

Indicator of the remaining scale of measure needed to achieve 100% GES/GEP/GCS (KTM Indicator Value2021)

Indicator of the remaining scale of measure needed to achieve 100% GES/GEP/GCS (KTM Indicator Value2027)

GW3.1 Abstraction - Agriculture

33%

Volume of water abstracted/ diverted for agriculture (million m3) to be reduced to achieve objectives

15000 12000 3000

KTM7 improvements flow regime and eflows

Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

SW

4.1.1 Physical alteration for flood protection

15%

Length in km of water bodies affected by alterations not compatible with GES/GEP

250 150 0

KTM6 improving hymo conditions

Length in km of water bodies that need restoration

250 150 0

SW4.2.1 Dams barriers for hydropower

22%

Nb of dams with operating conditions not compatible with GES/GEP

85 45 5

KTM5 improving longitudinal continuity

Number of barriers required to be tackled for the achievement of objectives

85 45 5

SW

4.3.3 Hydrological alteration - hydropower

32%

Length in km of water bodies affected by hydrological alterations not compatible with GES/GEP

100 50 0

KTM7 improvements flow regime and eflows

Number of revised permits

75 40 0

228

229

10.1.7. How will the Commission and the EEA use the information reported

Information provided by Member States on the summary of steps and measures taken to meet the requirements of Article 11 will be used by the Commission to ensure that the provisions of Article 11 have been properly and consistently applied according to the Directive, and to provide information to the Parliament and public on the relevant measures. A screening assessment will be made on the basis of the compliance indicator which builds on an approach based on pressures.

10.1.7.1. Products from reporting

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

- Percentage of water bodies failing objectives due to different pressures

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD

Percentage of water bodies failing objectives due to different pressures, for all surface water bodies or by water category

Information reported at RBD level

-

- Costs of measures

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD

Total costs of the PoM or disaggregated by basic 11(3)a, basic 11(3)b-l and supplementary

Information reported at RBD level

-

- Measures in place to tackle significant pressures and chemical substances causing failure of objectives

Assessment report

EU/National/ RBD

Measures in place to tackle significant pressures and chemical substances causing failure of objectives.

Information reported at subunit/RBD level and also in specifically referenced documents or sections in the RBMP

Yes

- Progress with implementing and making programmes of measures operational

Assessment report

EU/National/ RBD

Expected progress during second and third planning cycles. Actual progress due to be reported in 2018 and 2024.

Information reported at subunit/RBD level and also in specifically referenced documents or sections in the RBMP

Yes

10.1.8. Contents of 2016 reporting

10.1.8.1. Schema sketch

Linking KTMs to significant pressures

230

1 to ∞

1 to 1

1 to ∞

1 to 1

1 to ∞

1 to 1

1 to ∞

1 to ∞

1 to 1

1 to ∞

1 to ∞

1 to ∞

EURBDCode

SignificantPressureType

PS_RBSP

SignificantPressures_ SubstanceFailing

EUSubUnitCode

+

SurfaceWater_GroundWater

GapToObjectives

ValueIndicatorGap2015

ValueIndicatorGap2021

ValueIndicatorGap2027

KeyTypeMeasures

KeyTypeMeasureIndicator

+

OtherIndicators

ValueOtherIndicatorGap2015

ValueOtherIndicatorGap2015

ValueOtherIndicatorGap2027

+

KeyTypeMeasure

NewKeyTypeMeasure

Indicators

IndicatorGap

OtherIndicatorGapDescription

ValueKTMIndicator2015

ValueKTMIndicator2021

ValueKTMIndicator2027

KeyTypeMeasureIndicatorOther

KTMIndicatorOtherDescription

ValueKTMIndicatorOther2015

ValueKTMIndicatorOther2021

ValueKTMIndicatorOther2027

NewKeyTypeMeasureDescription

NewKTMIndicatorDescription

ValueNewKTMIndicator2015

ValueNewKTMIndicator2021

ValueNewKTMIndicator2027

Mapping KTMs to individual measures

231

If a basic measure, please report which type (1 to many): Select one from: Select one from: UrbanWasteWater; Nitrates; IPPC_IED; CostRecoveryWaterServices; Effi cientWaterUse; ProtectionWaterAbstraction; ControlsWaterAbstraction; RechargeAugmentationGroundwaters; PointSourceDischarges; PollutantsDiffuse; AdverseImpact; PollutantsDirectGroundwater; SurfacePrioritySubstances; AccidentalPollution;

Provide more detailed information on this measure through a link to a specific document, chapter of the RBMP or factsheet held at national level

National name of measure that gives an indication of the pressure/substance it is designed to tackle and the mechanim of its implementation

Select one by one the defined Key Types of Measure used to tackle significant pressure and failures due to chemical substances

Enter name, one by one, of any new Key Type of Measures defined by the Member State to address significant pressures and failures due to chemical substances in this RBD

National code(s) of measures that is/are associated with the KTM(s) used to tackle significant pressures or failures due to chemical substances in this RBD. 1 to many

Select supplementary or basic measure

Is this measure relevant for the purpose of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive? Yes, No, Unclear

KeyTypeMeasure

NewKeyTypeMeasureName

MeasureCode

KeyTypesMeasureLinks

MeasureName

MeasureType BasicMeasureType

Reference

MSFDRelevance

10.1.8.2. Information and data to be reported using the schema

Linking KTMs to significant pressures

232

Schema element: EURBDCode

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required: Unique EU code for the River Basin District. The same code as used in other schema.

Quality check: Must be consistent with the code reported under RBDSUCA schema and as used in other schema.

Schema element: EUSubUnitCode

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. Provide the subunit code applicable to the rivers, lake, transitional and coastal water bodies in which WFD objectives are not being met and for which measures are required to achieve objectives. No relevant for groundwater.

Quality check: Must be consistent with the code reported in the RBDSUCA schema.

Schema element: SurfaceWater_Groundwater

Field type / facets: SW, GW

Guidance: Select either surface water (SW) or groundwater (GW) (one by one) where measures are required to achieve the WFD objectives.

Quality check:

Schema element: SignificantPressure_SubstanceFailing

Field type / facets: Enumeration List of Significant Pressure Types (SignificantPressureType) and separate enumeration list of priority substances and river basin specific pollutants (PS_RBSP).

Guidance: (0 to many) Select one by one the significant pressure, or chemical substance causing failure of good chemical status or good ecological status/potential, respectively. Indicators of the scale of the pressure in terms of the gap required to be filled for the achievement of objectives by the selected Key Type of Measure. For each chemical substance causing failure, indicators of the gap to be filled to the achievement of objectives by the selected KTM are also required. For each selected Key Type of Measures, quantitative indicators of the expected progress during the second and third planning cycles will be required.

Quality check:

233

Schema element: SignificantPressureType

Field type / facets: Closed enumeration list: revised list of pressures (see Annex)

Guidance: Required: Select one-by-one the significant pressure from the enumeration list that is by itself, or in combination with other pressures, significant in terms of the selected objective not being met, and for which measures are required to reduce the pressure to levels and extent that enable the objectives to be met. Select one by one the relevant pressures from the single list of disaggregated pressures.

Quality check:

Schema element: PS_RBSP

Field type / facets: Enumeration list of priority substances and river basin specific pollutants

Guidance: Required: Select one by one the priority substances and river basin specific pollutants that are causing failure of chemical status and ecological status/potential.

Quality check:

Schema element: IndicatorGap

Field type / facets: Enumeration list of quantitative pressure indicators (see Annex 3 Mapping of pressures to Key Types of Measure)

Guidance: Required: (1 to many) For the selected pressure or chemical substance an indicator of the scale and extent of the pressure that is to be tackled (reduced) by measures to achieve WFD objectives is required: this is termed the gap to be filled to meet objectives. The List of Pressures given in Annex 3 has been mapped against the defined Key Types of Measure (see chapter 10.1.3). Quantitative indicators have been proposed for each significant pressure or chemical substance causing failure: these are intended to represent the gap that has to be filled to achieve WFD objectives. As indicators are developed in such a way that they represent the gap to achieve good status, an indicator value of 0 would mean a level of pressure compatible with 100% good status (although the achievement of good status may not be immediate but may be delayed due to natural conditions, delayed response, etc.).

Member States are requested to report at least one of the predefined quantitative indicators. However, more than one may be appropriate for the situation in the RBD. In addition, Member States can report “other” indicators by selecting the other option from the enumeration list and reporting details in the appropriate schema elements.

Quality check:

234

Schema element: ValueIndicatorGap2015

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required: (1 to 1). For each selected quantitative indicator of the gap to be filled, please give the expected value of that indicator at the start of the second planning cycle in 2015.

Quality check:

Schema element: ValueIndicatorGap2021

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required: (1 to 1). For each selected quantitative indicator of the gap to be filled, please give the expected value of that indicator at the start of the third planning cycle in 2021.

Quality check:

Schema element: ValueIndicatorGap2027

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required: (1 to 1). For each selected quantitative indicator of the gap to be filled, please give the expected value of that indicator at the end of the third planning cycle in 2027.

Quality check:

Schema element: OtherIndicatorGapDescription

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional. If “other” has been selected for element “IndicatorGap”, please provide a short name and description of the quantitative indicator. Any indicator has to be developed in terms of "gap to good status", meaning a value of 0 is compatible with 100% good status.

Quality check:

Schema element: ValueOtherIndicatorGap2015

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Conditional: (1 to 1). For each other quantitative indicator of the gap to be filled, please give the expected value of that indicator at the start of the second planning cycle in 2015.

Quality check:

235

Schema element: ValueOtherIndicatorGap2021

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Conditional: (1 to 1). For each other quantitative indicator of the gap to be filled, please give the expected value of that indicator at the start of the third planning cycle in 2021.

Quality check:

Schema element: ValueOtherIndicatorGap2027

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Conditional: (1 to 1). For each other quantitative indicator of the gap to be filled, please give the expected value of that indicator at the end of the third planning cycle in 2027.

Quality check:

Schema element: KeyTypeMeasure

Field type / facets: Enumeration List of Key Types of Measures

Guidance: Required. (1 to many) For each selected significant pressure or chemical substance causing failure please select the key type of measure(s) that will be made operational to tackle the pressure or chemical substance. More than one KTM may be applicable to each significant pressure or chemical substance. For example, in terms of Diffuse-agricultural pressures, KTM2 (reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture), KTM3 (Reduce pesticide pollution from agriculture) and KTM17 (measures to reduce sediment from soil erosion and surface run-off) may be applicable depending on the impacts of the agricultural diffuse pressures. KTMs have been mapped to significant pressures and chemical causing failure in Annex 1. If none of the predefined KTMs are applicable to the pressure or substance being tackled, please select “other”, and provide details of the other KTM in the appropriate elements of the schema.

Quality check

236

Schema element: KeyTypeMeasureIndicator

Field type / facets: Enumeration list of quantitative indicators for KTMs

Guidance: Required. (1 to many) For each selected KTM please select the indicator(s) that will give an indication of the remaining measures that will need to be made operational to achieve the objectives. Quantitative indicators have been proposed for each KTM (see Annex 3, mapping of pressures with KTMs). Member States are requested to report at least one of the predefined quantitative indicators. However, more than one may be appropriate for the situation in the RBD. In addition, Member States can report “other” quantitative indicators of the predefined KTMs by selecting the other option from the enumeration list and reporting details in the appropriate schema elements.

All indicators should be defined in terms of what needs to be done to achieve good status. This means that the value of the indicator will be reduced with time as the measures are being implemented. A value of 0 will be compatible with 100% good status. Any "other" indicator reported by Member States should be constructed in the same way.

Quality check:

Schema element: OtherKeyTypeMeasureIndicator

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: Member States are asked as a minimum to report the preferred option of the quantitative indicators for each KTM. If they consider that none of the suggested quantitative indicators are appropriate for their situation and have reported “other” for element “KeyTypeMeasureIndicator”, then an alternative indicator can be reported. Please report the name of the other indicator here.

Quality check:

Schema element: ExplanationOfOtherIndicator

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: If you have reported a different indicator from those suggested for a specific KTM, please provide a short explanation of the other indicator here.

All indicators should be defined in terms of what needs to be done to achieve good status. This means that the value of the indicator will be reduced with time as the measures are being implemented. A value of 0 will be compatible with 100% good status. Any "other" indicator reported by Member States should be constructed in the same way.

Quality check:

237

Schema element: KeyTypeMeasureIndicatorValue2015

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required: Value of the selected quantitative indicator (predefined or one selected by the Member State) at the start of this planning cycle (2015). The value for 2015 should give a quantitative indication of the scale of the measures still needed to achieve 100% compliance with relevant to achievement of WFD objectives (e.g. achievement of good ecological status/potential or good chemical status by 2015) at the start of the second planning cycle in 2015. At the start of the second planning cycle a proportion of water bodies would not have achieved good ecological status or potential: 100% compliance would equate to the scale measures needed to tackle significant pressures to bring all water bodies expected to be at less than good status or potential in 2015 to good status or potential.

Quality check:

Schema element: KeyTypeMeasureIndicatorValue2021

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required: Value of the selected quantitative indicator (predefined or one selected by the Member State) expected at the end of the second planning cycle (2021). The value would give an indication of the expected situation in 2021 in terms of remaining measures needed to achieve good status. The difference between the indicator value in 2015 and 2021 should provide an indicator of the progress expected in the second cycle. If all measures needed to achieve the objectives are expected to be fully operational, the value of the indicator should be 0.

Quality check:

Schema element: KeyTypeMeasureIndicatorValue2027

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required: Value of the selected quantitative indicator (predefined or one selected by the Member State) expected at the end of the third planning cycle (2027). The value would give an indication of the expected situation in 2027 in terms of remaining measures needed to achieve good status. The difference between the indicator value in 2015 and 2027 should provide an indicator of the overall progress expected in the second and third cycle. If all measures needed to achieve the objectives are expected to be fully operational, the value of the indicator should be 0.

Quality check:

238

Schema element: NewKeyTypeMeasure

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: If the predefined KTMs are not appropriate for tackling the significant pressures or chemical substance causing failure of objectives in a particular RBD, MS are able to define new Key Types of Measures as required. If this is the case, please provide the name of the New Key Type of Measure. More details of the new Key type of measure should be reported in the “Measures associated with the Key Types of Measure” schema.

Quality check:

Schema element: NewKeyTypeMeasureIndicator

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required. If a new key type of measure(s) has (have) been reported please give the name of the quantitative indicator(s) of the type and scale of the measure(s) that can be used to assess the expected progress with its implementation over the second and third planning cycles.

All indicators should be defined in terms of what needs to be done to achieve good status. This means that the value of the indicator will be reduced with time as the measures are being implemented. A value of 0 will be compatible with 100% good status. Any "other" indicator reported by Member States should be constructed in the same way.

Quality check:

Schema element: NewKeyTypeMeasureIndicatorValue2015

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required: Value of the new quantitative indicator for the New Key Type of Measure at the start of this planning cycle (2015). The value for 2015 should give a quantitative indication of the scale of the measures still needed to achieve 100% compliance with relevant to achievement of WFD objectives (e.g. achievement of good ecological status/potential or good chemical status by 2015) at the start of the second planning cycle in 2015. At the start of the second planning cycle a proportion of water bodies would not have achieved good ecological status or potential: 100% compliance would equate to the scale measures needed to tackle significant pressures to bring all water bodies expected to be at less than good status or potential in 2015 to good status or potential.

Quality check:

239

Schema element: NewKeyTypeMeasureIndicatorValue2021

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required: Value of the new quantitative indicator for the New Key Type of Measure expected at the end of the second planning cycle (2021). The value would give an indication of the expected situation in 2021 in terms of remaining measures needed to achieve good status. The difference between the indicator value in 2015 and 2021 should provide an indicator of the progress expected in the second cycle. If all measures needed to achieve the objectives are expected to be fully operational, the value of the indicator should be 0.

Quality check:

Schema element: NewKeyTypeMeasureIndicatorValue2027

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required: Value of the new quantitative indicator for the New Key Type of Measure expected at the end of the third planning cycle in 2027. The value would give an indication of the expected situation in 2027 in terms of remaining measures needed to achieve good status. The difference between the indicator value in 2015 and 2027 should provide an indicator of the overall progress expected in the second and third cycle. If all measures needed to achieve the objectives are expected to be fully operational, the value of the indicator should be 0.

Quality check:

Mapping KTMs to individual measures

Schema element: KeyTypeMeasure

Field type / facets: Enumeration List of Key Types of Measure

Guidance: Required: Select the Key Type of Measure (one by one) used to tackle significant pressures in this RBD or subunit (as relevant).

Quality check:

Schema element: NewKeyTypeMeasureName

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: Enter name, one by one, of any new Key Type of Measure defined by the Member State to address significant pressures in this RBD. Ideally the name would indicate the pressure(s) that it is tackling.

Quality check:

Schema element: MeasureCode

240

Field type / facets: string

Guidance: Please provide the unique codes (one by one) for the national/RBD specific measures incorporated in this KTM.

Quality check:

Schema element: MeasureName

Field type / facets String

Guidance: Required: Please provide the name of the measure. This should reflect the pressure that is being tackled by the measure.

Quality check:

Schema element: MeasureType

Field type / facets: Basic or Supplementary

Guidance: Required: Is this Measure a basic measure as required under Article 11(3)(a) or Article 11(3)(b-l), or a supplementary measure (Article 11.4) required when basic measures are not enough to tackle specific significant pressures?

Quality check:

241

Schema element: BasicMeasureType

Field type / facets: Enumeration list of measures in Article 11(3)(a) and Article 11(3)(b-l): UrbanWasteWater; Nitrates; IPPC_IED; CostRecoveryWaterServices; EfficientWaterUse; ProtectionWaterAbstraction; ControlsWaterAbstraction; RechargeAugmentationGroundwaters; PointSourceDischarges; PollutantsDiffuse; AdverseImpact; PollutantsDirectGroundwater; SurfacePrioritySubstances; AccidentalPollution;

Guidance: Conditional. If this measure is a basic measure, please select those relevant measures from the enumeration list. More than one choice is possible per measure. See glossary below (10.2.4) for further guidance on what role of basic and supplementary measures in the achievement of WFD objectives.

