International exploration regarding the WFD implementation for large water bodies
Project description, June 2007
Rijkswaterstaat (RWS) is the executive body of the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water
Management and amongst others responsible for the WFD implementation in the large rivers, lakes,
transitional waters and coastal zone in The Netherlands. For these surface water bodies RWS has to establish
environmental objectives and a programme of measures. All large water bodies, except the coastal waters and
the canals, have preliminary been assigned as heavily modified in the WFD article 5 reports.
The aspiration of Rijkswaterstaat is to make a balanced and sound assessment and follow a comparable way
of thinking and acting as water authorities with similar water bodies in other EU member states. Within the
Netherlands Rijkswaterstaat is the only water authority dealing with large water bodies. A comparison of its
approach with other water authorities is thus only possible with other Member States and through international
river commissions. Therefore Rijkswaterstaat decided to start an international exploration regarding the
progress and dilemmas to implement the WFD for large water bodies, conceivably followed by an international
workshop.
The primary aim is to increase insight and knowledge on the approaches and results in establishing ecological
objectives and identifying rehabilitation measures for some major heavily modified and artificial surface water
bodies (rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters) in different Member States. Special emphasis will be
given to the analysis and appraisal of measures to mitigate hydromorphological alterations in order to improve
ecological status of heavily modified water bodies.
Rijkswaterstaat decided to take the following steps in the international exploration:
1. May 2007: Set up a list of topics to include in the comparison. This list is reflected in the
questions in the annex;
2. May 2007: Make a first selection of large waters in Europe to include in the exploration, see the
map above. This selection is not exhaustive and limited for reasons of resources;
3. June – Sep. 2007: A consultant will make a first round along the water managers of these waters.
The aim is to gather information as reflected in the question list (as far as possible at this
moment). The questions will also be filled in for the Dutch large waters;
4. June – Sep. 2007: Gather information on the interest of other water managers to participate in a
workshop on WFD implementation in large water bodies;
5. Okt/Nov 2007: Eventually, if there is enough interest in a workshop, organize such a workshop
together with other interested parties in the autumn of 2007.
For additional information on the project, please contact:
Boris Teunis
Rijkswaterstaat RIZA
Tel: +31 320 298314, Boris.teunis@rws.nl
1
Annex 1 – Summary of topics under consideration for the exploration
A question list is set up for the consultant describing the type of information that Rijkswaterstaat wants to
include in the international exploration. The questions in this list concern the specific issues in the large
waters and not the general issues in the river basins. The complete list can be found at
www.kaderrichtlijnwater.nl. The most important topics for the exploration can be summarized as:
1. General description of water bodies
a. Descriptors like size, pressures, status, uses/functions and risk assessment;
b. Including: how is dealt with floodplains and harbours?
2. Ecological objectives
a. The method applied for defining the ecological objectives;
b. Approach to terms as ‘slight changes in values of biological quality elements’ or ‘low
effectiveness of measures’;
c. Approach to ‘significant adverse effects’;
3. Measures
a. Which measures related to hydromorphological alterations are likely to be part of the
coming river basin management plan?
b. The proportion of the rehabilitation and mitigation measures compared to the total
programme of measures;
4. Costs
a. Approach to “disproportionately expensive”, especially regarding the measures related to
hydromorphology;
5. Exemptions
a. How is the priority of measures defined when the timescale is extended?
6. Other issues
a. Are problems encountered due to uncertainty in planning processes needed before
measures can be implemented?
b. Are you interested in participating in a workshop on large water bodies and WFD
implementation? Which issues would you like to incorporate in such a workshop?
2
Annex 2 - Questions under consideration for the exploration
All the questions below concern the specific large water bodies, for which the exploration is set up, and
not the general issues in the river basin district..
River / water body………..
Length/width
population in catchment
area
Size catchment area
Typology system A or B
used (annex II)
Typology description of
water body or water bodies
How many water bodies
have been identified within
the water system?
How many different water
types have been identified
within the water system?
Natural / AWB / HMWB?
risk assessment for
achieving environmental
objectives (from art. 5)
By biological/chemical/hydromorphological quality elements
Authority responsible for
defining the environmental
objectives
Authority responsible for
defining measures
Use/Function
Hydromorphological alterations
Identification and designation of water body
1. Are (intertidal) floodplains defined as separate water bodies, included into or excluded from the
river or transitional water body? Or are they not treated as (part of a) waterbody? Please explain
the reasoning?
2. Are harbours defined as separate water bodies or included into the river or transitional water
body? Why?
