EEA/NSV/10/002 – ETC/ICM
EEA 2012 report: Background Document
Pressures and Impacts
3.2. Regional and type specific assessment of pressures
Version: 1.1
Date: 19 July 2011
EEA activity: 1.4.3
ETC/ICM task 1.4.3.c, milestone: 1
Prepared by / compiled by: Hana Prchalova, Renata Filippi, Silvie Semeradova,
Pavla Chyska
Organisation: CENIA
EEA Project Manager: Peter Kristensen
Version history
Version
0.1
Date
5/07/2011
Author
HPR
Status and description
Pre-draft for ETC
Distribution
To: ALS
1.0
6/07/2011
HPR/ALS
First draft for EEA after minor edits by
ALS
To: PKR, AKU,
CIRCA
1.1.
19/07/2011
SHU
First draft for EEA after check of English
To: PKR, AKU,
Circa
Abbreviations
HPR: Hana Prchalova
ALS: Anne Lyche Solheim
Chapter 3.2. Regional and type specific assessment of pressures
Introduction
The structure of this document follows the same format as “Chapter 2.2. Ecological status
and potential: Regional and type specific assessment”, and so does the numbering of figures
- each figure number in this document refers to the relevant Figure in “Chapter 2.2”. The
number of figures is higher, further the best ones will be selected.
Key messages




The shares of pressures in lakes are different for natural and heavily modified and
artificial lakes. These differences play a more significant role in the results rather than in
relation to the lake area.
The group of countries considered having the best ecological status or potential (AT, FI,
LT, SE) have more freshwater bodies with at least one significant pressure then the
group with the least good ecological status (BE, DE, NL). The differences however are
not substantial.
The outputs of this analysis are more affected by the country specific methodologies of
assessment and reporting of significant pressures then by natural characteristics and
anthropogenic activities in the countries.
The numbers of bodies with and without pressures confirm better ecological conditions in
the upper Rhine area.
Main diagrams
The adequate diagram for Figures 1a and 1b was not prepared due to the late submission of
RBD classification according to the sea region. The diagram will be prepared under the
autumn deadline.
Significant pressures of all lakes
Relative distribution by count of different size classes
Other
100%
Other morphol
TCW manag
80%
River manag
Morphology
60%
Abstractions
40%
Diffuse
Point
20%
0%
0,51-1 0-0,5
1,01- 10,01- >100
10
100
Size class (km2)
Figure 2a: Relative distribution by count of significant pressures of all European lake water
bodies in different size classes.
Significant pressures of natural lakes
Relative distribution by count of different size classes
Other
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Other morphol
TCW manag
River manag
Morphology
Abstractions
Diffuse
Point
0,51-1 0-0,5
1,01- 10,01- >100
10
100
Size class (km2)
Figure 2b: Relative distribution by count of significant pressures of natural European lake
water bodies in different size classes
Note: Numbers below columns represent area of lakes with pressures in thousands of km 2
Morphology represents Water flow regulations and morphological alterations of surface water
Other morphology represents other morphological alterations – barriers or land sealing.
Significant pressures of natural lakes
Relative distribution by count of different size classes
Other
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Other morphol
TCW manag
River manag
Morphology
Abstractions
Diffuse
Point
0,51-1 0-0,5
1,01- 10,01- >100
10
100
Size class (km2)
Figure 2c: Relative distribution by count of significant pressures of heavily modified and
artificial European lake water bodies in different size classes
Note: Numbers below columns represent area of lakes with pressures in thousands of km 2
Morphology represents water flow regulations and morphological alterations to surface water.
Other morphology represents other morphological alterations – barriers or land sealing.