UrbanWasteWater: Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC)Nitrates: Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC)IPPC_IED: Integrated Pollution Prevention Control Directive (96/61/EC) and the Industrial Emissions Directive (2010/75/EU)CostRecoveryWaterServices: Article 11(3)(b): Measures for the recovery of cost of water services (Article 9).EfficientWaterUse: Article 11(3)(c): Measures to promote efficient and sustainable water use.ProtectionWaterAbstraction: Article 11(3)(d): Measures for the protection of water abstracted for drinking water (Article 7) including those to reduce the level of purification required for the production of drinking waterControlsWaterAbstraction: Article 11(3)(e): Controls over the abstraction of fresh surface water and groundwater and impoundment of fresh surface waters including a register or registers of water abstractions and a requirement for prior authorisation of abstraction and impoundment.RechargeAugmentationGroundwaters: Article 11(3)(f): Controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies.PointSourceDischarges: Article 11(3)(g): Requirement for prior regulation of point source discharges liable to cause pollutionPollutantsDiffuse: Article 11(3)(h): Measures to prevent or control the input of pollutants from diffuse sources liable to cause pollution.AdverseImpact: Article 11(3)(i): Measures to control any other significant adverse impact on the status of water, and in particular hydromorphological impactsPollutantsDirectGroundwater: Article 11(3)(j): Prohibition of direct discharge of pollutants into groundwaterSurfacePrioritySubstances: Article 11(3)(k): Measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by Priority Substances and to reduce pollution from other substances that would otherwise prevent the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 4AccidentalPollution: Article 11(3)(l): Any measures required to prevent significant losses of pollutants from technical installations and to prevent and/or reduce the impact of accidental pollution incidents

Quality check:

Schema element: MSFDRelevance

Field type / facets: Yes, No, Unclear

Guidance: Required: Is this measure relevant for the purpose of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive?

Schema element: Reference

Field type / facets:

Guidance: Required: Provide a reference to more detailed information on the measure in the RBMP/background documents. See section 10.2.7 below for more guidance

Quality check:

242

10.1.9. Guidance on the contents of RBMPs/background documents

Information on individual measures

References are required to detailed information on the national measures associated with Key Types of Measures. This could be published in a structured manner in the RBMP or in a specific background document. It is recommended that Member States develop templates to include for each measure all relevant information. See section 10.2.3 for specific information that is required for basic measures.

The information should as a minimum be structured in terms of:

Measure Code; Measure Name; Type of measure (basic Article 11(3)(a), basic Article 11(3)(b-l), supplementary Article

11(4)); Water Categories in which it is applicable; Geographic coverage of the measure. (National, RBD, sub-unit, water body level); Whether the measure was already in place in the first RBMP, is being modified or it is new Measure description e.g. experience in the first cycle (if relevant), pressures tackled,

voluntary or mandatory (see section 10.2.3 for specific elements required for basic measures 11(3)(b-l));

Expected contribution it is expected to make towards the achievement of WFD objectives in the second and third planning cycles;

Any potential obstacles to its successful implementation; The lead organisation/competent authority responsible for the implementation of the

measure; Partners responsible for assisting the implementation of the measure e.g. Amenity Groups;

Non-Governmental Organisations (e.g. nature and river trusts); farmers; water industry; industry; local authorities; forestry agencies; mining and quarrying agencies; households; rural land managers and owners; navigation agencies; transport agencies; marine and fisheries agencies; nature agencies and regulators; other government departments; other.

Cost and financing of measure and in particular has financing been secured for the second planning period;

Sources of Funding e.g. EU (Structural, Cohesion, Rural Development, Fisheries, LIFE or RTD) or National funds (revenues from water charges, general budget).

Member States should either

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex <>); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

243

10.1.10. Glossary of terms

Basic Measures

Article 11.3 of the WFD States that basic measures are the minimum requirements to be complied with and shall consist of 30:

Paragraph a: those measures required to implement Community legislation for the protection of water, including measures required under the legislation specified in Article 10 and in part A of Annex VI. The most important of those are

o Measures to achieve compliance with the Nitrates Directive, as defined in the Nitrates Action Programme under that Directive

o Measures to achieve compliance with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive as defined mainly in articles 3, 4, and 5 and Annex I of that Directive

o Measures to achieve compliance with the Industrial Emissions Directive, in particular the setting of emission limit values in accordance with BAT.

Paragraphs b to l: measures that largely require binding rules in terms of, for example, the control of abstractions (paragraph e) ((e.g. requires abstraction permits to be revised in line with WFD requirements), diffuse sources (paragraph h) (e.g. where phosphate, pesticides, sediment, organic pollution and ammonia from agriculture are identified as a pressure affecting the achievement of overall good status, controls must be established), and activities that affect hydromorphological conditions (paragraph i) (e.g. controls should be defined to ensure that actions in or near rivers do not negatively impact on morphological condition) that go beyond the national implementation of Article 11.3.a measures for the achievement of WFD objectives.

Supplementary measures (Article 11.4)

In certain situations basic measures alone will not be sufficient to achieve good status and so supplementary measures may be needed. MS must first have basic measures that are compliant with Article 11.3 and second define supplementary measures and have a credible plan for securing and tracking progress on the established supplementary measures. Supplementary measures can be, for example, technical measures, advisory services or cooperative agreements between groups of stakeholders (see WFD Annex VI.B).

Basic and supplementary measures must add up to what is needed to address the pressures to allow the achievement of the WFD objectives.

10.2. Targeted questions on basic measures and other aspects

10.2.1. Contents of 2016 reporting

10.2.1.1. Schema Sketch

Targeted questions on basic measures

30 Meeting of the Strategic Co-ordination Group, 4 November 2013, Agenda point 4.a. Clarification on WFD programmes of measures (Article 11).

244

1 to 1

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.c.Reference

BasicMeasuresArticle11.3.d

BasicMeasuresAbstractionArt11.3.e.Permit

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.e.Register

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.e.Impoundment

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.e.Thresholds

BasicMeasuresWaterUseArt11.3.c

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.d.Reference

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.e.Reference

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.f

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.f.Reference

BasicMeasuresPointArt11.3.g.Permit

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.g.Register

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.g.Thre shold

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.g.Reference

TargetedQuestions

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.h

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.h.Reference

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.i.Permit

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.i.Riparian

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.i.Register

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.i.Reference

BasicMeasuresPrioritySubtancesArt11.3.k

BasicMeasuresArt11.3.k.Reference

∞ BasicMeasuresArt11.3.h.Issue

Targeted questions on other aspects

245

1 to 1

WaterReUseReference

EcologicalFlow

WaterEcologicalFlowReference

ClimateChange

ClimateChangeAspectsConsidered

ClimateChangeGuidance

WaterReUse

EcologicalFlowImplementation

ClimateChangeReference

FloodsDirective

FloodsDirectiveReference

WinWinNWRMDroughtsFloods

WinWinNWRMDroughtsFloodsReference

StructuralMeasures

StructuralMeasuresReference

TargetedQuestions

MSFDCoordination

MSFDAssessment

MSFDMeasuresNeeded

MSFDReference

∞

∞

10.2.1.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Targeted questions on basic measures

Targeted questions below refer to Article 11(3) paragraphs b to l. Article 11.3 States that basic measures are the minimum requirements to be complied with and shall consist of measures under Article 11.3.a (i.e. those required to implement Community legislation for the protection of water) and those given under Article 11.3. b to l). While Article 11.3 (a-l) is prescriptive, the precise type of measure is down to the MS depending on the pressures in a river basin district. These questions are to identify whether or not basic measures under Article 11.3 b to l have been planned for the second planning cycle, and in particular the contribution they are expected to make to fill the gap to the achievement of WFD objectives in the second and third planning cycles. In case the basic measures of the relevant type have been implemented in the previous cycle and no modifications or

246

additional measures are expected, the relevant reply should be selected (“Measures already implemented and made operational and no new measures or significant modifications expected”).

For each targeted question please provide a precise reference to a document or section of the RBMP which describes the existing measures, the planned implementation of any new measure or significant change to existing measure for the second (and if relevant third) planning cycle and the contribution it is expected to make to the achievement of WFD objectives. Please avoid general references to the Programmes of Measures, but make a precise reference to the section including the relevant measures for each question.

See section on the Guidance on the contents of RBMPs/background documents for more detail of the information expected to be provided in the background document and/or RBMP.

To provide references either:

1. Upload a copy of the documents to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the documents stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.c

Field type / facets: Closed list:a) Measures of this type implemented in previous cycle, no new measures nor significant

changes plannedb) Measures of this type implemented in previous cycle but new measures and/or

significant changes plannedc) No measures of this type implemented in previous cycle but new measures and/or

significant changes plannedd) No measures of this type implemented in previous cycle and no measures planned

Guidance: Required: are measures to promote an efficient and sustainable water use in order to avoid compromising the achievement of the objectives specified in Article 4 (Article 11.3.c) (e.g. water metering and allocations) planned for the second planning cycle?

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.c.Reference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional.

Quality check; required unless reply to BasicMeasuresWaterUse is d.

247

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.d

Field type / facets: Closed list:a) There are safeguard zones and there are no plans to change the regulations through

this RBMPb) There are safeguard zones but there will be significant changes to them implemented

through this RBMPc) There are no safeguard zones but there are plans to implement them through this

RBMPd) There are no safeguard zones and no plans to establish them

Guidance: Required:

Measures to meet the requirements of Article 7, including measures to safeguard water quality in order to reduce the level of purification treatment required for the production of drinking water: have safeguard zones been established?

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.d.Reference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional.

Quality check; required unless reply to BasicMeasuresArt11.3.d is d

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.e.PermitField type / facets: Closed list:

a) Yes, for surface and groundwater b) Yes, for surface water onlyc) Yes, for groundwater onlyd) No

Guidance: Required: Is there a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water abstractions?

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.e.Register

Field type / facets: Closed list:a) Yes, for surface and groundwater b) Yes, for surface water onlyc) Yes, for groundwater onlyd) No

Guidance: Required: Is there a register of abstractions?

248

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.e.Thresholds

Field type / facets: Closed list:a) Yes, small abstractions are exempted from controlsb) Small abstractions do not require permits but are all registered c) No, there are no thresholds d) Not relevant as there is no permitting regime and no register

Guidance: Required: Are there thresholds below which abstractions do not require permits and are not subject to registration? Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.e.Impoundment

Field type / facets: Closed list:a) Yes, there is a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water

impoundment and a register of impoundmentsb) There is a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water

impoundment BUT no register of impoundmentsc) There is NO concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water

impoundment but there is a register of impoundmentsd) No, there is NO concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water

impoundment and NO register of impoundments

Guidance: Required: Is there a concession, authorisation and/or permitting regime to control water impoundment, and/or a register of impoundments?Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.e.Reference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional

Quality check: required unless replies to all four last questions are d

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.f

Field type / facets: Closed list:a) Measures of this type implemented in previous cycle, no new measures nor significant

changes plannedb) Measures of this type implemented in previous cycle but new measures and/or

significant changes plannedc) No measures of this type implemented in previous cycle but new measures and/or

significant changes plannedd) No measures of this type implemented in previous cycle and no measures planned

Guidance: Required: Are controls, including a requirement for prior authorisation of artificial recharge or augmentation of groundwater bodies (Article 11.3.f) planned for the second and third planning cycles?

249

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.f.Reference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional

Quality check: required unless reply to BasicMeasuresArt11.3.f is d

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.g.Permit

Field type / facets: Closed list:a) Yes, for surface and groundwater b) Yes, for surface water onlyc) Yes, for groundwater onlyd) No

Guidance: Required: Is there an authorisation and/or permitting regime to control waste water point source discharges?

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.g.Register

Field type / facets: Closed list:a) Yes, for surface and groundwater b) Yes, for surface water onlyc) Yes, for groundwater onlyd) No

Guidance: Required: Is there a register of waste water discharges?Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.g.Threshold

Field type / facets: Closed list:a) Yes, small discharges are exempted from controlsb) Small discharges do not require permits but are all registered c) No, there are no thresholds d) Not relevant as there is no permitting regime and no register

Guidance: Required: Are there thresholds below which waste water discharges do not require permits and are not subject to registration?

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.g.Reference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional

Quality check: required unless replies to all three last questions are d

250

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.h

Field type / facets: Closed list:

a) Yes, same rules apply across the whole RBD b) Yes but rules apply only in Nitrates Vulnerable Zonesc) Yes but there are differentiated rules for different parts of the RBDsd) No binding rules

Guidance: Required: are there general binding rules for the control of diffuse pollution from agriculture?

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.h.Issue

Field type / facets: Closed list (1-∞):

a) Nitratesb) Phosphorusc) Pesticidesd) Sedimentse) Organic pollutionf) Microbiological/bacteriological pollutiong) Other pollutants

Guidance: Conditional: if there are general binding rules please indicate which issues are covered

Quality check: required unless reply to BasicMeasuresArt11.3.h is d

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.h.Reference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional

Quality check: required unless reply to BasicMeasuresArt11.3.h is d

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.i.Permit

Field type / facets: Yes or No

Guidance: Required: Is there an authorisation and/or permitting regime to control physical modifications to the water bodies?

251

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.i.Riparian

Field type / facets: Yes or No

Guidance: Conditional: Does the authorisation/permitting regime in place cover changes to the riparian area of water bodies?

Quality check: required if BasicMeasuresArt11.3.i is Yes

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.i.Register

Field type / facets: Yes or No

Guidance: Required: Is there a register of physical modifications of water bodies?

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.i.Reference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional

Quality check: required unless replies to BasicMeasuresArt11.3.i.Permit and BasicMeasuresArt11.3.i.Register are No

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.k

Field type / facets: Yes or No

Guidance: Required: In accordance with action taken pursuant to Article 16, are measures to eliminate pollution of surface waters by those substances specified in the list of priority substances agreed pursuant to Article 16(2) and to progressively reduce pollution by other substances which would otherwise prevent Member States from achieving the objectives for the bodies of surface waters as set out in Article 4 (Article 11.3.k) planned for the second and third planning cycles?

Schema element: BasicMeasuresArt11.3.k.Reference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional

Quality check: required if BasicMeasuresArt11.3.k is Yes

Targeted questions on other aspects

252

Schema element: WaterReUse

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required: Re-use of water (e.g. from waste water treatment or industrial installations) is considered to have a lower environmental impact than other alternative water supplies (e.g. water transfers or desalinisation).

Has water reuse been included in the RBMP as a measure in terms of managing water resources?

Schema element: WaterReUseReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional. Please provide a reference to more detailed information in the RBMP/Background document (see Section 10.3.3 below) describing its use as a measure, particularly in terms of its magnitude and its expected effects on water abstractions and the need for demand management or infrastructure supply measures

Quality check: required if WaterReUse is Yes

Schema element: EcologicalFlow

Field type / facets: Closed list:

a) Yes, ecological flows have been derived for all relevant water bodiesb) Partly, ecological flows have been derived for some relevant water bodies but the

work is still on-goingc) No, ecological flows have not been derived for the relevant water bodies but there are

plans to do it during the second cycled) No, ecological flows have not been derived for the relevant water bodies and there are

no plans to do it during the second cycle

Guidance: Required. Have ecological flows been derived for all water bodies at risk of failing the environmental objectives due to abstractions, flow diversions or impoundments?

253

Schema element: EcologicalFlowImplementation

Field type / facets: Closed list:

a) Yes, ecological flows which have been derived have been implemented in all relevant water bodies

b) Partly, ecological flows which have been derived have been implemented in some relevant water bodies but the work is still on-going

c) No, ecological flows which have been derived have not been implemented but there are plans to do it during the second cycle

d) No, ecological flows which have been derived have not been implemented and there are no plans to do it during the second cycle

Guidance: Conditional. Have the already available ecological flows been implemented in all relevant water bodies?

Quality check: required if reply to EcologicalFlow is a or b

Schema element: WaterEcologicalFlowReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional. Please provide a reference to more information about the derivation and implementation of ecological flows.

Quality check: required if reply to EcologicalFlow is a or b

Schema element: ClimateChange

Field type / facets: Yes/No

Guidance: Required: Has projected climate changes been assessed and taken into account in the second RBMP and PoM?

Schema element: ClimateChangeGuidance

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Conditional: Has the CIS guidance number 24 "River basin in a changing climate" been used for that purpose?

Quality check: required if reply to ClimateChange is Yes

254

Schema element: ClimateChangeAspectsConsidered

Field type / facets: Closed list (1-∞): Assessing direct and indirect climate pressures; Detecting climate change signals; Monitoring change at reference sites; Setting objectives; Forecasting the economics of water supply and demand; Checking the effectiveness of measures; Preferential selection of robust adaptation measures; Maximisation of cross-sectoral benefits and minimisation of negative effects across sectors; Flood risk management; Drought management and water scarcity

Guidance: Conditional. Please select from the list which aspects have been undertaken/considered.

Quality check: required if reply to ClimateChange is Yes

Schema element: ClimateChangeReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional. Please provide a reference to more information about the consideration of climate change in the RBMP.

Quality check: required if reply to ClimateChange is Yes

Schema element: FloodsDirective

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required: The Floods Directive requires that the development of the first flood risk management plans should be carried out in coordination with the reviews of the WFD river basin management plans. Has the second RBMP/PoM considered the objectives and requirements of the Floods Directive?

Schema element: FloodsDirectiveReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional. Please provide a reference to where more information is available on how the objectives and requirements of the Floods Directive have been considered.

Quality check: required if reply to FloodsDirective is Yes

255

Schema element: WinWinNWRMDroughtsFloods

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required: Have specific win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, Drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures been included in the PoM?

Schema element: WinWinNWRMDroughtsFloodsReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional. Provide a reference to where more information can be found on win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive, Drought management and use of Natural Water Retention Measures.

Quality check: required if reply to WinWinNWRMDroughtsFloods is Yes

Schema element: StructuralMeasures

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required: Has the design of new and existing structural measures such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers been adapted to take into account WFD objectives?

Schema element: StructuralMeasuresReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional. Provide a reference to where more information can be found on how the design of new and existing structural measures such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers been adapted to take into account WFD objectives.

Quality check: required if reply to StructuralMeasures is Yes

Schema element: MSFDCoordination

Field type / facets: Yes, No, Landlocked country

Guidance: Required: Has the preparations of the WFD RBMP/PoM been coordinated with the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive?

Schema element: MSFDAssessment

Field type / facets: Yes, No, Landlocked country

Guidance: Required: In developing the WFD PoM, have you assessed the need for additional measures/more stringent measures beyond those required by the WFD in order to achieve the relevant MSFD objectives in coastal and marine environment?

256

Schema element: MSFDMeasuresNeeded

Field type / facets: Closed list (1-∞)NutrientsChemicalsLitterOthers

Guidance: Conditional: If MSFDAssessment is Yes, for which issues are additional measures needed to meet the MSFD objectives?

Quality check: required if reply to MSFDAssessment is Yes

Schema element: MSFDReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional. Please provide a reference to where more information can be found on the coordination with the MSFD implementation and the consideration of the MSFD objectives in developing the WFD PoM.

Quality check: required if either of the two last questions is replied Yes

10.2.2. GIS information

None.

