Indicators to communicate progress towards good status

WG DIS, 28-29 April 2015

Background

WD welcomed the proposals from the Netherlands and agreed that they are a useful contribution to the more detailed technical discussion that will take place in January in the context of the update of the WFD reporting guidance. WD agreed that the progress indicators are not an alternative to the overall status assessment on the basis of the one-out all-out principle, but additional useful information. In this sense, WD agreed that the debate should be about presenting progress more effectively, and should not put in question the one-out all-out principle, which is one of the cornerstones of the WFD.

(Conclusions Water Directors meeting December 2013)

Purpose of the paper

• Make proposals on indicators of progress on the basis of the information that will be reported by Member States in the context of the WFD in 2016

• Serve as a basis for consultation and discussion at the WG DIS and, as far as needed, related CIS WGs (Ecostat, Chemicals and Groundwater)

• At this stage it is not the intention to discuss the format of the presentation (type of chart, colours, etc.) but rather focus on the information displayed

• (All examples are fictional)• Discussion paper, to frame the debate forward – no conclusions

yet!

What is the problem?

QE Status

WB Status

QE Status

WB Status

QE Status

WB Status

MacrophytesPhytobenthosInvertebrates

Fish ?

O2Phosphorus

NH4NO3

CuZn ?

2,4-MCPA…

Subs s tatus

WB Status

Subs s tatus

WB Status

Subs s tatus

WB Status

IsoproturonHg

DEHPHAP

New subst.CHEM

ICA

L ST

ATU

SEC

OLO

GIC

AL

STA

TUS

.

Classification Year : 2009 2013 2015Data period used : 2006-2007 2010-2011 2012-2013

Comparing 1st and 2nd RBMPs?

• Comparison of status between the 1st and the 2nd RBMPs will be difficult in many Member States, because e.g.:– New/updated assessment methods and/or monitoring information

(lack of development of assessment methods in the first cycle, incomplete intercalibration, incomplete monitoring)

– Unknown status in the 1st RBMP– Re-delineation of water bodies (done in most dRBMPs)– Additional substances

Questions for discussion:1. Are there other difficulties that should be taken into account when developing

indicators? Which ones?2. Are there specific difficulties foreseen for HMWBs?

Scope• Ecological status/potential of surface water bodies• Chemical status of surface water bodies• Chemical status of groundwater bodies• (Not quantitative status of groundwater bodies)• Indicators designed to be applied at sub-unit, RBD, Member State and EU

level• (Not at water body level but MS will be able to reflect these principles in

their own communication at water body level)

Questions for discussion:3. Is the scope of the discussion correct, as set out in this section? 4. Is the approach correct to focus only on developing indicators of progress at

Sub-unit, RBD, Member State and EU level?

Information available from reporting• Overall Ecological / Chemical status values• Status values at quality element level• Substances causing failure• For ecological status:

– QEXStatusOrPotentialChange• This schema element provides information on whether the status of the

quality element has changed since the 1st RBMP– QEXStatusOrPotentialComparability

• This schema element provides information on whether the change in status since the 1st RBMP is considered "real" or is the effect of new/updated monitoring and/or assessment systems

Questions for discussion:5. Is there any other information specified by the reporting guidance that is

considered important to develop the progress indicators?

Indicators’ wish lista) as simple as possible b) based on quality elements or parametersc) based on the definitions of ecological and chemical status in the WFD d) usable at various geographical scales e) adaptable to different levels of aggregation (i.e. all water categories or

only rivers; natural water bodies or heavily modified; number/percentage of water bodies or percentage of length/area of water bodies)

f) easy to displayed in an understandable and intuitive wayg) long-lasting, i.e. applicable to future assessments of progress.

Questions for discussion:6. Is there any other important characteristic that the progress indicators should

have?

Ecological status five classes

Ecological status two classes

Ecological status progress

Ecological status progress stacked

• How to depict deterioration in this case?

Questions for discussion:7. Please comment on the proposed approaches, their advantages and

disadvantages; discuss other potential ways of displaying the information?

Ecological status quality elements

• Phytoplankton• Other aquatic flora • Benthic invertebrate fauna• Fish (not relevant for coastal waters)• Hydromorphology (parameters vary depending on the water

category)• Physico-chemical elements• River Basin Specific Pollutants

Questions for discussion:8. Is this a sound presentation of quality elements? Is there a better way of

grouping quality elements/parameters?9. Is the proposed approach to combining the information from the WFD

Reporting Guidance at quality element level sound?

Ecological status “unknowns”

Questions for discussion:8. Is this a sound presentation of quality elements? Is there a better way of

grouping quality elements/parameters?9. Is the proposed approach to combining the information from the WFD

Reporting Guidance at quality element level sound?

Questions for discussion:10. Is the proposed approach for building the comparison between the 1st and 2nd

RBMPs clear and sound?11. How feasible it is for Member States to report the requested information at

quality element level?12. Is it possible to simplify the development of progress indicators by introducing

in the short term some limited changes to the 2016 Reporting Guidance?

Chemical status

Chemical status

Chemical status progress

Questions for discussion:13. Is the proposal to use "number of substances failing" a good basis for

communicating progress? Any other ideas?

Chemical status: new substances

• Directive 2013/39/EU:– Stricter EQS for substances– New substances

• These new developments set new baselines for assessing progress that will need to be taken into account when assessing progress in 2021 and 2027

• For the purpose of communicating progress in the 2015 RBMPs, only the EQS as set in the 2008 version of the EQS Directive need to be taken into account

Groundwater chemical status

• Grouping of parameters– Nitrates– Pesticides– Other pollutants

• Another potential option is to split "Other pollutants" into "Annex II GWD pollutants" and "other pollutants". However, in particular for Annex II pollutants, it would be important to indicate whether threshold values were established at all to avoid the situation where there are no failures because there were no threshold values established

Groundwater chemical status

Questions for discussion:14. Is the proposal to use "number of substances failing" a good basis for

communicating progress? Any other ideas?15. Is the distinction between nitrates, pesticides and other pollutants

needed/helpful?

Thanks for your attention!

• Comments / questions• Process forward?