Assessments
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
AT, FI, LT, SE - lakes and
rivers
with pressure
BE, DE, NL - lakes and
rivers
without pressure
Figure 4a: Relative distribution by count of pressures of European freshwater bodies in the
best and the least good countries.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
no pressure
50%
any pressure
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
AT, FI, LT, SE lakes
AT, FI, LT, SE rivers
BE, DE, NL lakes
BE, DE, NL rivers
Figure 4b: Relative distribution by count of pressures on lakes and rivers in the best and the
least good countries.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
any pressure - lakes and rivers
NLRN
DE3000
DE4000
DE5000
DE9650
DE2000
DE1000
SE3
AT1000
SE4
FIVHA3
SE5
LT1100
SE2
FIVHA2
FIVHA4
SE1
FIVHA1
SE1TO
FIVHA5
FIVHA7
0%
no pressure - lakes and rivers
Figure 5a: Relative distribution by count of pressures of all freshwater bodies in the major
RBDs (>15000 km2). The RBDs are sorted by the percentage of water bodies having good
or high ecological status or potential (descending order). The vertical line marks the
distinction between the best and the least good countries. BE does not have RBDs >15000
km2.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
any pressure - lake
NLRN
DE3000
DE4000
DE5000
DE9650
DE2000
DE1000
SE3
AT1000
SE4
FIVHA3
SE5
LT1100
SE2
FIVHA2
FIVHA4
SE1
FIVHA1
SE1TO
FIVHA5
FIVHA7
0%
no pressure - lake
Figure 5b: Relative distribution by count of pressures of lakes in the major RBDs (>15000
km2). The RBDs are sorted by the percentage of water bodies having good or high ecological
status or potential (descending order). The vertical line marks the distinction between the
best and the least good countries. BE does not have RBDs >15000 km2.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
any pressure - river
NLRN
DE3000
DE4000
DE5000
DE9650
DE2000
DE1000
SE3
AT1000
SE4
FIVHA3
SE5
LT1100
SE2
FIVHA2
FIVHA4
SE1
FIVHA1
SE1TO
FIVHA5
FIVHA7
0%
no pressure - river
Figure 5c: Relative distribution by count of pressures of rivers in the major RBDs (>15000
km2). The RBDs are sorted by the percentage of water bodies having good or high ecological
status or potential (descending order). The vertical line marks the distinction between the
best and the least good countries. BE does not have RBDs >15000 km2.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
AT2000
DE2000
any pressure - lakes and rivers
FRC
NLRN
no pressure - lakes and rivers
Figure 6a: Relative distribution by count of pressures of freshwater bodies in the RBDs
along the Rhine river. The RBDs are sorted from headwater to coast.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
AT2000
DE2000
any pressure - lake
FRC
NLRN
no pressure - lake
Figure 6b: Relative distribution by count of pressures of lakes in the RBDs along the Rhine
river. The RBDs are sorted from headwater to coast.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
AT2000
DE2000
any pressure - river
FRC
NLRN
no pressure - river
Figure 6c: Relative distribution by count of pressures of rivers in the RBDs along the Rhine
river. The RBDs are sorted from headwater to coast.
The structures of types of pressures in lakes are different for natural and heavily modified
and artificial lakes (see Figures 2a -2c). These differences are significant enough to overrun
any lake area-related correlation. Generally, the lakes with diffuse sources of pollution are
still considered to take up the greatest share, but from the reported data it can not be
determined if the pollution comes from nutrients, other generally physico-chemical
substances or priority substances.
The group of countries considered having the best ecological status or potential (AT, FI, LT,
SE) have 78% of freshwater bodies with at least one significant pressure, while the group
with the least good ecological status or potential have 91% of freshwater bodies with at least
one significant pressure (see Figure 4a an 4b).
The share of rivers with at least one pressure is slightly bigger (83% to 92%) than the
corresponding share of lakes (67% to 76%). A more detailed analysis shows, however, that
the results are affected by the different, country specific assessment and reporting
methodologies to such an extent that no linear trends can be derived (AT, FI and most of LT
reported significant pressures only for the bodies in less then good status, while BE, E, NL
an Sweden reported pressures also for bodies with good and above status).
The number of bodies with at least one pressure is significantly lower in the upper Rhine
area (except for rivers in Germany), but even here the assessment is still affected by the
differences in reporting.
The detailed information on the diffuse and point sources was reported only by some
countries. For this analysis, France (with the overseas departments excluded) was chosen,
however the detailed information on some of its water bodies was still missing – see Figures
7, 8 and 9.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
FRA
FRB1 FRB2
FRC
FRD
FRE
FRF
FRG
FRH
Point Source
Point - UWWT total
Point - Storm Overflows
Point - IPPC plants (EPRTR)
Point - Non IPPC
Point - Other
Figure 7: Proportional share of point pressures in rivers by RBDs in France (overseas
departments not included).
Note: Point Source represents the share of bodies for which the point pressures were not
further specified.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
FRA
FRB1 FRB2
FRC
FRD
FRE
FRF
FRG
Point - UWWT_General
Point - UWWT_2000
Point - UWWT_10000
Point - UWWT_15000
Point - UWWT_150000
Point - UWWT_150000PLUS
FRH
Figure 8: Proportional share of discharge to rivers from UWWTPs according to size, by
RBDs, in France (overseas departments not included).
Note: Point -UWWT_General represents the share of bodies for which the discharge was not
further specified according to size.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
FRA
FRB1 FRB2
FRC
FRD
FRE
FRF
FRG
FRH
Diffuse Source
Diffuse - Urban run off
Diffuse - Agricultural
Facilities not connected to sewerage
Diffuse - Other
Figure 9: Proportional share of diffuse pressures types for rivers by RBDs in France
(overseas departments not included).
Note: Diffuse Source represents the share of bodies for which the diffuse sources were not
further specified.
Background Information
Water Framework Directive, Annex II, Art. 1.4:
Member States shall collect and maintain information on the type and magnitude of the
significant anthropogenic pressures to which the surface water bodies in each river basin
district are liable to be subject. This information includes:
 estimation and identification of significant point and diffuse source pollution, in
particular by substances listed in Annex VIII of WFD, from urban, industrial,
agricultural and other installations and activities;
 estimation and identification of significant water abstraction for urban, industrial,
agricultural and other uses, including seasonal variations and total annual demand,
and of loss of water in distribution systems;
 estimation and identification of the impact of significant water flow regulation,
including water transfer and diversion, on overall flow characteristics and water
balances;
 identification of significant morphological alterations to water bodies and
 estimation and identification of other significant anthropogenic impacts on the status
of surface waters.