10.2.3. Guidance on the contents of RBMPs/background documents

For basic measures

The information required for basic measures is the same as included in section 10.1.9 for individual measures. This section, however, includes further specification of information that is required for the indicated types of basic measures. This information may be included in the RBMPs or in a specific background document made available to the Commission. It is recommended that Member States develop templates to include for each measure all relevant information (see section 10.1.9). In order to simplify presentation, several measures contributing to the same purpose under Articles 11(3)(b-l) may be included in the same template. In describing the measures it is important to make clear the elements which are already implemented and the plans for the second cycle. The Member States are requested to ensure that the description of the basic measures includes the following information (non-exhaustive):

For measures under Article 11(3)d for the protection of water abstractions used for the production of drinking water, include in the description of the measure, if relevant:

o General size of the safeguard zones or criteria for their establishment

o types of bans or restrictions that are in force in safeguard zones (e.g. application of pesticides, fertilizers/manure, building, industrial activities)

257

o types of measures which are mandatory in safeguard zones (e.g. buffer strips, planting of trees)

For measures under Article 11(3)e for the control of abstractions of freshwater, include in the description of the measures, if relevant:

o Existence of a register for all surface and groundwater abstractions

o Existence of a register for all impoundments

o Description of the concessions/authorization/permit regime for abstraction, including thresholds below which abstraction concenssions/authorisations/permits and/or registration are not needed

o Obligations for users of different types to use metering devices

o Existence of a register of water consumption by user for all sectors

o Existence of an obligation to review of abstractions within a fixed period (e.g. every 5, 10 or more years) or only if required

o Describe whether the authorities are bound by the WFD environmental objectives in the concessions/authorisation/permitting process, i.e. if the authorities must or can refuse a permit if it compromises the achievement of the WFD objectives in the affected water bodies

For measures under Article 11(3)g for the control of point source discharges liable to cause pollution, include in the description of the measures, if relevant:

o The authorisation/permit regime for the control of urban and industrial waste water discharges including if there are thresholds below which an authorisation is not needed, if there are general binding rules, etc.

o Whether the scope of the authorisation/permit regime or the general binding rules includes run off from urban areas, industrial installations and farm holdings.

o Existence of an obligation to review of discharge permits within a fixed period (e.g. every 5, 10 or more years) or only if required

o Describe whether the authorities are bound by the WFD environmental objectives in the authorisation/permitting process, i.e. if the authorities must or can refuse a permit if it compromises the achievement of the WFD objectives in the affected water bodies

For measures under Article 11(3)h for the control of diffuse sources liable to cause pollution, include in the description of the measures, if relevant:

o controls/binding requirements at farm level to address diffuse sources of nutrients (Nitrates and/or Phosphates ) outside of Nitrates Vulnerable Zones areas

o controls/binding requirements at farm level to address diffuse sources of pesticides

258

o controls/binding requirements at farm level to address soil erosion and pollution of water bodies with sediment

o controls/ binding requirements at farm level to address diffuse sources of organic pollution and microbial contamination

For measures under Article 11(3)i for the control of hydromorphological modifications, include in the description of the measures, if relevant:

o Description of the authorisation regime and/or general binding rules for physical modifications of water bodies including the type of modifications that are subject to control

o Whether physical modifications of the riparian area are subject to control

o Thresholds below which physical modifications are exempted from authorisation, if any

For other aspects

Information about the following issues is expected to be found in the relevant sections of the RBMP/background documents.

How has projected climate changes been assessed and taken into account in the second RBMP and PoM?

What aspects and impacts of climate change have been considered when developing the second RBMP and PoMs.

The Floods Directive requires that the development of the first flood risk management plans should be carried out in coordination with the reviews of the WFD river basin management plans. How has the second RBMP/PoM considered the objectives and requirements of the Floods Directive?

How has the programme of measures for the second cycle contributed to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts?

What specific win-win measures in terms of achieving the objectives of the WFD and Floods Directive been included in the PoM?

What natural water retention and green infrastructure measures been included in the PoM?

How has the design of new and existing structural measures such as flood defences, storage dams and tidal barriers been adapted to take into account WFD objectives.

The use of sustainable drainage systems, such as the construction of wetland and porous pavements, to reduce urban flooding and also to contribute to the achievement of WFD objectives?

Details of the application of Article 4(7) of the WFD for new flood defence projects and infrastructure.

259

Coordination of the public participation and stakeholder consultation during the development of RBMP and Flood Risk Management Plan.

The need for and, if required, the development of a specific drought management (sub)plan should be included in the RBMP.

How measures designed to improve the efficiency of water use have been planned, particularly in relation to their use and prioritisation against alternative infrastructure measures to increase supply.

How the re-use of water (e.g. from waste water treatment or industrial installations) has been included in the RBMP as a measure in terms of managing water resources, particularly in terms of its magnitude and its expected effects on water abstractions and the need for demand management or infrastructure supply measures.

How has the second RBMP/PoM of the WFD taken into account the relevant measures being planned for the first programme of measures for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC)..

Member States should either

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server: this should be reported in the “Reference” schema element under each of targeted questions on specific aspects and measures in section 10.3.2. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

10.3. Estimates of cost of measures

10.3.1. Introduction

Article 19 of the WFD requires the Commission to review the Directive and to propose any necessary amendments. As a part of this review the Commission needs to be able to assess the costs and benefits of the implementation of the Directive.

10.3.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

The Commission will use the information reported to ensure that the Member States are implementing the Directive appropriately and consistently; to identify any financial barriers that may be obstructing the implementation of the Directive; to identify the costs of implementation for RBDs, MSs and the total costs of implementation, and to carry out a full cost-effectiveness analysis of the WFD.

260

10.3.2.1. Products from reporting

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

- Costs of measures

Chart, table or map

EU/National/ RBD

Total costs of the PoM or disaggregated by basic and supplementary

Information reported at RBD level

-

261

10.3.3. Contents of the 2016 reporting

10.3.3.1. Schema sketch

CostOfMeasuresScale2009_2015

CostOfMeasuresPeriod2009_2015

Article113aInvestment2009_2015

Article113bl_114_115Investment2009_2015

Article113al_114_115_Investment2009_2015

CostExplanation2009_2015

CostOfMeasuresScale2015_2021

CostOfMeasuresPeriod2015_2021

Article113aInvestment2015_2021

Article113aAnnual2015_2021

Article113aDepreciation2015_2021

Article113bl_114_115Investment2015_2021

Article113bl_114_115Annual2015_2021

Article113bl_114_115Depreciation2015_2021

CostExplanation2015_2021

EUFunds2009-2015

EUFunds2015-2021

PoMs (Costs)

262

10.3.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schema

Schema element CostOfMeasuresScale2009_2015

Field type / facets: MS, RBD

Guidance: Required: Please indicate if the costs provided refer to this specific RBD or for the Member State as a whole.

Schema element CostOfMeasuresPeriod2009_2015

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required: Please indicate the time period (e.g. 2009-2015, 2009-2014, etc) to which costs provided refer to.

Schema element: Article113aInvestment2009_2015

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required unless only aggregated data is available, then schema element Article113al_114_115_Investment2009_2015 needs to be fill in: Total investment expenditure (in millions of Euros) of measures (at MS or RBD level, as available) required for measures under Articles 11.3.a that were effectively implemented during the first planning cycle. Expenditure should not be annualised. Ex. investment expenditure on construction of WWTP.

Quality check:

Schema element: Article113bl_114_115Investment2009_2015

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required unless only aggregated data is available, then schema element Article113al_114_115_Investment2009_2015 needs to be fill in: Total investment expenditure (in millions of Euros) of measures (at MS or RBD level, as available) required for measures under Articles 11.3. b-l and Articles 11.4 and 11.5 that were effectively implemented during the first planning cycle. Costs should not be annualised. Ex. expenditures on infrastructure to control over abstraction.

Quality check:

263

Schema element: Article113al_114_115_Investment2009_2015

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required only if disaggregated data to fill in Article113aInvestment2009_2015 and Article113bl_114_115Investment2009_2015 is not available: Total investment expenditure (in millions of Euros) of measures (at MS or RBD level, as available) required for measures under Articles 11.3.a, 11.3.b-l, 11.4 and 11.5 that were effectively implemented during the first planning cycle. Expenditure should not be annualised. Ex. investment expenditure on construction of WWTP.

Quality check:

Schema element: CostExplanation2009_2015

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required: Please provide a reference to where an explanation can be found on how the costs provided for the 1st planning cycle have been calculated. See section 10.3.3.3 for more details.

Schema element CostOfMeasuresScale2015_2021

Field type / facets: MS, RBD

Guidance: Required: Please indicate if the costs provided refer to this specific RBD or for the Member State as a whole.

Quality check

Schema element: CostOfMeasurePeriod2015_2021

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required: If costs are not for the whole of the second planning cycle, please provide the Reference year or period used as the basis of the calculation of costs.

Quality check:

Schema element: Article113aInvestment2015_2021

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required: Total investment expenditure (in millions of Euros) of measures (at MS or RBD level, as available) required for planned measures under Articles 11.3.a during the second planning cycle. Expenditure should not be annualised. Ex. investment expenditures on construction of WWTP

Quality check:

264

Schema element: Article113aAnnual2015_2021

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required: Total annual operational and maintenance costs, and any other costs (in millions of Euros) of measures (at MS or RBD level, as available) required for planned measures under Articles 11.3.a during the second planning cycle. Ex. All annual costs of WWTP functioning. The reported costs under this section should NOT include depreciation. If, for any reason, it is not possible to exclude depreciation, it should be stated in the box below.

Quality check:

Schema element: Article113aDepreciation2015_2021

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Default is No. Is depreciation included in Article113aAnnual2015_2021?

Schema element: Article113bl_114_115Investment2015_2021

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required: Investment expenditure (in millions of Euros) of measures (at MS or RBD level, as available) required for planned measures under Articles 11.3. b-l and Articles 11.4 and 11.5 during the second planning cycle. Expenditure should not be annualised. Ex. expenditures on infrastructure to control over abstraction.

Quality check:

Schema element: Article113bl_114_115Annual2015_2021

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required: Total annual operational and maintenance costs and any other costs (in millions of Euros) of measures (at MS or RBD level, as available) required for planned measures under Articles 11.3.b to l, and 11.4 and 11.5 during the second planning cycle. Ex. All annual costs related with controls on over abstraction. The reported costs under this section should NOT include depreciation. If, for any reason, it is not possible to exclude depreciation, it should be clearly stated in the box below.

Quality check:

Schema element: Article113bl_114_115Depreciation2015_2021

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required. Default is No. Is depreciation included in Article113bl_114_115Annual2015_2021?.

265

Schema element: CostExplanation2015_2021

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required: Please provide a reference to where an explanation can be found on how the costs provided for the 2nd planning cycle have been calculated. See section 10.3.3.3 for more details.

Financing of measures

Member States' Programmes of Measures contain different instruments (legal, administrative, technical, infrastructure, training, etc.), and are potentially funded in different ways. In terms of financing Programmes of Measures public budget is expected to cover part of the measures but also private operators are expected to provide funds e.g. through the cost recovery provisions. European funds such as Structural cohesion or CAP funds can also contribute to financing some WFD measures.

Schema element: EUFunds2009-2015

Field type / facets: Number or range

Guidance: Required: Please report the total investment expenditure for the programme of measures for the first planning cycle, which were financed by EU funds (estimated number or range).

Schema element: EUFunds2015_2021

Field type / facets: Number or range

Guidance: Required: Please estimate the total investment expenditure for the programme of measures for the second planning cycle, which are expected to be financed by EU funds.

10.3.3.3. Guidance on contents of RBMPs/Background documents

The RBMP/background documents must explain how the costs of measures have been calculated. This should include:

Calculation methods for assessing costs;

Costs included or excluded;

Whether the costs calculated include only public budget or costs for private operators are also included.

Supporting explanation on factors affecting the costs of measures;

If available, a reference/document presenting the estimate of the share of costs of the POM 2015-2021 that result from measures from the 2009-2015 POM that could not be implemented and that have been transferred to the 2015-2021 POM, along with explanations on factors explaining this situation overall and for specific sectors (see WFD Annex VII.B.3).

266

If available include projections on investment for the 3rd cycle 2021-2027

The background documents can be provided either:

Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex <>).

Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

10.4. Coordination of measures in international RBDs

10.4.1. Introduction

The WFD requires co-ordination of the programmes of measures in transboundary river basin Districts.

10.4.2. How will the Commission use the information provided

The Commission will assess whether the programmes of measures have been sufficiently co-ordinated in transboundary river basin districts.

10.4.2.1. Products from reporting

Nb Name of product

Type of product

Scale of information*

Detailed information displayed

Source of detailed information and aggregation rule

Used in 2012 reports?*

- Degree of coordination of PoMs in IRBDs

Chart Table or Map

EU/National/RBD/IRBD

Categorised according to answers to Q1 and Q2

Information reported at RBD/IRBD level

P&M study, Task 1b

Number of coordinated measures to tackle river continuity, nutrient reduction and chemical pollution in each IRBP

Chart or Table

EU/National/RBD?IRBD

Categorised according to answers to Q£

Information reported at RBD/IRBD level

No

Number of specific key activities co-ordinated, partially co-ordinated , un-coordinated or not specified in each IRBP.

267

10.4.3. Contents of 2016 reporting

10.4.3.1. Schema Sketch

POMS

PoMsCoordinationOtherMS

IRBDContinuityNutrientChemical

PoMsCo-ordinationNonMS

IRBMP

∞

∞

∞

10.4.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Schema element: PoMsCoordinationOtherMS

Field type / facets: Closed list (1-∞):Joint visions and management objectives established;Coordinated Article 5 analysis and identification of Significant Water Management Issues;International RBMP and PoMs produced for the second cycle incorporating all Member States;Explicit links made with national RBMPs of the MS within the IRBMP;Sectoral and stakeholder involvement with the international coordination mechanisms;Transparency of international coordination to stakeholders and others;Financial resources for joint cooperation.

Guidance: Select the approaches that have been used to co-ordinate the PoMs between the Member States in IRBDs.

Quality check:

Schema element: PoMsCo-ordinationNonMS

Field type / facets: Closed list (1-∞):Joint visions and management objectives established;Coordinated Article 5 analysis and identification of Significant Water Management Issues;International RBMP and PoMs produced for the second cycle incorporating all countries;Explicit links made with national RBMPs within the IRBMP;Sectoral and stakeholder involvement with the international coordination mechanisms;Transparency of international coordination to stakeholders and others;Financial resources for joint cooperation.

Guidance: Select the approaches that have been used to co-ordinate the PoMs with non-Member States in IRBDs.

Quality check:

268

Schema element: IRBDContinuityNutrientChemical

Field type / facets: Closed List (1-∞)Nutrient pollutionSediment managementChemical pollutionRiver continuityOther hydromorphological measuresOther measures

Guidance: Please select from the closed list the issues that are addressed in the international RBMP.

Quality check: required if the option "International RBMP and PoMs produced for the second cycle" has been selected for PoMsCoordinationOtherMS and/or PoMsCo-ordinationNonMS

Schema element: IRBMP

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: if an International RBMP has been developed please provide a link to it, either:

Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex <>).

Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States or the relevant international organisation server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

Quality check: required if the option "International RBMP and PoMs produced for the second cycle" has been selected for PoMsCoordinationOtherMS and/or PoMsCo-ordinationNonMS

10.5. Progress with and achievements of the programme of measures for the first planning cycle

10.5.1. Introduction

The 2012 MS reports provided information on the progress in implementing the WFD programmes of measures (PoM). Information was requested on the state of implementation of basic, supplementary and Key Types of Measure as of 2012. Questions were also asked on the overall progress that had been made and any obstacles affecting the implementation of measures.

The reporting in 2016 is on the measures planned for the second cycle of WFD implementation and as such may not provide explicit information on the actual progress, success and achievements of the first programme of measures. It is intended that MS provide in their 2016 reports an update of aspects of their 2012 progress reports to reflect the actual and expected situation at the start of the second planning cycle.

269

10.5.2. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

The Commission will use the information to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of the first RBMPs and Programmes of measures in order to be able to report on the overall impact that the WFD is having towards the improvement of water quality at an EU level.

10.5.3. Contents of 2016 reporting

10.5.3.1. Schema Sketch

1 to 1

1 to many

1 to 1

Progress2009_2015

EURBDCode

Finance

FinanceAllSectors

FinanceNotSecured

NewRegulation NewRegulationStatus

StatusImplementationPoMs

ImprovementInStatusGeneral

ImprovementInStatusEcologicalSWBs

ImprovementInStatusChemicalSWBs

ImprovementInStatusQuantitativeGWBs

ImprovementInStatusChemicalGWBs

Obstacles

MeasuresFromFirstProgramme

FinanceReference

NewRegulationReference

StatusImplementationPoMsReference

∞

ImprovementInStatusReference

270

10.5.3.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Schema element: EURBDCode

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required: Unique EU code for the River Basin District. The same code as used in other schema.

Quality check: Must be consistent with the code reported under RBDSUCA schema and as used in other schema.

Schema element: Finance

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required: Was a clear financial commitment (e.g. approved budget or financial mechanism by the Parliament, Ministry of Finance or other financial responsible authority) secured for the implementation of the first Programmes of measures?

Quality check:

Schema element: FinanceAllSectors

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Conditional: If yes, were all sectors where measures were required covered?

Quality check: required if reply to Finance is Yes

Schema element: FinanceNotSecured

Field type / facets: Enumeration list

Guidance: Conditional: If finance was not secured for all sectors, select those sectors for which a clear financial commitment was NOT obtained. Enumeration list: agriculture; industry; urban development; transport; energy - hydropower; energy – non hydropower; aquaculture; recreation; flood protection.

Quality check: required if reply to Finance is No

Schema element: FinanceReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required: provide a reference to where more information can be found on the financing of the first RBMP (see section 10.5.3.3 for guidance on contents of RBMPs/background documents)

271

Schema element: NewRegulation

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required: Were new legislation/regulations required to implement the programmes of measures for the first cycle?

Schema element: NewRegulationStatus

Field type / facets: Closed list: Adopted; In progress; Process not started

Guidance: Conditional: If yes, what is the current status of the new legislation/regulations?

Quality check: required if reply to NewLegislation is Yes

Schema element: NewRegulationReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: provide a reference to where more information can be found on the implementation of the new legislation/regulation required for the first RBMP (see section 10.5.3.3 for guidance on contents of RBMPs/background documents)

Quality check: required if reply to NewLegislation is Yes

Schema element: StatusImplementationPoMs

Field type / facets: Closed list:All planned measures started; Some planned measures started; Some measures completed; All measures completed; No measures started.

Guidance: Required: Select the description which best describes the level of implementation of the first cycle Programmes of Measures in the RBD.

Schema element: StatusImplementationPoMsReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required: provide a reference to where more information can be found on the status of implementation of the firs cycle PoM (see section 10.5.3.3 for guidance on contents of RBMPs/background documents)

272

Schema element: ImprovementInStatusGeneral

Field type / facets: Closed list As described in the RBMP; Less than described in the RBMP; Greater than expected in the RBMP

Guidance: Required: In general, at the end of the first planning cycle what is the expected or actual improvement in the overall status of water bodies?.

Schema element: ImprovementsInStatusEcologicalSWBs

Field type / facets: Enumeration list

Guidance: Required: In general, at the end of the first planning cycle what is the expected or actual improvement in the ecological status of surface water bodies? Select one from: As described in the RBMP; Less than described in the RBMP; Greater than expected in the RBMP. Please provide a reference to a document where the expected or actual change in water body status at the end of the first cycle is described (see section 10.6.3.4 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: ImprovementsInStatusChemicalSWBs

Field type / facets: Enumeration list

Guidance: Required: In general, at the end of the first planning cycle what is the expected or actual improvement in the chemical status of surface water bodies? Select one from: As described in the RBMP; Less than described in the RBMP; Greater than expected in the RBMP. Please provide a reference to a document where the expected or actual change in water body status at the end of the first cycle is described (see section 10.6.3.4 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: ImprovementsInStatusQuantitativeGWBs

Field type / facets: Enumeration list

Guidance: Required: In general, at the end of the first planning cycle what is the expected or actual improvement in the quantitative status of groundwater bodies? Select one from As described in the RBMP; Less than described in the RBMP; Greater than expected in the RBMP. Please provide a reference to a document where the expected or actual change in water body status at the end of the first cycle is described (see section 10.6.3.4 below).

Quality check:

273

Schema element: ImprovementsInStatusChemicalGWBs

Field type / facets: Enumeration list

Guidance: Required: In general, at the end of the first planning cycle what is the expected or actual improvement in the chemical status of groundwater bodies? Select one from: As described in the RBMP; Less than described in the RBMP; Greater than expected in the RBMP. Please provide a reference to a document where the expected or actual change in water body status at the end of the first cycle is described (see section 10.6.3.4 below).

Quality check:

Schema element: Obstacles

Field type / facets: Closed List (1-∞):Governance issues; Unexpected planning delays; Lack of finance; Lack of mechanism for implementing measures (e.g. national regulations not yet adopted); Lack of effective measures; Some planned measures no longer considered as being cost effective; Unexpected extreme events

Guidance: Required: What were the Obstacles encountered in the implementation of the plan?

Schema element: ImprovementInStatusReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required: provide a reference to where more information can be found on the progress achieved in the first cycle as regards the WFD environmental objectives, on the effectiveness of the measures taken and on the obstacles in implementing the RBMP/PoM (see section 10.5.3.3 for guidance on contents of RBMPs/background documents)

Schema element: MeasuresFromFirstProgramme

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required: Please provide a reference to a document that details how measures planned for 2009-2015 but which were not fully implemented or made operational, have been transferred to the 2015-2021 POM, and in relation to the key measures and/or sectors affected and the main factors explaining this situation.

10.5.3.3. Guidance on the contents of RBMPs/background documents

Detailed information is required on the actual and expected outcomes of the first River Basin Management Plan and Programme of Measures, and how these outcomes have or might affect the planning for the second cycle (see WFD Annex VII Part B). This information may be in documents specifically produced by the Member State or might be included as a separate chapter or Annex of the second River Basin Management Plan. Detailed information is required on:

274

How a financial commitment was secured for the planned programme of measures, and were there shortcomings in terms of the funding of measures for particular sectors? What were the mains sources of funding for implemented measures?

The success or otherwise in implementing any new legislation or regulations required for the implementation of the planned measures. What were the main sectors requiring new regulations and what was the state of implementation of any new required legislation at the end of the first planning cycle?

The status of the planned measures expected at the end of the first planning period. If all measures had not been made operational within the planning period, what were the main sectors and measures affected?

What has been the experience gained over the first planning cycle on how effective measures have been in improving the status of water bodies. Were measures effectively targeted at the significant pressures, and what the differences in the effectiveness of measures between sectors and water categories.

What were the Obstacles encountered in the implementation of the plan?

What were the main achievements and failures of the first plan, in terms of, for example, achieving or exceeding the objectives of the first RBMP, and the improvements in status of water bodies?

Details on how measures planned for 2009-2015 but which were not fully implemented or made operational, have been transferred to the 2015-2021 POM, and in relation to the key measures and/or sectors affected and the main factors explaining this situation.

275

11. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND COST RECOVERY (SCHEMA RBMP_POM)

11.1. Introduction

Article 5 of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires Member States to undertake an economic analysis of water uses according to the specifications of Annex III. Article 13 and Annex VII requires Member States to send summary reports of the analyses required under Article 5 and Annex II as part of the first river basin management plan.

Annex III of the WFD Directive stipulates that the economic analysis of water uses should contain enough information in sufficient detail (taking account of the costs associated with collection of relevant data) in order to:

make the relevant calculations necessary for taking into account the principle of recovery of the costs of water services under Article 9, taking into account long term forecasts of supply and demand for water in the river basin district and where necessary:

make estimates of the volume, prices and costs associated with water services;

make estimates of the relevant investment including forecasts of such investments; and

make judgements about the most cost-effective combination of measures with respect to water uses to be included in the programme of measures under Article 11 based on estimates of the potential costs of such measures.

The Water Framework Directive is the first time in EU environmental policy that economic principles (e.g. polluter-pays-principle), economic tools and methods (e.g. cost-effectiveness analysis) and economic instruments (e.g. environmental charges and taxes) are explicitly integrated into a piece of EU water legislation. This is based on the understanding that economic principles and instruments are potentially important tools in managing the pressures that affect Europe’s waters.

WFD31 set three general concepts, closely related but not equivalent, each one imposing specific requirements on economics in general and water pricing schemes specifically:

Incentive pricing deals with the way water users pay for their use and whether the right price signals are transmitted, i.e. it addresses the question how water is being paid for and how the water price affects the behaviour of water users.

The polluter-pays-principle establishes how environmental costs should be covered among economic agents i.e. it looks at the adequacy of contributions from the different agents based on their role in causing these costs.

31 These central principles are set out in Article 9 in WFD as follow: Member States shall ensure by 2010 that water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently, and thereby contribute to the environmental objectives of this Directive, An adequate contribution of the different water uses disaggregated into at least industry, households and agriculture, to the recovery of the costs of water services based on the economic analysis conducted according to Annex III and taking account of the polluter pays principle. Member States may in so doing have regard to the social environmental and economic effects of the recovery as well as the geographic and climatic conditions of the region or regions affected.

276

Cost recovery establishes the overall amount that users are charged for water services. The WFD foresees an adequate degree of recovery, not only to the financial costs for the provision of a water service, but also of the costs of associated negative environmental effects (environmental costs) as well as forgone opportunities of alternative water uses (resource costs).

The scope of the definition of water services is interpreted differently across the EU. It should be clear that, for the purpose of reporting, the Member States are expected to report on the basis of their interpretation of water services. Hence if a Member State does not consider that a certain use is a water service, it is not expected to report on its cost recovery.

11.1.1. How will the Commission and EEA use the information reported

The Commission will use this information to ensure that the Member States have carried out an economic analysis consistent with the requirements of Article 5 and Annex III and also that the provisions of Article 9 WFD have been properly and consistently applied according to the Directive. The information will also be used to provide statistics and information on an EU wide level to the European Parliament and the general public. A screening assessment will be based on the three main elements of Article 9: i) incentive pricing; ii) adequate cost-recovery; and iii) polluter pays principle.

In addition, gaps in information identified by Member States will help the Commission to take further action and to plan activities for strengthening the knowledge base so as to support Member States in future implementation of Article 9.

11.2. Contents of the 2016 reporting

11.2.1. Schema sketch

RBMP (EconomicAnalysis)

UpdatedEconomicAnalysis

ServiceArticle9_4

UpdatedEconomicAnalysisReference

CostEffectiveness

CostEffectivenessReference

Service ServiceOther

277

ServiceCostInstrument

ServiceVolumetricCharges

ServiceCostInstrumentReference

ServicePriceLevel

ServiceFinancialCostIncluded

ServiceFinancialCostCalculation

Service

ServiceFinancialCostRecovery

ServiceEnvironmentalChargeRevenues

ServiceEnvironmentalCharge

ServiceEnvironmentalChargeRevenuesUnits

ServiceEnvironmentalChargeRevenuesUse

ServiceExternalEnvironmentalResourceCost

ServiceExternalEnvironmentalResourceCostSignificance

ServiceWaterUse

ServiceExternalEnvironmentalResourceCostInternalisation

ServiceWaterUseOther

ServiceWaterUseContribution

∞

11.2.2. Information and data to be reported using the schemas

Schema element: UpdatedEconomicAnalysis

Field type / facets: Yes; No; To a certain extent

Guidance: Required: Specify if the 2005 economic analysis of water use has been updated.

278

Schema element: UpdatedEconomicAnalysisReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: Please provide a reference to the document describing the main complementary assessments that have been carried out for updating the economic analysis (e.g. updating calculations with more recent statistics, developing new analysis for a specific water use, etc.). Either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

Schema element: CostEffectiveness

Field type / facets: No; Quantitative; Qualitative; Combination

Guidance: Required: Specify if a cost-effectiveness analysis has been carried out for supporting the selection of measures proposed under the 2015-2021 POM, and the general type of assessment carried out.

Schema element: CostEffectivenessReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional: If a cost-effectiveness assessment has been carried out, please provide reference to a document that specifies the sectors/pressures/environmental issues (or all proposed measures) that have been subject to such cost-effectiveness analysis. Either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

Schema element: ServiceArticle9_4

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Indicate to which water-use activities the provisions of article 9(4) have been applied. If 9(4) has not been applied indicate "Not applied". If 9(4) has been applied, provide details in the RBMP/Background Documents, see Section 11.2.3 below.

279

Schema element: Service

Field type / facets: Closed list:Drinking water abstraction (surface and/or groundwater), treatment and distribution ; Sewage collection and wastewater treatment; Drinking water abstraction (surface and/or groundwater), treatment and distribution AND sewage

collection and wastewater treatment (when considered together); Irrigation water abstraction, treatment and distribution; Self-abstraction; Impoundment and storage of water; Impoundment for flood protection; Impoundment for navigation; Other

Guidance: Required for the water services that exist and are recognised in MS and for which the information is being reported in the following schema elements. If the Member State prefers to report on the basis of water service – use combinations, Other should be chosen and specified in the next schema element.

Schema element: ServiceOther

Field type / facets: string

Guidance: Conditional: Indicate the service if "Other".

Quality check: required if schema element "Service" is "Other".

For each service provide the following information:

Schema element: ServiceCostInstrument

Field type / facets: Yes, No, Partially

Guidance: Required: Are there legal or regulatory instruments which require cost recovery for this water service?

Quality check:

280

Schema element: ServiceCostInstrumentReference

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Required: Please provide a reference to the legal instruments implementing cost recovery for this water service. Either:

1. Upload a copy of the documents to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the documents stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

Quality check: required if ServiceCostInstrument is Yes or Partially

Schema element: ServiceVolumetricCharges

Field type / facets: Yes, No, Partially

Guidance: Required: Is cost recovery for this water service based on a volumetric charges (i.e. users paying in proportion to the measured use of water)?

Schema element: ServicePriceLevel

Field type / facets: number or range

Guidance: Required: If relevant, indicate average or range of price levels for the given service.

Schema element: ServiceFinancialCostIncluded

Field type / facets: Yes, No, Partially

Guidance: Required: Are financial costs (investment, Operation & Maintenance, other financial costs including the costs of capital) included in the cost recovery?

Schema element: ServiceFinancialCostCalculation

Field type / facets: Yes, No, Partially

Guidance: Required: Does the economic analysis include the calculation of the total financial costs (investment, Operation & Maintenance, other financial costs including the costs of capital) per year?

Schema element: ServiceFinancialCostRecovery

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Required: Please report the overall recovery of total financial costs (investment, Operation & Maintenance, other financial costs including the costs of capital) as a percentage of

281

total financial costs (-9999 for not available).

Schema element: ServiceEnvironmentalCharge

Field type / facets: Yes, No;

Guidance: Required: Indicate whether an environmental charge or tax is applied for this water service.

Schema element: ServiceEnvironmentalChargeRevenues

Field type / facets: Number

Guidance: Conditional: For each water service to which an environmental charge or tax is applied, indicate the total revenue from the environmental charge/tax (in €/m3 or total €/year).

Quality check: Required if ServiceEnvironmentalCharge is Yes.

Schema element: ServiceEnvironmentalChargeRevenuesUnits

Field type / facets: in €/m3 or €/year

Guidance: Conditional: indicate the units of the revenues provided under ServiceEnvironmentalChargeRevenues.

Quality check: Required if ServiceEnvironmentalCharge is Yes.

Schema element: ServiceEnvironmentalChargeRevenuesUse

Field type / facets: Yes, No, Partially

Guidance: Conditional: For each water service to which an environmental charge or tax is applied, indicate whether the revenues obtained are dedicated to measures linked to the achievement of the WFD environmental objectives or not.

Quality check: Required if ServiceEnvironmentalCharge is Yes.

Schema element: ServiceExternalEnvironmentalResourceCost

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Required: Does the economic analysis include calculation of external environmental and resource costs, or if this is the case justification of full internalisation or non-significance?

Schema element: ServiceExternalEnvironmentalResourceCostSignificance

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Conditional: Are the environmental and resource costs considered significant?

Quality check: Required if ServiceExternalEnvironmentalResourceCost is Yes

282

Schema element: ServiceExternalEnvironmentalResourceCostInternalisation

Field type / facets: Yes, No, Partially

Guidance: Conditional: If significant, are the ERC considered internalised already through the available instruments?

Quality check: Required if ServiceExternalEnvironmentalResourceCostSignificance is Yes

Schema element: ServiceWaterUse

Field type / facets: Closed list (1-∞)Households; Agriculture; Industry; Others

Guidance: Required: For each water service identified above and recognised by individual MS as water service, list relevant water uses (at least households, agriculture and industry) that are benefiting from the water service.

If Member States are reporting on the basis of a water service – use combination (see comment above on schema element Service) this field does not need to be reported.

Schema element: ServiceWaterUseOther

Field type / facets: String

Guidance: Conditional.

Quality check: if ServiceWaterUse is Others, please indicate which.

Schema element: ServiceWaterUseContribution

Field type / facets: Yes, No

Guidance: Conditional: If the service is relevant for more than one water use group (considering as a minimum households, agriculture and industry), does the economic analysis calculate the contribution of each of the use groups to the recovery of water services cost?

Quality check: required if more than one water use is chosen in ServiceWaterUse

11.2.3. Guidance on the contents of RBMPs/Background documents

The RBMP/background document must make clear reference to the methodology applied in the context of the updated economic analysis of water uses in particular for supporting the implementation of Article 9 and the calculation of cost recovery levels. This should include:

• The assessments made for updating the economic analysis of water uses;

283

• The methods applied for performing the cost-effectiveness analysis to support the selection of measures

• The water services selected, and the rationale for supporting this selection;

• The assessments made for estimating the financial costs of water services, specifying in particular how subsidies allocated to water services (if any) have been accounted for when assessing these costs;

• For each selected water service, the total financial costs (investment, Operation & Maintenance, other financial costs including the costs of capital) per year.

• The methodology for assessing Environmental and Resource costs;

• The methodology applied for assessing cost-recovery levels for individual water services;;

• Description of the instruments in place to recover costs, including water charges, environmental taxes, etc.

• The assessments made for justifying that the contribution of different water uses (agriculture, households, industry, others) to the costs of water services is “adequate”;

• The assessments made to justify that water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water resources efficiently.

• The methodology used for taking account of the social, environmental and economic effects of the recovery as well as the geographic and climatic conditions of the region or regions affected when implementing Article 9.

• If applied, justification for the application of WFD Article 9.4.

• In case the diffuse pollution from agriculture is identified as significant pressure on aquatic environment. Provide information on:

o estimated cost of measures to counteract the impact of diffuse pollution (in €/year or €/cycle ).

o additional (additional to financing costs of measures under PoM) contribution of agriculture to the recovery of costs of diffuse pollution is proposed, for ex. taxes, fees on fertilisers, pesticides etc. If yes, provide details on them and indicate what the revenue is collected from this taxes, fees…

o specify whether diffuse pollution from agriculture imposes additional financial cost on the water service providers (ex. removal of nitrates). If yes specify whether those costs have been estimated.

Either:

1. Upload a copy of the document to WISE, including a clear reference (document and section) where required in the XML schema (guidance on the naming of files is included in the Reportnet Guidance (see Annex 6); or

284

2. Include a clear reference (document and section) and a URL to the document stored on the Member States server. Where this option is selected the Member State must guarantee that the hyperlink will remain active for a period of 6 years after reporting, and that the document referred to will not be updated.

12. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN REPORTING

The new requirements for electronic reporting are to be adopted in June 2014 by the European Water Directors. The requirements / guidelines at European level (e.g. the current request for future reporting but also the work programme INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation) contain the requirements for simplification, streamlining and standardization of data provision in line with INSPIRE. There are a number of environmental policies, for which the dependencies and usage of INSPIRE data should be clarified in relation to reporting obligations.

12.1. Targets for the 3rd management cycle

The SEIS principles establish that reporting information should be:

managed as close as possible to its source;

collected once and shared with others for many purposes;

readily available to easily fulfil reporting obligations;

readily accessible to end-users at all levels for the design of new policies;

accessible to enable comparisons of the environment at the appropriate geographic scale;

fully available to the general public, to enable citizen participation;

supported through common, free and open software standards.

The new Reporting System will take advantage of the possibilities provided by information and communication technology to put into practice the principle 'monitor once for timely and multi-purpose uses'. In a decentralised reporting system the Member States are responsible and in control of information and data on national websites. Information and data could be shared with users at EU, national and regional levels. The new reporting system for environmental data must act on different administrative levels. It should integrate the access to a large amount of heterogeneous and geographically distributed information. The COM could extract the information and data for compliance checking without having to collect and store the data itself.

The crosslinking of the requirements of INSPIRE and the water-related policies must be visible. An important aspect of a common reporting is a uniform definition of terms to keep in use. A practicable option is to identify a common data definition that can be accommodated in a common ontology. These are essential parts of the INSPIRE work programme, which is therefore to be considered in the implementation. The INSPIRE work programme (WP) based on feedback submitted by the INSPIRE stakeholders in the Member States:

INSPIRE Work programme

- MIWP-1: Improve accessibility and readability of TG

285

- MIWP-2: Create and maintain FAQ page- MIWP-3: Guidelines and best practices for access control- MIWP-4: Managing and using http URIs for INSPIRE identifiers- MIWP-5: Validation and conformity testing- MIWP-6: Registries and registers- MIWP-7: Extension of Download Service TG for observation, coverage and tabular

data- MIWP-8: Update of Metadata TG- MIWP-9: Future directions for INSPIRE geoportal- MIWP-10: Update Annex I data specifications- MIWP-11: Simplification and clarification of GML encoding for spatial data- MIWP-12: Clarification of UML-to-GML encoding rules- MIWP-13: Theme specific issues on data specifications- MIWP-14: Exchange of implementation experiences in thematic domains- MIWP-15: Overview of INSPIRE coordinating structures, architectures and tools- MIWP-16: Improve usefulness and reliability of monitoring information- MIWP-17: Data and service sharing & licencing models- MIWP-18 XML schema maintenance- MIWP-19 Explore and improvement on the situation of controlled vocabularies in the

framework of INSPIRE- MIWP-20: Improved guidelines for harmonised layer names- MIWP-21: Pilots for INSPIRE-based applications (including for e-reporting)

For example Work programme 6/13/17

INSPIRE Work programme 6: Registries and registers

Member States need to build registries to implement INSPIRE (and use the central INSPIRE registers). A technical guideline should explain how to build them, how to extend central INSPIRE registers and how to link national registers/extensions to the central INSPIRE registry.