According to Annex VII of the WFD, the RBMP should include:
 a summary of significant pressures and impact of human activity on the status of
surface water and groundwater, including:
o estimation of point source pollution,
o estimation of diffuse source pollution, including a summary of land use,
o estimation of pressures on the quantitative status of water including
abstractions,
o analysis of other impacts of human activity on the status of water.
Specific Guidance documents were established for the 1st RBMP cycle - Analysis of
Pressures and Impacts (Policy summary) and Analysis of Pressures and Impacts – Guidance
Document No. 3.
Pressures and impacts analyses have a central role in the river basin management planning
process. Their principal aim is to identify where and to what extent human activities may be
placing the achievement of the Directive’s environmental objectives at risk.
In this Guidance document, significant pressures were unequivocally understood as those
anthropogenic pressures which can cause not reaching good status (and so were they
reported within Characterisation).
The inventory of pressures is likely to contain many that have no, or little, impact on the
water body. In the case of surface waters, the WFD recognises this by only requiring
significant pressures to be identified, and within this Guidance significant is interpreted as
meaning that the pressure contributes to an impact that may result in the failing of an
objective.
(Pressures and Impacts – Guidance document No. 3, ch. 3.3.1)
Although Guidance Document No. 21: Guidance for reporting under the Water Framework
Directive referred to significant pressures as only those pressures which caused not
reaching good status (i.e. not which can cause), this was not explicitly mentioned in the
Guidance document.
The following compliance indicators relating to surface waters will be used:
 Number of water bodies failing to reach good status/potential as a result of each
pressure;
 Number of water bodies or river length etc/Sub-unit "not in good status/potential" as a
result of point sources (either as a result of point sources only or in combination with
other pressures);
Guidance document No. 21: Guidance for reporting under the Water Framework, ch. 7.2, p.
46.
Methodology
Surface water pressures are assigned to a water body and chosen from the relevant
enumeration list. Values in the enumeration list can be divided into three levels of detail. The
enumeration list consists of 65 values, therefore the data used in the analysis were
aggregated at the highest level (Table I). One water body can be assigned with more
pressures. To avoid a multiple inclusion of one water body - or its length/area - in the
statistics, which can be misleading, every aggregated pressure was included only once.
Example: if the water body was assigned with 1.1.2 Point - UWWT_10000 and 1.3 Point IPPC plants (EPRTR), the aggregated point source pressure was included only once.
For pressures from diffuse and point sources, both the highest level pressure (e.g. Diffuse
Source) and lower level pressure (e.g. Diffuse – Agricultural) are given for some bodies.
Specifically it concerns 7 water bodies in France for point sources and 1750 bodies in
Sweden and 4 in France for diffuse sources. This also needed to be taken into account for
the statistics.
Each water body can have up to 8 aggregated pressures. Therefore, if the share of diffuse
point sources in natural lakes is 54% and in heavily modified lakes 34%, it does not
necessarily mean that only 54% (or 34%) of the bodies have a diffuse source or that diffuse
sources affect significantly lower share of heavily modified and artificial lakes then natural
ones. In reality, diffuse sources affect 85% of natural lakes an 77% heavily modified an
artificial lakes, but for the latter category they occur in 74% of bodies simultaneously, which
means that the total share of diffuse sources gets significantly lower.
Apart from different natural environments (which determines the vulnerability of a water body
towards pressures) and the extent of anthropogenic activities, the total share of diffuse and
point pressures in individual countries or RBDs is affected (often more significantly) by the
different methodology of determining significant pressures, different understanding of what is
a significant pressure, number of bodies in less then good status, and the quality of reporting.
Enumeration list of SW point and diffuse
pressures
Aggregated SW point and
diffuse pressures
1 Point Source
2 Diffuse Source
1.1 Point - UWWT_General
1.1.1 Point - UWWT_2000
1.1.2 Point - UWWT_10000
1.1.3 Point - UWWT_15000
1.1.4 Point - UWWT_150000
1.1.5 Point - UWWT_150000PLUS
1.2 Point - Storm Overflows
1.3 Point - IPPC plants (EPRTR)
1.4 Point - Non IPPC
1.5 Point - Other
2.1 Diffuse - Urban run off
2.2 Diffuse - Agricultural
2.3 Diffuse - Transport and infrastructure
2.4 Diffuse - Abandoned industrial sites
2.5 Diffuse - Releases from facilities not
connected to sewerage network
2.6 Diffuse - Other
Point Source
Diffuse Source
Point - UWWT General
Point - UWWT General
Point - UWWT General
Point - UWWT General
Point - UWWT General
Point - UWWT General
Point Source
Point Source
Point Source
Point Source
Diffuse Source
Diffuse Source
Diffuse Source
Diffuse Source
Diffuse Source
Diffuse Source
Table I: Aggregated e point and diffuse pressures in surface waters
References
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23
October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy
POLICY SUMMARY to Guidance Document No 3 Analysis of Pressures and Impacts
Guidance Document No. 3 Analysis of Pressures and Impacts
Guidance Document No. 21 Guidance for reporting under the Water Framework Directive