The priorities for the further development (functionality and content) of the central INSPIRE registry should be discussed between the EC and the MS. Possible topics include:

• Support for registration of mapping between code lists

• Support for registration of extended models and code lists

• Inclusion of updated feature concept dictionary (incl. Annex II+III)

• Agreement on how to address CRS register in INSPIRE

INSPIRE Work programme 13: Theme specific issues on data specifications

A number of theme-specific issues have been raised for the data specifications of PS, AD, EL, US, TN, BU, CRS and HY.

This includes PS (Full application schema), which needs to brought in line with Annex III themes and has therefore temporarily been removed from the updated PS data specification (see MIWP-10).

List of abbreviations

AD Addresses286

AU Administrative UnitsAF Agricultural and Aquaculture FacilitiesAM Area Management Restriction Regulation Zones and Reporting unitsAC Atmospheric ConditionsBR Bio-geographical RegionsBU BuildingsCP Cadastral ParcelsRS Coordinate reference systemsEL ElevationER Energy ResourcesEF Environmental Monitoring FacilitiesGCM Generic Conceptual ModelGG Geographical grid systemsGN Geographical NamesGE GeologyHB Habitats and BiotopesHH Human Health and SafetyHY HydrographyLC Land CoverLU Land UseMF Meteorological geographical featuresMR Mineral ResourcesNZ Natural Risk ZonesOF Oceanographic Geographical FeaturesOI OrthoimageryPD Population Distribution - DemographyPF Production and Industrial FacilitiesPS Protected SitesSR Sea RegionsSO SoilSD Species DistributionSU Statistical UnitsTN Transport NetworksUS Utility and Governmental Services

INSPIRE Work programme 17: Data and service sharing & licencing models

The basic requirements for data and service sharing are already defined in the INSPIRE Directive Article 17. This Article provides also the basis for the Implementing Rule - COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 268/2010 of 29 March 2010 implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the access to spatial data sets and services of the Member States by Community institutions and bodies under harmonised conditions. In addition to the legal basis, two supporting documents are available: (1) guidelines to the Commission Regulation by promoting the INSPIRE licencing models and (2) good practice document on implemented licencing approaches and models.

There is a wide variety of approaches on data and service sharing arrangements in the countries. The overview of such arrangements are provided in the INSPIRE country reports every 3 years. The constraints related to access and use of spatial data sets and services (conditions applying to access and use, limitations on public access) should also be provided in metadata for spatial data sets and services based on the INSPIRE Metadata Regulation.

287

The users as well as data and service providers need clear understanding of the conditions to share, access and use of spatial data sets and services. The data and service sharing could also benefit from the standardization of licences, the use of technology (for example: machine readable licences, electronic authentication and authorization) and the reduction of other barriers expressed by the countries in their country reports.

The proposed actions are focused on the data and service providers’ and users’ (stakeholders) needs, standardization and awareness rising about the licencing approaches.

The implementation of a new Reporting System that respects the principles of accessibility and sharing implies a requirement for information systems capable of delivering information for many purposes, at various geographic scales and tailored to the needs of the public and of various public authorities. At all levels, local, regional, national and European, interoperability in all its perspectives (technical, semantic, organisational and legal) is an essential condition to achieve accessibility and usability of information and to ensure an adequate and efficient flow of information. Solutions at the European level should build upon existing interoperability solutions (ISA programme and its actions: http://ec.europa.eu/isa/index_en.htm).

The reporting requirements are specified in the following water related directives and in other legislation:

2003/4/EC Public Access to Environmental Information

The objectives of this Directive are to guarantee the right of access to environmental information and to set up the basic terms and conditions of, and practical arrangements for, its exercise; and to ensure that environmental information is progressively made available and disseminated to the public in order to achieve the widest possible systematic availability and dissemination of environmental information to the public. To this end, the use of computer telecommunication and/or electronic technology, where available, shall be promoted.

2003/35/EC Public Participation and access to justice

The objective of this Directive is to contribute to the implementation of the obligations arising under the Aarhus Convention, in particular by:

(a) providing for public participation in drawing up certain plans and programmes related to the environment;

(b) improving the public participation and providing for provisions on access to justice within Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC.

2003/98/EC Re-use of Public Sector Information

This Directive establishes a minimum set of rules governing the re-use and the practical means of facilitating reuse of existing documents held by public sector bodies of the Member States. There are, however, some exemptions, for instance, documents held by cultural establishments; museums, libraries, archives, orchestras, operas, ballets and theatres. According to the Directive, citizens or companies do not have to prove a particular interest under the access regime to obtain access to the documents

2007/2/EC Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community

288

In May 2007, a major recent development entered into force establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in Europe to support Community environmental policies, and policies or activities which may have an impact on the environment. The Directive requires that common Implementing Rules (IR) are adopted in a number of specific areas such as: Metadata, Data Specifications, Network Services, Data and Service Sharing and Monitoring and Reporting.

12.2. Classification and evolution of the provision of INSPIRE-compliant datasets

Member States require a modern, efficient and user friendly new Reporting System to fulfil their reporting obligations related to European Union environmental policies and legislation, avoiding duplication of efforts, overlapping and redundancies. At all levels (local, regional, national and European) interoperability in all its perspectives (technical, semantic, organisational and legal) is an essential condition to achieve accessibility and usability of information and to ensure an adequate and efficient flow of information. Solutions at the European level should build upon existing interoperability solutions.

It is important to consider extensibility as one of the main concerns of a new reporting design, as it is more than probable that the needs for information processing will increase. INSPIRE provides the framework for a distributed information system, linked by common standards and protocols to ensure compatibility and interoperability. INSPIRE will be the core model and the environmental directives add the data specifications.

The important aspect of a common reporting mechanism is finally to maintain a single definition of terms in use, INSPIRE in common with environmental directives. At the organisational level, it is necessary to take into account the reuse and evolution of existing infrastructure in the Member States towards a common reporting scheme.

289

Environmental information may be expressed in generic indicators or in more specialised indicators. At European level general indicators should be harmonized. Across national levels data specifications/specialised indicators should be harmonized in the CIS process (Member States/EU-COM), starting from an INSPIRE-core-level.

The requirements / guidelines at European level (e.g. the current request for future reporting but also the work programme INSPIRE Maintenance and Implementation) contain the requirements for simplification, streamlining and standardization of data provision in line with INSPIRE. There are a number of environmental policies, for which the dependencies and usage of INSPIRE data should be clarified in relation to reporting obligations. New reporting contents must support this gradual process.

290

ANNEX 0: template for the "Read me first" explanatory note accompanying the 2016 Water Framework Directive reporting

See sections 1.2 and 1.6 for the background in relation to this template.

The format for the implementation of this template (e.g. web form or other) will be discussed and agreed as part of the development of the reporting tools.

MS or RBD Name of the MS or the RBD covered by this explanatory note.

Contact Name and email of the person(s) acting as a contact point for further information/clarification.

Introduction Any general information that is deemed useful for the purpose of providing context to the accompanying reporting.

Reporting contents (by guidance chapter)

Have you reported this chapter (yes fully/ yes partially/ not)

If not reported please give a short explanation

If reported partially please indicate which elements are missing and provide a short explanation

2. REPORTING AT SURFACE WATER BODY LEVEL (SCHEMA SWB)

2.1. Characterisation of surface waters

2.2. Pressures and impacts on surface waters

291

Reporting contents (by guidance chapter)

Have you reported this chapter (yes fully/ yes partially/ not)

If not reported please give a short explanation

If reported partially please indicate which elements are missing and provide a short explanation

2.3. Ecological status and exemptions

2.4. Chemical status of surface waters, exemptions and Mixing Zones

3. REPORTING AT GROUNDWATER BODY LEVEL (SCHEMA GWB)

3.1. Characterisation of groundwater

3.2. Pressures and impacts on groundwater

3.3. Quantitative status of groundwater

3.4. Chemical status of groundwater and exemptions

4. MONITORING (SCHEMAS SWM, GWM AND MONITORING)

Reporting at surface water monitoring station level

Reporting at groundwater monitoring station level

292

Reporting contents (by guidance chapter)

Have you reported this chapter (yes fully/ yes partially/ not)

If not reported please give a short explanation

If reported partially please indicate which elements are missing and provide a short explanation

Reporting at RBD level (monitoring programmes)

5. PROTECTED AREAS (SCHEMAS SWB, GWB AND PROT AREAS)

Reporting for protected areas at surface water body level

Reporting for protected areas at groundwater body level

Reporting at protected area level

6. REPORTING AT MS LEVEL: COMPETENT AUTHORITIES, RBDS AND SUB-UNITS (SCHEMA RBDSUCA)

7. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR SURFACE WATER (SCHEMA SWMET)

7.1. Methodologies characterisation

293

Reporting contents (by guidance chapter)

Have you reported this chapter (yes fully/ yes partially/ not)

If not reported please give a short explanation

If reported partially please indicate which elements are missing and provide a short explanation

7.2. Methodologies classification ecological status and potential

7.3. Methodologies classification chemical status

7.4. Overall management objectives (nutrients, river continuity)

7.5. Definition of significant pressures and impacts

7.6. Methodologies exemptions

8. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR GROUNDWATER (SCHEMA GWMET)

8.1. Methodologies characterisation groundwater bodies

8.2. Methodologies classification chemical status, upward trend assessment, trend reversal, quantitative status and transboundary coordination

294

Reporting contents (by guidance chapter)

Have you reported this chapter (yes fully/ yes partially/ not)

If not reported please give a short explanation

If reported partially please indicate which elements are missing and provide a short explanation

8.3. Definition of significant pressures and impacts

8.4. Methodology exemptions

9. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR RBMP (SCHEMA RBMP_POM)

9.1. RBMP dates, table of contents, more detailed programmes, justifications, public participation

9.2. Loads and emissions of pollutants to surface waters (and groundwaters), including inventories of emissions, discharges and losses of EQSD Annex I substances

9.3. Water abstractions and exploitation of water resources

10. PROGRAMME OF MEASURES REPORTED AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL (SCHEMA RBMP_POM)

295

Reporting contents (by guidance chapter)

Have you reported this chapter (yes fully/ yes partially/ not)

If not reported please give a short explanation

If reported partially please indicate which elements are missing and provide a short explanation

10.1. Measures to tackle significant pressures

10.2. Key Types of Measure

10.3. Detailed information on specific measures and aspects

10.4. Cost of measures

10.5. Coordination of measures in international RBDs

10.6. Progress with and achievements of the programme of measures for the first planning cycle

11. REPORTING AT RBD/SUB-UNIT LEVEL FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND COST RECOVERY (SCHEMA RBMP_POM)

296

Annex 1: List of drivers, pressures and impacts

List of drivers

Driver Clarification1 Agriculture Includes all farming activities, agriculture and livestock 2 Climate change3 Energy – hydropower 4 Energy – non-hydro Including cooling activities for thermal and nuclear plants5 Fisheries and aquaculture Commercial fishing and aquaculture (not recreational or sports angling, included

in category ‘Recreation’ below)6 Flood protection7 Forestry8 Industry All kinds of industry not included under other categories9 Tourism & recreation Includes bathing, leisure boating and sailing, sports fishing/angling. It does not

include the urban development linked to tourism (under category ‘Urban development’).

10 Transport Road and rail traffic, shipping, aviation11 Urban development Includes urban development linked to household, non-manufacturing commercial

activities, tourism. 12 Unknown/Other Driver is unknown

List of pressures

Pressure Main Driver(s) Clarification on pressures1.1 Point – Urban waste water 

Urban development Included or not in the UWWT Directive. Includes discharges from non-manufacturing commercial areas which can largely be assimilated to urban waste water. Includes discharges of raw or partially treated urban waste water which are identified as point sources.

1.2 Point - Storm Overflows

Urban development Overflows from separated or combined sewers identified as point sources (for diffuse see ‘Diffuse – Urban run-off’ below).

1.3 Point - IED plants Industry Industrial point sources from plants included in the E-PRTR.

1.4 Point - Non IED plants

Industry Any industrial point sources not included in the E-PRTR.

1.5 Point - Contaminated Sites/Abandoned industrial sites

Industry Pollution resulting from an abandoned industrial site or a site contaminated due to past industrial activities, illegal dumping of industrial waste or a pollution accident and which is identified as point source (for diffuse see below ‘Diffuse – Contaminated sites/abandoned industrial sites). This category does not cover existing industrial activities.

1.6 Point - Waste disposal sites

Urban development Point sources due to urban or industrial waste disposal sites.

1.7 Point - Mine Industry Point sources due to the collection of

297

Pressure Main Driver(s) Clarification on pressureswaters water in an open pit or underground

mine which has to be brought to the surface in order to enable the mine to continue working. It does not include waste water from the industrial processes.

1.8 Point - Aquaculture

Aquaculture

1.9 Point – Other Other point sources not included in the categories above.

2.1 Diffuse - Urban run off

Urban development, Industry

Storm overflows and discharges in urbanized areas not identified as point sources

2.2 Diffuse – Agricultural

Agriculture

2.3 Diffuse – Forestry Forestry2.4 Diffuse – Transport

Transport Diffuse pollution from road and train traffic, aviation and infrastructure.

2.5 Diffuse – Contaminated sites/Abandoned industrial sites

Industry Pollution resulting from an abandoned industrial site or a site contaminated due to past industrial activities, illegal dumping of industrial waste or a pollution accident and which is identified as diffuse source (for point see above ‘Point – Contaminated sites/abandoned industrial sites). This category does not cover existing industrial activities.

2.6 Diffuse - Discharges not connected to sewerage network

Urban development Pollution resulting from urban waste water not connected to sewers and identified as a diffuse source.

2.7 Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition 

Agriculture, Energy non-hydro, Industry, Transport, Urban development

Diffuse pollution from atmospheric deposition from any origin

2.8 Diffuse – Mining Industry Pollution from mining activities which are identified as diffuse (for point sources see categories above )

2.9 Diffuse – Aquaculture

Aquaculture

2.10 Diffuse – Other Any driver/Other Other diffuse sources not included in the categories above.

3.1 Abstraction/Flow Diversion – Agriculture

Agriculture Includes water transfers and abstractions for irrigation and livestock breeding.

3.2 Abstraction/Flow Diversion – Public Water Supply

Urban development Includes water transfers. Affection to TW and/or CW possible only in case of desalination plants.

3.3 Abstraction/Flow Diversion – Industry

Industry Abstraction for industrial processes (cooling water is covered under the

298

Pressure Main Driver(s) Clarification on pressurescategory ‘Abstraction – cooling water’)

3.4 Abstraction/Flow Diversion – Cooling water

Industry; Energy non-hydro

3.5 Abstraction/Flow Diversion - Fish farms

Aquaculture Typically off-line fish farms

3.6 Abstraction/Flow Diversion – other

Recreation Abstraction for any other purpose not listed above.

4.1.1 Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore of water body for flood protection

Flood protection Refers largely to longitudinal alterations to water bodies.

4.1.2 Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore of water body for agriculture

Agriculture Refers largely to longitudinal alterations to water bodies. Includes land drainage to enable agriculture activities.

4.1.3 Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore of water body for navigation

Transport Refers largely to longitudinal alterations to water bodies.

4.1.4 Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore – other

Refers largely to longitudinal alterations to water bodies.

4.1.5 Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore – unknown

In case the driver for the physical modification is unknown.

4.2.1 Dams, barriers and locks for hydropower

Energy – hydropower

4.2.2 Dams, barriers and locks for flood protection

Flood Protection

4.2.3 Dams, barriers and locks for drinking water

Urban development

4.2.4 Dams, barriers and locks for irrigation

Agriculture

4.2.5 Dams, barriers and locks for recreation

Recreation Small dams are used in rivers to create recreational areas (bathing waters) and also angling areas

4.2.6 Dams, barriers and locks for industry

Industry, Energy non-hydro

Dams are sometimes created to provide freshwater for large industry e.g.

299

Pressure Main Driver(s) Clarification on pressurestypically for cooling purposes

4.2.7 Dams, barriers and locks for navigation

Transport

4.2.8 Dams, barriers and locks – other4.3.1 Hydrological alteration – agriculture

Agriculture, Transport A change in the flow regime (e.g. due to land drainage).

4.3.2 Hydrological alteration – transport

Transport A change in the flow regime - typically due to inland navigation

4.3.3 Hydrological alteration – hydropower

Energy – hydropower A change in the flow regime (e.g. hydropeaking)

4.3.Hydrological alteration – public water supply

Urban development A change in the flow regime

4.3.5 Hydrological alteration - aquaculture

Fisheries and aquaculture A change in the flow regime

4.3.6 Hydrological alteration – other4.4 Physical loss (or part of) whole water bodies

Flood Protection, Climate change

Dry river beds etc.

4.5 Other hydromorphological alterations

Other hydromorphological alterations not included in any of the categories above, including alteration of water level or volume for purposes not identified above.

5.1 Introduced species and diseases

Transport, Fisheries and aquaculture, Tourism and recreation.

Includes invasive alien species.

5.2 Exploitation of/removal of animals/plants

Recreation, Fisheries and aquaculture

Commercial fishing or recreational/sports angling, commercial harvesting of plants or algae from water bodies.

5.3 Litter/fly tipping Urban development, Transport

Includes illegal waste deposits, litter from ships, etc. (All waste from land area)

6.1 Groundwater recharges

AgricultureEnergy – non-hydro IndustryUrban development

6.2 Groundwater – alteration of water level or volume

IndustryUrban development

This category includes activities to alter the level of groundwater in order to carry out an underground activity (typically mining or large civil works). This does not include the alteration of the water

300

Pressure Main Driver(s) Clarification on pressureslevel due to current or past overexploitation of the groundwater resources (this case is captured under the categories ‘Abstraction’ above).

7 Other anthropogenic pressures

Other pressures not included in any other category.

8 Unknown Pressures Only relevant where status is lower than good and pressure is unknown.

9 Historical pollution In cases where for example a groundwater body is significantly polluted by past activities / pressures that no longer exist.

List of impacts

Impact Relevant SW?

Relevant GW?

Nutrient pollution Y YOrganic pollution Y YChemical pollution Y YSaline pollution/intrusion Y YAcidification Y NElevated temperatures Y NAltered habitats due to hydrological changes Y NAltered habitats due to morphological changes (includes connectivity)

Y N

Litter (an impact under the MSFD) Y NMicrobiological pollution Y YDiminution of quality of associated surface waters for chemical / quantitative reasons

N Y

Damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems for chemical / quantitative reasons

N Y

Alterations in flow directions resulting in saltwater intrusion

N Y

Abstraction exceeds available GW resource (lowering water table)

N Y

Other Significant Impacts Y Y

301

Annex 2: Table of Abstraction Pressures in the Context of Water Availability

WFD list of pressures driver specification of pressure NACE classes or equivalent in the statistical and SoE reporting

3.1 Abstraction – Agriculture

Agriculture Includes irrigation and livestock breeding.

- Water use, NACE A Agriculture- Water use, for Irrigation ((ref. NACE/ISIC division

01)

3.2 Abstraction – Public Water Supply

Urban development

Affection to TW and/or CW possible only in case of desalination plants.

- Water use, NACE I (Services, tourism included)- Water use, any other economic activity- Water use, from public supply- Water use, from self-supply- Water use, from self-supplied for domestic purposes- Reused water - Water use, produced from Desalination process - Water imports - Water exports - Water transfers (intra-RBD)

3.3 Abstraction – Industry

Industry Abstraction for industrial processes (cooling water is covered under the category ‘Abstraction – cooling water’)

- Water use, NACE B (Mining and Quarrying)- Water use, NACE C (Manufacturing Industry)- Water use, for Hydropower generation

3.4 Abstraction – Cooling water

Industry; Energy non-hydro

- Water use, NACE D (Production of Electricity)

3.5 Abstraction - Fish farms

Aquaculture - No NACE class

3.6 Abstraction – other Recreation Abstraction for any other purpose not listed above.

- Water use, any other economic activity

302

Annex 3: Mapping of significant pressures and chemical substances causing failure of objectives with Key Types of Measures with quantitative indicators of the scale of the pressures to be tackled and the scale of measures planned to achieve WFD objectives.

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

1.1 Point – Urban waste water 

Urban development Load of BOD to be reduced (in tonnes) to achieve objectives

1 Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants

Population equivalent required to be treated by construction or upgrade of waste water treatment works

    Load of nitrogen to be reduced (in tonnes) to achieve objectives

Number of wastewater treatment works requiring to be constructed or upgraded

    Load of phosphorus to be reduced (in tonnes) to achieve objectives

    Number of water bodies failing EQS for RBSP

 

    Loads of priority substances to be reduced (in tonnes) to achieve objectives

15 Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances.  

Number of new permits to be issued or updated

    Number of installations associated with priority substances requiring measures to achieve objectives

    Number of substances requiring restrictions or bans on uses to achieve objectives

         1.2 Point - Storm Overflows

Urban development Load of BOD to be reduced (in tonnes) to achieve objectives

1 Construction or upgrades of wastewater treatment plants

Number of Combined Sewer Overflows to be upgraded to achieve objectives

Number of urban areas with excessive overflows that are causing or contributing to

 

303

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

failure of objectivesNumber of water bodies failing EQS for PS and/or RBSP

 

Load of sediment to be reduced to (in tonnes) to achieve WFD objectives.

17 Measures to reduce sediment loads from soil erosion and surface run-off

Number of storm overflows where sediment flow to surface water will be intercepted or reduced.

Volume of storm water that is causing or contributing to failure of objectives

23 Natural water retention measures

Number of sustainable drainage systems required to achieve objectives

Number of urban areas with excessive overflows that are causing or contributing to failure of objectives

 

         1.3 Point - IED plants Industry Number of permits not

compatible with the achievement of objectives

16 Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms)

Number of installation where upgrades or improvements are required to achieve objectives

Number of water bodies failing EQS for RBSP

  Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

Number of permits not compatible with the achievement of objectives

15 Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances.  

Number of water bodies failing EQS for priority substances 

Number of substances requiring restrictions or bans on uses to achieve objectives

         

304

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

1.4 Point - Non IED plants Industry Number of permits not compatible with the achievement of objectives

16 Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms)

Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

    Number of water bodies failing EQS for RBSP

 

         1.5 Point - Contaminated Sites/Abandoned industrial sites

Industry Number of contaminated sites affecting the achievement of objectives

4 Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil).

Number of sites to be remediated or where preventative actions are to be taken to achieve objectives

    Number of water bodies failing EQS for PS and/or RBSP

   

         1.6 Point - Waste disposal sites

Urban development Number of waste disposal sites affecting achievement of objectives

21 Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure

Number of upgraded or remediated waste disposal sites required to achieve objectives

    Number of water bodies failing EQS for PS and/or RBSP

  Number of water bodies affected by measures

         1.7 Point - Mine waters Industry Number of mine water

discharges affecting achievement of objectives

New MS KTM Number of mine discharges for which measures are required to achieve objectives

    Number of water bodies failing EQS for PS and/or RBSP

   

         1.8 Point - Aquaculture Aquaculture Number of point sources

affecting achievement of objectives

New MS KTM Number of aquaculture sites/facilities for which measures are required to achieve objectives

305

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

    Number of water bodies failing EQS for PS and/or RBSP

   

         1.9 Point – Other Any driver/Other Number of point sources

affecting achievement of objectives

New MS KTM Number of water bodies affected by measures to achieve objectives

         2.1 Diffuse - Urban run off Urban development,

IndustryLength (km)/area (km2) of water bodies that are not achieving objectives because of diffuse urban run off

21 Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure

Number of sustainable drainage systems required to achieve objectives

        Number of upgraded storm overflows required to achieve objectives

        Number of surface water interceptors and treatment facilities required to achieve objectives

        Area (km2) requiring regulation and/or codes of practice for use and disposal of chemicals in urbanised areas, transport and infrastructure to achieve objectives.

         2.2 Diffuse – Agricultural Agriculture Load of nitrogen to be

reduced (in tonnes) to achieve objectives

2 Reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture

Area of agricultural land covered by measures (km2) to achieve objectives

    Load of phosphorus to be reduced (in tonnes) to achieve objectives

  Length (km)/area (km2) of buffer strips required to achieve objectives

    Number of water bodies failing 3 Reduce pesticides pollution Area of agricultural land

306

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

EQS for pesticides originating from diffuse agricultural sources

from agriculture. covered by measures (km2) to reduce pesticide pollution in agriculture to achieve objectives

    Number of farms not covered by advisory services

12 Advisory services for agriculture

Number of farms that need to be covered by advisory services to achieve objectives

        Number of advisory services required to achieve objectives

        Area (km2) of agricultural land requiring measures to achieve objectives

        Number of Farm Surveys required to achieve objectives.

    Number of water bodies affected by emissions, discharges or losses of priority and priority hazardous substances

15 Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances.  

Number of substances requiring restrictions or bans on uses to achieve objectives

    Number, length, area of water bodies not achieving objectives because of this pressure

17 Measures to reduce sediment loads from soil erosion and surface run-off

Length of river requiring buffer zones to intercept or reduce sediment loads to rivers to achieve objectives

        Area of water body bodies requiring buffer zones to intercept or reduce sediment loads to water bodies to achieve objectives

     Area of agricultural land at risk of soil erosion

  Area of agricultural land (km2) requiring measures to achieve objectives

         307

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

2.3 Diffuse – Forestry Forestry Number of water bodies not achieving objectives because of this pressure

22 Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from forestry

Area of forestry land (km2) requiring measures to reduce nutrient inputs to levels compatible with the achievement of objectives.

    Area (km2) of forest affecting the achievement of objectives

Length of river requiring buffer zones to intercept or reduce sediment loads to rivers to achieve objectivesArea of forest land (km2) requiring measures to achieve objectives

    Area of forestry land (km2) at risk of soil erosion

17 Measures to reduce sediment loads from soil erosion and surface run-off

Area of water body bodies requiring buffer zones to intercept or reduce sediment loads to water bodies to achieve objectives.

      Area of forest land (km2) requiring measures to achieve objectives

         2.4 Diffuse – Transport Transport Number of water bodies not

achieving objectives because of this pressure

21 Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure

Number of surface water interceptors and treatment facilities required to achieve objectives.

        Length of transport infrastructure required to be subject to regulation and/or codes of practice for use and disposal of chemicals for the achievement of objectives

         

308

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

2.5 Diffuse – Contaminated sites/Abandoned industrial sites

Industry Number of contaminated sites affecting the achievement of objectives

4 Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil).

Area of land covered by the measures (km2) required to achieve objectives

        Number of contaminated sites to be remediated or where preventative actions are to be taken to achieve objectives

         2.6 Diffuse - Discharges not connected to sewerage network

Urban development Length (km)/area (km2) of water bodies not achieving objectives because of this pressure

21 Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure

Number of upgraded storm overflows required to achieve objectives

        Number of sustainable drainage systems required to achieve objectives.

    Number of discharges not connected to sewerage network that are causing the failure of objectives

  Number of discharges required to be connected to sewerage network to achieve objectives

         2.7 Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition 

Agriculture, Energy non-hydro, Industry, Transport, Urban development

Length (km)/area (km2) of water bodies not achieving objectives because of this pressure

15 Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances.  

Number of substances requiring restrictions or bans on uses to achieve objectives

        Number of new permits required or permits that need to be updated to achieve objectives

        Number of installations 309

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

covered by the measures required to achieve objectives

      25 Measures to counteract acidification

Number of water bodies that need to be limed to achieve objectives

        Length of buffer zones required to counteract acidification for the achievement of objectives

        Number of new permits required or permits that need to be updated to achieve objectives

        Number of installations that need to be covered by measures to achieve objectives

         2.8 Diffuse – Mining Industry Length (km)/area (km2) of

water bodies not achieving objectives because of this pressure

New MS KTM Number of mines for which measures are required to achieve objectives.

         2.9 Diffuse – Aquaculture Aquaculture Length (km)/area (km2) of

water bodies not achieving objectives because of this pressure

New MS KTM Number of aquaculture sites/facilities for which measures are required to achieve objectives

         2.10 Diffuse – Other Any driver/Other Length (km)/area (km2) of

water bodies not achieving objectives because of this pressure

New MS KTM Number of water bodies affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

         

310

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

3.1 Abstraction/flow diversion – Agriculture

Agriculture Volume of water abstracted/diverted for agriculture (million m3) to be reduced to achieve objectives.

7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows.

Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

        Number of water bodies where ecological flows need to be established to achieve objectives.

      8 Water efficiency technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households

Irrigated area required to be covered by measures to achieve objectives

        Reduction (%) in water consumption required to achieve objectives

      11 Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from agriculture

Agricultural area (km2) where water pricing policy measures are required to achieve the objectives of Article 9

      12 Advisory services for agriculture

Number of farms that need to covered by advisory services to achieve objectives

        Number of advisory services required to achieve objectives

        Area (km2) of agricultural land that needs to be covered by advisory services to achieve objectives.

        Number of Farm Surveys required to be undertaken to achieve objectives

         

311

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

3.2 Abstraction/flow diversion – Public Water Supply

Urban development Volume of water abstracted/diverted for public water supply (million m3) to be reduced to achieve objectives

7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows.

Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

        Number of water bodies where ecological flows need to be established to achieve objectives.

      8 Water efficiency technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households

Number of households required to be covered by measures to achieve objectives

        Reduction (%) in water consumption required to achieve objectives

      9 Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from households

Size of population for which water pricing policy measures are required to achieve the objectives of Article 9

        Area (km2) of RBD for which water pricing policy measures are required to achieve the objectives of Article 9

         3.3 Abstraction/flow diversion – Industry

Industry Volume of water abstracted/diverted for industry (million m3) to be reduced to achieve objectives

7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows.

Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

312

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

        Number of water bodies where ecological flows need to be established to achieve objectives.

      8 Water efficiency technical measures for irrigation, industry, energy and households

Number of installations required to be covered by measures to achieve objectives

        Reduction (%) in water consumption required to achieve objectives

      10 Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from industry

Number of installations for which water pricing policy measures are required to achieve the objectives of Article 9

         3.4 Abstraction/flow diversion – Cooling water

Industry; Energy non-hydro

Volume of water abstracted/diverted for cooling water (million m3) to be reduced to achieve objectives

7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows.

Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

        Number of water bodies where ecological flows need to be established to achieve objectives.

      10 Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from industry

Number of installations for which water pricing policy measures are required to achieve the objectives of Article 9

         

313

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

3.5 Abstraction/flow diversion - Fish farms

Aquaculture Volume of water abstracted/diverted for aquaculture (million m3) to be reduced to achieve objectives

7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows.

Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

        Number of water bodies where ecological flows need to be established to achieve objectives.

      10 Progress in water pricing policy measures for the implementation of the recovery of cost of water services from industry

Number of installations for which water pricing policy measures are required to achieve the objectives of Article 9

         3.6 Abstraction/flow diversion – other

Recreation Volume of water abstracted/diverted for other purposes (such as recreation) (million m3) to be reduced to achieve objectives

7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows.

Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

        Number of water bodies where ecological flows need to be established to achieve objectives.

      19 Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of recreation including angling

Number of water bodies affected by measures required to achieve objectives

         4.1.1 Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore of water body for flood protection

Flood protection Length (km) of water bodies affected by alterations for flood protection not compatible with good ecological status/good

6 Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity

Length of remeandering of straightened river channels required for the achievement of objectives

314

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

ecological potential        Length of river with bed

restoration measures required for the achievement of objectives.

      23 Natural water retention measures

Number of sustainable drainage systems required for the achievement of objectives

        Length/area of water bodies required to be restored or reconnected to floodplains for the achievement of objectives.

         4.1.2 Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore of water body for agriculture

Agriculture Length (km) of water bodies affected by alterations for agriculture not compatible with good ecological status/good ecological potential

6 Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity

Length of remeandering of straightened river channels required for the achievement of objectives

Length of river with bed restoration measures required for the achievement of objectives.

Length or area of bank/shore that will require rehabilitation and/or restoration measures for the achievement of objectives

        Length or area of bank/shore that will require removal of hard infrastructure for the achievement of objectives

         

315

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

4.1.3 Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore of water body for navigation

Transport Length (km) of water bodies affected by alterations for navigation not compatible with good ecological status/good ecological potential

6 Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity

Length of remeandering of straightened river channels required for the achievement of objectives

Length of river with bed restoration measures required for the achievement of objectives.

Length or area of bank/shore that will require rehabilitation and/or restoration measures for the achievement of objectives

        Length or area of bank/shore that will require removal of hard infrastructure for the achievement of objectives

         4.1.4 Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore – other

Any driver/Other Length (km) of water bodies affected by alterations for other purposes not compatible with good ecological status/good ecological potential

6 Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity

Length of remeandering of straightened river channels required for the achievement of objectives

Length of river with bed restoration measures required for the achievement of objectives.

316

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

Length or area of bank/shore that will require rehabilitation and/or restoration measures for the achievement of objectives

        Length or area of bank/shore that will require removal of hard infrastructure for the achievement of objectives

         4.1.5 Physical alteration of channel/bed/riparian area/shore – unknown

  Length (km) of water bodies affected by alterations for unknown purposes not compatible with good ecological status/good ecological potential

6 Improving hydromorphological conditions of water bodies other than longitudinal continuity

Length of remeandering of straightened river channels required for the achievement of objectives

Length of river with bed restoration measures required for the achievement of objectives.

Length or area of bank/shore that will require rehabilitation and/or restoration measures for the achievement of objectives

        Length or area of bank/shore that will require removal of hard infrastructure for the achievement of objectives

         

317

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

4.2.1 Dams, weirs, barriers and locks for hydropower  

Energy – hydropower  

Number of dams, weirs, barriers and locks associated with hydropower that have conditions not compatible with the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential  

5 Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams).   

Number of barriers required to be tackled for the achievement of objectivesLength (km) or area (km2) of river network that will be affected by the measures required to achieve objectivesNumber of fish/continuity passes required to be installed to achieve objectives

         4.2.2 Dams, weirs, barriers and locks for flood protection

Flood Protection Number of dams, weirs, barriers and locks associated with flood protection that have conditions not compatible with the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential

5 Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams).

Number of barriers required to be tackled for the achievement of objectives

        Length (km) or area (km2) of river network that will be affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

        Number of fish/continuity passes required to be installed to achieve objectives

         4.2.3 Dams, weirs, barriers and locks for drinking water

Urban development Number of dams, weirs, barriers and locks associated with drinking water that have conditions not compatible with the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential

5 Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams).

Number of barriers required to be tackled for the achievement of objectives

        Length (km) or area (km2) of

318

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

river network that will be affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

        Number of fish/continuity passes required to be installed to achieve objectives

         4.2.4 Dams, weirs, barriers and locks for irrigation

Agriculture Number of dams, weirs, barriers and locks associated with irrigation that have conditions not compatible with the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential

5 Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams).

Number of barriers required to be tackled for the achievement of objectives

        Length (km) or area (km2) of river network that will be affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

        Number of fish/continuity passes required to be installed to achieve objectives.

         4.2.5 Dams, weirs, barriers and locks for recreation

Recreation Number of dams, weirs, barriers and locks associated with recreation that have conditions not compatible with the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential

5 Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams).

Number of barriers required to be tackled for the achievement of objectives

        Length (km) or area (km2) of river network that will be affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

        Number of fish/continuity

319

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

passes required to be installed to achieve objectives.

         4.2.6 Dams, weirs, barriers and locks for industry

Industry, Energy non-hydro

Number of dams, weirs, barriers and locks associated with industry that have conditions not compatible with the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential

5 Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams).

Number of barriers required to be tackled for the achievement of objectives

        Length (km) or area (km2) of river network that will be affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

        Number of fish/continuity passes required to be installed to achieve objectives.

         4.2.7 Dams, weirs, barriers and locks for navigation

Transport Number of dams, weirs, barriers and locks associated with navigation that have conditions not compatible with the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential

5 Improving longitudinal continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams).

Number of barriers required to be tackled for the achievement of objectives

        Length (km) or area (km2) of river network that will be affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

        Number of fish/continuity passes required to be installed to achieve objectives.

         4.2.8 Dams, weirs, Any driver/Other Number of dams, weirs, 5 Improving longitudinal Number of barriers required to

320

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

barriers and locks – other barriers and locks associated with other uses that have conditions not compatible with the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential

continuity (e.g. establishing fish passes, demolishing old dams).

be tackled for the achievement of objectives

        Length (km) or area (km2) of river network that will be affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

        Number of fish/continuity passes required to be installed to achieve objectives.

         4.3.1 Hydrological alteration – agriculture

Agriculture, Transport Length (km) /area (km2) of water bodies where hydrological alterations for agricultural purposes are preventing the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential

7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows.

Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

        Number of water bodies where ecological flows need to be established to achieve objectives.

         4.3.2 Hydrological alteration – transport

Transport Length (km) /area (km2) of water bodies where hydrological alterations for transport purposes are preventing the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential

7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows.

Length of rivers (km) affected by the measures required for the achievement of objectives.

321

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

        Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

        Number of water bodies where ecological flows need to be established to achieve objectives.

         4.3.3 Hydrological alteration – hydropower

Energy – hydropower Length (km) /area (km2) of water bodies where hydrological alterations for hydropower production are preventing the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential

7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows.

Number of water bodies where the operational modification of hydro-peaking is required for the achievement of objectives.

        Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

        Number of water bodies where ecological flows need to be established to achieve objectives.

         4.3.4 Hydrological alteration – public water supply

Urban development Length (km) /area (km2) of water bodies where hydrological alterations for public water supply purposes are preventing the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential 

7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows.  

Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

    Number of water bodies where ecological flows need to be established to achieve objectives.

         

322

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

4.3.5 Hydrological alteration - aquaculture

Fisheries and aquaculture

Length (km) /area (km2) of water bodies where hydrological alterations for aquaculture purposes are preventing the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential 

7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows.  

Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

    Number of water bodies where ecological flows need to be established to achieve objectives.

         4.3.6 Hydrological alteration – other

Any driver/Other Length (km) /area (km2) of water bodies where hydrological alterations for other purposes are preventing the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential 

7 Improvements in flow regime and/or establishment of ecological flows.  

Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

    Number of water bodies where ecological flows need to be established to achieve objectives.

         4.4 Physical loss (or part of) whole water bodies

Flood Protection, Climate change

Length (km) /area (km2) of water bodies where physical loss of habitats are preventing the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential

New MS KTM Length/area of water bodies that are required to be restored or reconnected to floodplains for the achievement of objectives.

        Length/area of water bodies that require to be restored to achieve objectives

         Number of water bodies affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

        Length/area of water bodies affected by the measures

323

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

required to achieve objectives         4.5 Other hydromorphological alterations

Any driver/Other Length (km)/area (km2) of water bodies where other hydromorphological alterations are preventing the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential

New MS KTM Length/area of water bodies affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

         5.1 Introduced species and diseases

Transport, Fisheries and aquaculture

Number of introduced species preventing the achievement of GES/GEP

18 Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of invasive alien species and introduced diseases

Number of species for which codes of practice for reducing the spread of invasive alien species are required to be developed and implemented for the achievement of objectives.

        Number of water bodies required to have eradication or control measures for the achievement of objectives

        Number of Individual Species Action Plans required for species identified as presenting particular risk levels for the achievement of objectives

    Number of introduced diseases preventing the achievement of GES/GEP

  Number of water bodies required to have eradication or control measures for the achievement of objectives

         

324

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

5.2 Exploitation of/removal of animals/plants

Recreation, Fisheries and aquaculture

Length (km) /area (km2) of water bodies where the exploitation/removal of animal/plants is preventing the achievement of good ecological status/good ecological potential 

20 Measures to prevent or control the adverse impacts of fishing and other exploitation/removal of animal and plants 

Number of water bodies affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

    Length/area of water bodies affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

         5.3 Litter/fly tipping Urban development,

TransportLength (km) of water bodies impacted by litter or fly tipping

New MS KTM Length of water bodies where litter is required to be removed to achieve objectives

        Number of sources of litter that require control measures to achieve objectives

         6.1 Groundwater recharges

Agriculture, Energy – non-hydro, Industry, Urban development

Area of groundwater bodies not achieving objectives because of groundwater recharges

New MS KTM Area of water bodies affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

         6.2 Groundwater – alteration of water level or volume

Industry, Urban development

Area of groundwater bodies not achieving objectives because of alteration of water levels/volumes

New MS KTM Area of water bodies affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

         7 Other anthropogenic pressures

Any driver/Other Length (km) /area (km2) of water bodies where other anthropogenic pressures are causing the non achievement of objectives

New MS KTM Length/area of water bodies affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

         

325

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

8 Unknown Pressures Any driver Length (km) /area (km2) of water bodies where unknown pressures are causing the non achievement of objectives

New MS KTM Length/area of water bodies affected by the measures required to achieve objectives

   

         A number of pressure may be applicable - MS to select those relevant

Any driver See list of potential indicators for the selected relevant pressures

13 Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc)

Number of drinking water protection zones required to achieve objectives

        Number of water bodies that are required to be affected by drinking water protection measures for the achievement of objectives

         Any pressure may be applicable - MS to select those relevant

Any driver See list of potential indicators for the selected relevant pressures

14 Research, improvement of knowledge base reducing uncertainty.

Number of the research studies etc. that are required to achieve objectives.

        Number of water bodies that are expected to achieve objectives as a result of research etc.

         Failure of good chemical status by a Priority Substance

Agriculture, urban development, industry, transport

Loads of priority substances that require to be reduced to achieve objectives.  

15 Measures for the phasing-out of emissions, discharges and losses of priority hazardous substances or for the reduction of emissions, discharges and losses of priority substances.  

Number of revised permit required to achieve objectives

    Number of installation where upgrades or improvements are required to achieve objectives

326

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

  

    Number of substances requiring restrictions or bans on uses to achieve objectives

    Number of water bodies failing EQSs

3 Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture.

Area of agricultural land required to be covered by measures to achieve objectives

        Length (km)/area (km2) of buffer strips required to achieve objectives.

      4 Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil).

Area (km2) of land required to be covered by measures to achieve objectives.

        Number of sites requiring measures to achieve objectives

      13 Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc)

Number of drinking water protection zones required to achieve objectives

        Area of land required to be covered by drinking water protection zones to achieve objectives

      16 Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms)

Number of installation where upgrades or improvements are required to achieve objectives.

        Number of new permits required, or require to be updated, to achieve objectives.

327

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

      21 Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure

Number of sustainable drainage systems required to achieve objectives

        Number of upgraded storm overflows required to achieve objectives

        Number of pesticides and other chemicals requiring restrictions or bans on uses to achieve objectives

        Number of surface water interceptors and treatment systems required to achieve objectives.

         Failure of good ecological status by a River Basin Specific Pollutant

Agriculture, urban development, industry, transport, forestry, aquaculture, energy

Loads of river basin specific pollutants that require to be reduced to achieve objectives

3 Reduce pesticides pollution from agriculture.

Area of agricultural land required to be covered by measures to achieve objectives

    Number of water bodies failing EQSs

  Length (km)/area (km2) of buffer strips required to achieve objectives.

      4 Remediation of contaminated sites (historical pollution including sediments, groundwater, soil).

Area (km2) of land required to covered by measures to achieve objectives.

        Number of sites requiring measures to achieve objectives

328

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

      13 Drinking water protection measures (e.g. establishment of safeguard zones, buffer zones etc)

Number of drinking water protection zones required to achieve objectives

        Area of land required to be covered by drinking water protection zones to achieve objectives

      16 Upgrades or improvements of industrial wastewater treatment plants (including farms)

Number of installation where upgrades or improvements are required to achieve objectives

        Number of new permits required, or require to be updated, to achieve objectives.

      21 Measures to prevent or control the input of pollution from urban areas, transport and built infrastructure

Number of sustainable drainage systems required to achieve objectives.

        Number of upgraded storm overflows required to achieve objectives.

        Number of pesticides and other chemicals requiring restrictions or bans on uses to achieve objectives

        Number of surface water interceptors and treatment systems required to achieve objectives.

      22 Measures to prevent or Area of forested land (km2)

329

Significant Pressure or chemical substance failing

Main Driver(s) Indicators for pressure Relevant KTM Indicators for KTM

control the input of pollution from forestry

required to be covered by measures to achieve objectives.

        Length (km)/area (km2) of buffer strips required to achieve objectives.

         

330

ANNEX 4: GROUNDWATER BODIES AND HORIZON ASSIGNMENT

1. BACKGROUND

1.1. Water Framework Directive (WFD)

The Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC) considers a groundwater body (GWB) as a coherent management unit assigned to a River Basin District (RBD) which has to meet the environmental objectives (Article 4) . The term “body of groundwater” should therefore be understood in the context of the hierarchy of relevant definitions provided under Article 2 of the WFD:

According to WFD Article 2.2, “Groundwater” means all water, which is below the surface of the ground in the saturated zone and in direct contact with the ground or sub-soil;

According to Article 2.11, “Aquifer” means a subsurface layer or layers of rock or other geological strata of sufficient porosity and permeability to allow either a significant flow of groundwater or the abstraction of significant quantities of groundwater;

According to Article 2.12, “Groundwater body” means a distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers.

According to the definitions and the specifications laid down in the WFD, groundwater bodies are management units with the main purpose of enabling their quantitative and qualitative status to be accurately described and compared to the environmental objectives and of implementing the measures necessary for achieving these objectives. Groundwater management has to consider groundwater in relation to its uses and functions and its interactions with aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and in relation to the natural conditions (geology, hydrogeology etc.) and anthropogenic influences (pressures).

1.2. GWB delineation – horizontal dimension

The delineation of GWBs comprises both, the horizontal and the vertical dimension, considering the following features:

Groundwater flow divides, using surface water catchments and geological boundaries as proxies where information is limited.

Pressure variations, where these are significant at a river basin level and where they require different management.

Variations in natural background levels (NBL). Coastline, unless there is specific evidence that groundwater beyond the coastline has a

resource value in terms of legitimate uses. Association to aquatic ecosystems or groundwater dependency of terrestrial ecosystems. Boundary of a hydrographical entity that is already subject to a local management plan.

1.3. GWB delineation – vertical dimension

The vertical characterization of a GWB depends on: 331

whether the volume of the groundwater concerned is located within one or within several aquifers;

The risks according to the objectives of the WFD.

It is up to each Member State and its national groundwater management strategy how GWBs are delineated (in accordance with the definitions under WFD Article 2), whether GWBs are defined separately for each individual stratum overlying each other or merging different strata.

The vertical heterogeneity/variability of a hydrogeological setting can lead to many different arrangements of differently delineated GWBs. If hydrogeology is not the only factor considered (which is probably the case), many additional ways of delineation and types of configuration are possible.

Figure 4 illustrates one example hydrogeological setting and four different (non-exhaustive) options of GWB delineation and arrangements which are in the following used to illustrate the challenge and proposed procedure of horizon assignment.

Figure 4: Four different (non-exhaustive) options of GWB delineation for one specific hydrogeological context

In addition to the areal variability, the vertical variability makes homogenization work at the pan-European scale very complex, particularly for transboundary GWBs where the connected GWBs may be differently delineated by the Member States because of different national approaches, focuses or management constraints (see chapter Error: Reference source not found).

332

Option 1

Option 4

Option 2

Option 3

Hydrogeological setting

1.4. Horizon assignment

1.4.1. Horizons: what for?

GWBs are three-dimensional entities; however the representation of the feature will be as 2-D polygons. Borders of polygons of GWBs are their projection on the surface. It is necessary that multiple overlapping groundwater bodies at different depths with non-identical boundaries are distinguished in different horizons (layers) (EU, 2009). The characterisation of the vertical position of GWBs by ‘horizons’ should:

help to reflect the three-dimensionality of GWBs and their vertical (relative) position to other GWBs.

enable the stratified visualization of GWBs on maps and help to identify and visualise those (parts of) GWBs which are probably most exposed to

anthropogenic pressures on the surface – the uppermost horizon, the outcrops (like for geological maps).

1.4.2. Concept – Guidance 2009

‘Horizon’ was a mandatory reporting element within WFD reporting to WISE. The concept of assignment of whole GWBs to horizons is laid down in the ‘Guidance on the reporting of geographical data for the WFD’ (EU, 2009) and followed a simple numeration in the sense of the numerical position of the GWB starting with the first GWB-horizon from the surface.

1.4.3. Results from the first WISE reporting

The EU wide compilation and assessment of the provided geographical data (including the assignment to horizons) for GWBs showed that the data finally did not allow for achieving a non-ambiguous picture of the three-dimensionality of groundwater and GWBs which hampers the compilation of a GWB map for Europe. To date, a comparable vertical positioning and a clear mapping of GWBs is actually impossible at the European scale. The European map prepared for the 2nd Workshop on Groundwater Bodies (Duscher & Struckmeier, 2011) reveals several discrepancies.

The majority of 13,345 GWB polygons reported in Europe to WISE are assigned to horizon 1 (10,871), followed by polygons allocated to horizon 2 (1,584). Polygons assigned to horizons 3 and more represent 3% of the total.

The main issues highlighted into the ETC/ICM report of 2013 are the following:

The majority of Member State reported GWBs up-to horizon 4; few assigned their GWBs to more than 4 horizons (France, Italy, Estonia, Lithuania);

Some Member States did not assign their GWBs to horizons (Spain and UK (Northern Ireland));

Nine Member States did not consider subdivision and assigned all GWBs to horizon 1 and/or horizon 0;

Some Member States reported GWBs which extend over several horizons; Some GWBs overlay each other within the same horizon.

333

1.4.4. Deficits of the current approach

The main structural deficits are:

The current definition only allows that each GWB as a whole is assigned to exactly one horizon. But for representing complex stratifications this simple approach is not appropriate. It turned out quite difficult to assign to a single horizon, for example, downgrade GWBs that outcrop somewhere and are overlain in other parts by other GWBs.

The definition of ‘horizons’ might not be explicit enough or probably not sufficiently generic leading to deviating interpretations or wrong assignments in the Member States.

The number of horizons is limited to four. The parameter ’horizon‘ might not be sufficient to characterize the three-dimensionality of

GWBs. In addition, other parameters such as “Average Depth”, “Average Thickness” and “Depth range” are helpful.

The current approach does not allow for a non-ambiguous join of transboundary GWBs (see chapter Error: Reference source not found).

2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HORIZON ASSIGNMENT – TO ENABLE HOMOGENEOUS MAPPING AT A PAN-EUROPEAN SCALE

Within this chapter a revised approach for horizon assignment is proposed. This approach is illustrated by three different examples of GWB arrangements which are based on a hydrogeological example context.

2.1. Amended proposal for horizon assignment

Considering the main problems identified in chapter 1.4.4, the existing methodology is proposed to be kept and extended by the following features:

The assignment of horizons follows a simple numeration in the sense of the numerical position of the groundwater body starting with the first GWB-horizon from the surface (EU, 2009)

Groundwater bodies can be split into sub-units for the purpose of assigning these sub-units individually to corresponding horizons, depending on the overlap with other GWBs;

There is no limitation in the number of horizons; Overlaying groundwater bodies cannot be associated to the same horizon.

Horizon Code Brief description1 (Part of) first GWB from the surface

2 (Part of) second GWB from the surface

3 (Part of) third GWB from the surface

4 (Part of) fourth GWB from the surface

334

5 (Part of) fifth GWB from the surface…etc…. …etc….

It has to be emphasized that the assignment of GWBs to horizons should not be mixed with (is separate from) the delineation of GWBs which is strictly subject to Member State’s decisions and methods. Horizon assignment is just a tool for harmonization to enable coherent visualisation of GWBs at the European level and to support transboundary coordination. It is therefore solely a matter of reporting.

Except for the uppermost horizon (horizon 1) the assignment of a (part of a) GWB to a certain horizon does not give any information about its absolute vertical position within the overall schema, just the relative position to overlying or underlying (parts of) GWBs from the surface.

2.2. Amended proposal for reporting of GIS information to WISE

It is proposed to report GIS information with the following architecture:

Attribute name Obligation Type DescriptionEU_CD_GW Required string (42) International code of the

Ground Water Body as defined in the GWB reporting schema. Code MUST have a 1-to-1 relationship with EUGroundWaterBodyCode and further attribute data described in the related XML file.

Horizon Required number (2.0)orinteger (2)

Numeration in the sense of the numerical position of groundwater body layer starting at the first GWB-horizon from the surface (as proposed in the table above). Multiplicity 0...99

CD_Polygon Required string (45) “EU_CD_GW” + “-“ + “Horizon” Permits an unique codification for the part of the GWB concerned that is within the horizon

335

2.3. Three Examples

The proposed procedure is illustrated in the following subchapters by three examples of GWB delineations which are based on an example hydrogeological setting.

It is important to consider, that the following examples are not intended to stipulate any discussion about the presented delineation and configuration of GWBs. All three examples are realistic. The only purpose of these examples is to demonstrate the ability of the proposed procedure to cover all types of GWB arrangements.

2.3.1. Example 1

Hydrogeological context – Map view and sectional view

Delineated groundwater bodies

Example 1 – Map view Example 1 – Sectional view

Horizon assignment – Map view

Example 1 – Horizon 1 Example 1 – Horizon 3

336

Example 1 – Horizon 2

Horizon assignment – Vertical subsequential arrangement

Proposal for GIS layer reporting:

EU_CD_GW Horizon CD_PolygonGWB1 1 GWB1-1GWB2 1 GWB2-1GWB3 1 GWB3-1GWB4 2 GWB4-2GWB5 3 GWB5-3

2.3.2. Example 2

Hydrogeological context – Map view and sectional view

Delineated groundwater bodies

337

Example 2 – Map view Example 2 – Sectional view

Horizon assignment – Map view

Example 2 – Horizon 1 Example 2 – Horizon 3

Example 2 – Horizon 2

Horizon assignment – Vertical subsequential arrangement

Horizon 1

Horizon 2

Horizon 3

Proposal for GIS layer reporting:

338

EU_CD_GW Horizon CD_PolygonGWB1 1 GWB1-1GWB2 1 GWB2-1GWB2 2 GWB2-2GWB3 2 GWB3-2GWB3 3 GWB3-3

2.3.3. Example 3

Hydrogeological context – Map view and sectional view

Delineated groundwater bodies

Example 3 – Map view Example 3 – Sectional view

Horizon assignment – Map view

Example 3 – Horizon 1 Example 3 – Horizon 3

339

Example 3 – Horizon 2

Horizon assignment – Vertical subsequential arrangement

Proposal for GIS layer reporting:

EU_CD_GW Horizon CD_PolygonGWB1 1 GWB1-1GWB2 1 GWB2-1GWB2 2 GWB2-2GWB3 2 GWB3-2GWB3 3 GWB3-3GWB4 3 GWB4-3GWB4 4 GWB4-4

340

2.4. Migration from current horizon classification to the amended proposal

2.4.1. No overlapped GWBs in one unique horizon

For a large majority of Member States, each groundwater body is assigned to one unique horizon and there are no overlapped groundwater bodies within one horizon.

In this case, the procedure proposed to re-assigned horizon number in accordance with the amended proposal is the following:

341

It has to be emphasized that this procedure can be carried out provided that the current existing horizon layers were defined strictly in accordance with the numeration proposed in guidance document of 2009.

342

Map view of 3 groundwater bodies as currently reported (3 horizon

layers)

STEP 1: Creation of an intermediary GIS layer by

intersecting GIS horizon layers from 1 to n.

STEP 2: Replication of each intermediary polygon as many times as different GWBs are concerned and assignment to

GWBs.

STEP 3: Reunification of polygons assigned to the same

GWB and the same horizon number.

2.4.2. Existing overlapped GWBs in one unique horizon

The analysis of groundwater bodies that are actually available in WISE shows that some Member States assigned overlapped groundwater bodies to one unique horizon (i.e. IT, BE, BG, EE, DK, LA).

The amended proposal needs a good comprehension of the vertical situation for all GWBs. As a consequence, overlapped GWBs assigned to one horizon need to be differentiated vertically before applying the proposed procedure of horizon re-assignment. To do so, Member States concerned shall then assign a stratigraphic order to their groundwater bodies.

It is recommended to carry out this task as a preliminary step (i.e. by adding a temporary attribute on the current layer that will contain the stratigraphic absolute order of each GWB). Step 2 where polygons are assigned to groundwater bodies and their horizon needs to be done cautiously.

2.5. Resumee

The proposed procedure covers both simple and complex hydrogeological configurations:

In areas with simple hydrogeology, or simple GWB delineation, the situation remains unchanged compared to the current procedure which means that additional efforts due to the changes are very limited.

For more complex situations, their complexity can fully be taken into account without the use of complementary parameters (such as “extra Horizon” proposed by Belgium in 2010).

It would be quite easy to prepare a map showing the (parts of) GWBs which are most exposed to pressures on the surface or in the uppermost layer (soil).

2.6. Recommendation for map production

It is recommended that the EEA includes an explanation of what the maps represent when they produce these. The following wording is suggested:

“Groundwater bodies are assigned to horizons which overlie each other. Horizons help to reflect the three-dimensionality of groundwater bodies and their relative position vertically to other groundwater bodies. This map shows horizon 1, which contains the first layer of groundwater bodies to be encountered across each member state. In some areas the groundwater bodies outcrop and are vulnerable to pollution from activities at the ground surface. In other parts the groundwater bodies are overlain by other strata which provide protection from pollution. This map does not seek to distinguish between these geological circumstances.”

It is further recommended that the EEA should include a block diagram to illustrate how horizons and groundwater bodies overlie each other.

343

3. REFERENCES

Duscher, K., Struckmeier, W. (2011) – A common vision about groundwater entities in Europe, Presentation at the 2nd Workshop on Groundwater bodies held in Berlin 15th-16th December 2011.

ETC/ICM (2013) – Groundwater GIS reference layer. Submission/compilation status and evaluation. Version 3.

European Commission (2003) – Guidance Document No 2: Identification of Water Bodies. ISBN 92-894-5122-X. European Communities, Luxembourg.

European Commission (2009) – Guidance on reporting of spatial data for the WFD (RBMP). Tools and services for reporting under RBMP within WISE. Version 3.0. .

European Commission (2010) – Guidance Document No. 26. Guidance on Risk Assessment and the use of conceptual models for groundwater.

UK Technical Advisory Group on the Water Framework Directive (2012) – Defining & Reporting on Groundwater Bodies. Final version.

Ward, R. (2011) – 2nd Workshop on Groundwater Bodies held in Berlin 15/16 December 2011, Presentation at the 22nd Working Group C plenary meeting held in Brussels the 21st March 2012.

344

Annex 5: GIS guidance

To be developed on the basis of the GIS guidance for the 2010 reporting available at:

http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/schemas/dir200060ec/resources/WFD%20Guidance%20on%20reporting%20spatial%20data%20v3.0.pdf

with the changes suggested in the main body of this document and the results of the on-going discussion on IT technical matters being held within the WISE Technical Group.

Annex 6: User guide to reporting of RBMP in WISE (Reportnet guide)

To be developed on the basis of the User Manual - Reporting on the River Basin Management Plans for the 2010 reporting, available at:

http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/schemas/dir200060ec/resources/Reporting%20User%20Manual%20RBMP%20v2.0.pdf

Changes are being discussed by the WISE Technical Group in order to enable an improved used of automatic QA/QC checks.

Annex 7 Reporting Guidance on inventories (see Section 9.2)

As explained in section 9.2, different source and/or pathway categorisation schemes exist: the source or pathway categories in Figure 2 of the CIS guidance on inventories, the SoE source categories, and the WFD list of pressures. In the longer term, agreement should be sought on a standard categorisation for reporting inputs to surface waters.

For the 2nd RBMPs, the following notes are intended to facilitate voluntary reporting of pollutant inputs according to one of the above categorisations.

The following table illustrates approximate correspondence between the source and pathway categories in the CIS Inventory Guidance (Figure 2) and the SoE source categories and WFD list of pressures.

Inventory Guidance source Inventory Guidance pathway SoE emissions code

WFD pressure list (source code)

Air Emissions P1: Atmospheric Deposition directly to Surface Waters

NP2 2.7

Agriculture, Air Emissions P2: Erosion *) Source-dependent

Agriculture, Air Emissions P3: Surface Runoff from Unsealed Areas

NP7 2.2, 2.3

345

Agriculture, Households, Air Emissions P4 Interflow, Tile Drainage and Groundwater

NP1 Source-dependent

Agriculture P5: Direct Discharges and Drifting NP1 2.2

Air Emissions, Transportation and Infrastructure, Construction Material

P6: Surface Runoff from Sealed Areas NP4 2.1

Air Emissions, Transportation and Infrastructure, Construction Material, Households, Industry

P7: Storm Water Outlets, Combined Sewer Overflows and Unconnected Sewers

U1+NP5+I4 1.2

Air Emissions, Transportation and Infrastructure, Construction Material, Households, Industry

P8: Urban Waste Water Treated U2 + **) 1.1

Households P9: Individual - Treated and Untreated - Household Discharges

NP3 2.6

Industry P10 Industrial Waste Water treated

(and untreated)

I3+**) 1.3, 1.4

Abandoned and Historic Mines P11: Direct Discharges from Mining Areas

NP6+**) 1.7, 2.8

Inland Navigation P12: Direct Discharges from Navigation

NP7+**) 2.4

Natural Background P13 Natural Background NP8  

*) can be a component in NP1, NP6, NP7, and NP8**) may include components from D0

P11 might include SoE emissions O, O5, O6 (tbc)

The following table correlates the WFD pressures list and SoE source categories in more detail.

346

Source coding and category size class Source coding and category sub-type size classU11 U12U13U14 U21U22U23U24

1.2 Point - Storm Overflows1.3 I4-untreated1.4 I3 - treated

1.5 Point - Contaminated Sites / Abandoned industrial sites1.6 Point - Waste disposal sites1.7 Point - Mine waters1.8 Point - Aquaculture

1.9 Point – Other DO

G7 Point sources to groundwater, total

PTPoint sources to inland water, total (sum of above)

(Total point sources) - sum of above (total point sources) - PT + DO

2.1 Diffuse - Urban run off NP5 Storm overflow emissions2.2 Diffuse – Agricultural NP1 Agricultural emissions2.6 Diffuse - Discharges not connected to sewerage network NP3 Un-connected dwellings emissions2.7 Diffuse - Atmospheric deposition NP2 Atmospheric deposition2.3 Diffuse – Forestry 2.4 Diffuse – Transport2.5 Diffuse – Contaminated sites/Abandoned industrial sites2.8 Diffuse – Mining2.9 Diffuse – Aquaculture 2.1 Diffuse – Other

(Total diffuse sources) - sum of above NP Total diffuse emissions to inland waters

(Total - point and diffuse sources) (Total - point and diffuse sources) R

1.3 in E-PRTR U11 < 2.000 p.e.1.4 Not in E-PRTR U12 - 2.000 - 10.000 p.e.

U13 - 10.000 - 100.000 p.e.U14 - > 100.000 p.e.

SoE EmissionsWFD list of pressures

Dire

ct d

ischa

rges

to co

asta

l and

tran

sition

al, t

otal

Rive

rine

inpu

t to

coas

tal w

ater

1.1

U1-untreated

U2-treated

NP7 Other diffuse emissions

O Other waste water discharges total

U Urban wastewater discharges totalPoint – Urban waste water

(Industrial discharges total (1.3 + 1.4)) I Industrial wastewater discharges

Reporting under the SoE includes loads of nutrients, organic matter and hazardous substances from a range of point and diffuse sources divided into eight main groups which are further subdivided. For some SoE source categories (direct discharges to transitional and coastal waters (D0), other waste water point sources (treated, O5; untreated, O6), agricultural emissions (NP1) and other diffuse emissions (NP7)), disaggregation is needed for a 1:1 match with the CIS Inventory Guidance categories.

The SoE source categories are quite similar to the categories in the WFD list of pressures, but there are a few differences, such as storm overflows as point sources (WFD) and aggregated direct discharges to transitional and coastal waters reported separately (SoE). WFD category 1.2 relates to point source overflows taking place as partially treated effluent at UWWTPs (which should be covered under SoE U1), whereas NP5 relates to multiple other (diffuse) storm-related emissions taking place from the sewerage system – corresponding to WFD 2.1 urban run-off. The SoE direct discharges to coastal and transitional waters (D0) require disaggregation for attribution to the individual source categories in the WFD list of point sources.

Annex 8 Enumeration list for common intercalibration types required for schema element IntercalibrationType, chapter 2.1.3.2

347

Category Intercalbration Type

Category Intercalbration Type

Category Intercalbration Type

CW BC1 LW HA RW R-A1

CW BC3 LW LA RW R-A2

CW BC4 LW L-AL3 RW R-C1

CW BC5 LW L-AL4 RW R-C2

CW BC6 LW L-CB1 RW R-C3

CW BC7 LW L-CB2 RW R-C4

CW BC8 LW L-CB3 RW R-C5

CW BC9 LW L-M5/7 RW R-C6

CW BT1 LW L-M8 RW R-E1a

CW CW B0 LW LN1 RW R-E1b

CW CW B12 a LW LN2a RW R-E2

CW CW B12 b LW LN2b RW R-E3

CW CW B13 LW LN3a RW R-E4

CW CW B14 LW LN5 RW R-EX4

CW CW B2 LW LN6a RW R-EX5

CW CW B3 a LW LN8a RW R-EX6

CW CW B3 b LW L-N-BF1 RW R-EX7

CW CW-BL1 LW L-N-BF2 RW R-EX8

CW NEA1/26 LW L-N-F1 RW R-L1

CW NEA1/26 A2 LW L-N-F2 RW R-L2

CW NEA1/26 B21 LW L-N-M 101 RW R-M1

CW NEA1/26a LW L-N-M 102 RW R-M2

CW NEA1/26b LW L-N-M 201 RW R-M4

CW NEA1/26c LW L-N-M 202 RW R-M5

CW NEA1/26d LW L-N-M 301a RW R-N1

CW NEA1/26e LW L-N-M 302a RW R-N3

CW NEA10 LW MA RW R-N4

CW NEA11 RW R-N5

CW NEA3/4 TW NEA11 CW NEA7 TW TW B13 CW NEA8a CW NEA8b CW NEA9 CW Type I CW Type IIA

CWType IIA Adriatic

CW Type IIIE CW Type IIIW CW Type Island-W

Annex 9 Enumeration list for River Basin Specific Pollutants (CAS numbers and names) as required for schema elements “RBSPCAS” and “RBSPName”, (chapter 7.2.3.2) and for the classification matrix for groundwater (chapter 8.2.3.2)

348

Note the separate lists for surface waters and groundwater will be combined into one list in the final guidance document and in the reporting tools

a) Surface waters

River Basin Specific PollutantsCAS-Name1002-53-5 Dibutyltin106-43-4 4-chlorotoluene106-93-4 1,2-dibromoethane107-13-1 Acrylonitrile107-46-0 Hexamethyldisiloxane (HMDS)1163-19-5 Bis(pentabromophenyl) ether12767-79-2 Aroclor129-00-0 Pyrene1321-64-8 Pentachloronaphthalene1321-65-9 Trichloronaphthalene1335-87-1 Hexachloronaphthalene1335-88-2 Tetrachloronaphthalene1336-36-3 Polychlorinated biphenyls136677-10-6 Polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF)140-57-8 Aramite143-50-0 Chlordecone (Kepone)144-49-0 Fluoroacetic acid16478-18-5 Pentachloroiodobenzene182346-21-0 2,2’,3,4,4’-pentabromodiphenyl ether (BDE85)1825-21-4 Pentachloroanisole182677-30-1 2,2’,3,4,4’,5’-hexabromodiphenyl Ether (BD(E)138)1836-75-5 Nitrophen189084-64-8 2,2’,4,4’,6-pentabromodiphenyl Ether (BD(E)100)2051-24-3 5,5’,6,6’-decachlorobiphenyl (CB209)207122-15-4 2,2’,4,4’,5,6’-hexabromodiphenyl Ether (BDE154)208-96-8 Acenaphthylene2104-64-5 Ethyl O-(p-nitrophenyl) phenyl phosphonothionate (EPN)218-01-9 Chrysene2227-13-6 Tetrasul2234-13-1 Octachloronaphthalene23593-75-1 Clotrimazole2385-85-5 Mirex2440-02-0 Heptachloronorbornene262-12-4 Dibenzodioxin294-62-2 Cyclododecane297-78-9 Isobenzane31508-00-6 2,3’,4,4’,5-pentachlorobiphenyl (CB118)319-84-6 alpha-HCH319-85-7 beta-HCH32241-08-0 Heptachloronaphthalene32534-81-9 Diphenyl ether, pentabromo derivative

349

River Basin Specific PollutantsCAS-Name32536-52-0 Diphenyl ether, octabromo deviate32598-13-3 3,3’,4,4’-tetrachlorobiphenyl (CB77)32598-14-4 2,3,3’,4,4’-pentachlorobiphenyl (CB105)32774-16-6 3,3’,4,4’,5,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl (CB169)330-55-2 Linuron3424-82-6 DDE, o, p35065-27-1 2,2’,4,4’,5,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl (CB153)35065-28-2 2,2’,3,4,4’,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl (CB138)35065-29-3 2,2’,3,4,4’,5,5’-heptachlorobiphenyl (CB180)35693-99-3 2,2’,5,5’-tetrachlorobiphenyl (CB52)36065-30-2 2,4,6-tribromophenyl 2-methyl-2,3-dibromopropy ether36355-01-8 Hexabromobiphenyl37680-73-2 2,2’,4,5,5’-pentachlorobiphenyl (CB101)38380-08-4 2,3,3’,4,4’,5-hexachlorobiphenyl (CB156)39765-80-5 trans-Nonachlor4234-79-1 Kelevan4636-83-3 Morfamquat4904-61-4 1,5,9 cyclododecatriene51000-52-3 Vinyl neodecanoate512-04-9 Diosgenin53-19-0 DDD, o, p53-70-3 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene5436-43-1 2,2’,4,4’-tetrabromodiphenyl ether (BDE47)55525-54-7 3,3’-(ureylenedimethylene)bis(3,5,5’- trimethylcyclohexyl) diisocyanate56-55-3 Benzo-a-anthracene57465-28-8 3,3’,4,4’,5 pentachlorobiphenyl (CB126)57-74-9 Chlordane603-35-0 Triphenyl phosphine60348-60-9 2,2’,4,4’,5-pentabromodiphenyl ether (BDE99)60-51-5 Dimethoate6164-98-3 Chlordimeform64743-03-9 Phenols68631-49-2 2,2’,4,4’,5,5’-hexabromodiphenyl ether (BD(E)153)69782-90-7 2,3,3’,4,4’,5’-hexachlorobiphenyl (CB157)7012-37-5 2,4,4’-trichlorobiphenyl (CB28)70124-77-5 Flucythrinate72-43-5 Methoxychlor72-54-8 DDD, p, p'72-55-9 DDE, p, p’732-26-3 2,4,6-tri-tert-butylphenol7429-90-5 Aluminium and its compounds7439-89-6 Iron and its compounds7439-96-5 Manganese and its compounds7439-98-7 Molybdenum and its compounds7440-31-5 Tin and its compounds

350

River Basin Specific PollutantsCAS-Name7440-33-7 Tungsten and its compounds7440-38-2 Arsenic and its compounds7440-47-3 Chromium and its compounds7440-48-4 Cobalt and its compounds7440-50-8 Copper and its compounds7440-62-2 Vanadium and its compounds7440-66-6 Zinc and its compounds77-47-4 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HCCP)7782-49-2 Selenium and its compounds793-24-8 4-(dimethylbutylamino) diphenylamin (6PPD)79-94-7 Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBP-A)8001-35-2 Toxaphene81-15-2 Musk xylene82-68-8 Quintozene83-32-9 Acenaphthene84-66-2 Di-ethyl phthalate84-69-5 Di-iso-butyl phthalate84-74-2 Dibutylphthalate85-01-8 Phenanthrene85-22-3 Pentabromoethylbenzene85-68-7 Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP)86-73-7 Fluorene90-12-0 1-methylnaphthalene9016-45-9 Nonyl phenol ethoxylate91-57-6 2-methylnaphthalene919-86-8 Demeton-S-methyl93-76-5 2,4,5-T98-51-1 4-tert-butyltolueneOther

b) Groundwaters

Pollutants/indicators1,1,1-Trichloroethane1,1,2-Trichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethane1,1-Dichloroethene1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene1,2-Dichlorobenzene1,2-Dichloroethane1,2-Dichloroethene1,2-Dichloropropane1,4-Dichlorobenzene2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2-4 D2,6-Dichlorobenzamide

351

Pollutants/indicators4,4 - DDTAcid capacity to pH 4.5*AldrinAlkalised benzeneAluminiumAmmoniumAmmonium (as nitrogen)AnthraceneAntimonyAOXArsenicAtrazineBariumBentazoneBenzeneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(g,h,i)peryleneBenzo(k)fluorantheneBenzolBerylliumBicarbonatesBoronBromateBromodichlorometaneBTEXCadmiumCalciumCarbendazimCarbetamideCarbon tetrachlorideChlorfenvinphosChlorideChlorinated benzeneChlorinated phenolChlorobenzeneChlortoluronChromiumChromium (total)Chromium VIClopyralidCobaltConductivityCopperCyanazineCyanide

352

Pollutants/indicatorsCypermethrinDalaponDDT, DDD, DDEDiazinonDibenzo(a,h)anthraceneDibromochlorometaneDichloromethaneDichlorophenolDichlorprop, 2-4-DPDieldrinDiuronDOXEpoxyconazoleEthylbenzeneFluorantheneFluorideGlyphosateHardnessHexachlorobenzeneHexachlorobutadieneHexachlorocyclohexane-betaHydrocarbonsHydrocarbons (total)Hydrogen cyanideIndeno(1,2,3-cd)pyreneIronIsoproturonLeadLindaneMagnesiumManganeseMCPAMecopropMercuryMetazachlorMolybdate Reactive Phosphorus (as P)MolybdenumMono basic phenolsMonochlorophenolsMTBENaphthaleneNickelNitrateNitriteNitrobenzeneOil fractions (C10-40)

353

Pollutants/indicatorsOrthophosphatePAHs

PAHs (Benzo(a)pyrene, Fluoranthene, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Benzo(ghi)perylene, Indeno(1,2,3cd)pyrene)

PAHs (DW-D: Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(k)fluoranthene, Benzo(ghi)perylene, Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrenePCB

PCBs (sum of 7 congeners: 28, 52, 101, 118, 138, 153, 180)

PentachlorobenzenePentachlorophenolPermethrin-cis+transPesticides (total)Petroleum hydrocarbonsPetroleum productspHPhenolPhosphatePhosphorus (total)Phosphorus (total, as P2O5)PotassiumPropazinePropetamphosSeleniumSilverSimazineSodiumSulphateSum (aldrin, dieldrin, endrin, isodrin)Sum of highly volatile halogenated hydrocarbonsSum of tri-, tetra- and pentachlorophenolSum of Trichloroethylene and TetrachloroethyleneSum PCDD, PCDFSurfactants-anionicSurfactants-anionic and nonionicTAMETemperatureTerbutrynTetrachloroethyleneTetrachloromethaneThalliumTinTitaniumTOCTolueneTrichlorobenzenes

354

Pollutants/indicatorsTrichloroethyleneTrichloromethaneTrietazineTrifluralinTrihalomethane (total)UraniumVanadiumVinyl ChlorideVolatile halogenated hydrocarbons (VHH)XyleneZinc

355