3
Ecological objectives – the purpose of the following questions is to get an idea of how the ecological
objectives for large heavily modified and artificial water bodies are derived. Especially on how the nonquantitative criteria of the directive or the guidances are used.
3. Which changes to the hydromorphological characteristics are considered to have significant
adverse effects (in other words: which ecological/hydromorphological alterations are considered
irreversible)? Which are considered reversible?
4. How is the approach to significant adverse effects on functions of changes to the
hydromorphological characteristics (WFD art 4.3a)? Please explain the method which is used.
The following questions may help.
a. How is the significance of the adverse effect assessed? For instance, is a (quantitative)
criterion applied?
b. How were the adverse effects assessed? (calculated, estimated, other)
c. Is the approach generic or site/water body specific?
d. Are adverse effects discussed in public consultation (art 14)?
e. Is subject of significant adverse effects considered a difficult issue which takes a lot of
attention or is it not an issue?
Identify all mitigation
measures that do not
have a significant
adverse effect
Define MEP by
estimating the biological
values expected if all
mitigation measures
were taken
Exclude those mitigation
measures that, in
combination, are only
predicted to deliver slight
ecological improvement
GEP = the biological
values expected from
taking the identified
mitigation measures
Figure 1:
Identify all mitigation
measures that do not
have a significant
adverse effect on the
use
Identify mitigation
measures needed to
support the
achievement of GEP
Define MEP by
estimating the biological
values expected if all
mitigation measures
were taken
Define GEP as a slight
deviation from the
biological values
estimated for MEP
Steps involved in defining GEP using alternative approach (left side) compared to the relevant steps in the
approach described in CIS Guidance Document No. 4 (right side);
5. Which measures are considered to mitigate some typical alterations for the waters? How are
these measures quantified or dimensioned?
6. What method is applied to define the Good Ecological Potential for the large heavily modified
water bodies?
a. According to the guidance (CIS guidance document no. 4; Fig. 1 right panel) or
b. the alternative approach (annex 2 from the Technical Paper on “WFD &
Hydromorphology”; Fig. 1 left panel)?
7. Are environmental objectives defined separately for biological elements, physico-chemical
elements and hydromorphological elements (Annex V of WFD)?
8. Approach to “slight changes” in values of biological quality elements and/or “low effectiveness” of
measures.
a. If GEP is defined according to guidance 4: How are “slight changes” (annex V-1.2.5) ) or
in other words “slight deviation from the biological values for MEP” (CIS guidance
document no. 4) defined or quantified?
b. If GEP is defined according to the alternative approach: How is assessed whether
measures will deliver – in combination - only a slight ecological improvement (annex II-4
from the Technical Paper on WFD & Hydromorphology )? How is ‘slight ecological
4
c.
improvement’ assessed? Which measures are considered to have slight ecological
improvement and how is this assessed?
Is the assessment of ‘slight changes’ and/or ‘low effectiveness’ considered a difficult
issue which takes a lot of attention or is it not an issue?
Measures
9. Which measures related to hydromorphological alterations are likely to be part of the coming river
basin management plan? Please quantify the measures (eg. Length of river bank restoration,
number of fish passages etc.). If possible please give an indication of the costs involved for these
measures.
(for examples of measures: see figure 5, 6 and 7 of annex 2 from the Technical Paper on “WFD &
Hydromorphology)
10. What supplementary measures (in addition to the measures in relation to hydromorphological
changes) (art. 11.4 annex VI-part B) have been identified in addition to the basic measures (art
11.3, annex VI-A)?
11. What is the proportion of the rehabilitation and mitigation measures related to hydromorphological
alterations compared with the basic measures (art. 11.3, annex VI-A)? In other words: do these
type of measures form a large part of foreseen programme of measures (as in the Netherlands)
or only a small part, or no part at all?
12. Regarding artificial canals (if present)
a. How have the ecological objectives been derived for the biological quality elements?
b. What measures are identified?
13. Is the sediment quality considered in WFD objectives and measures? May specific measures for
sediment improvement become part of the river basin management plan?
14. Are specific relevant substances defined for the whole river basin district, also if the RBD is
international? If yes, will each river basin district derive environmental quality standards for these
specific substances or will this be a national responsibility?
15. Will other means be applied to achieve the objectives of the hydromorphological alterations? (art
4.3b)
16. The questions above reflect the considerations and uncertainties which Rijkswaterstaat faces in
the process of defining the programme of measures for the large water bodies. For comparison:
are there other considerations and uncertainties which are of special interest for your large water
bodies?
17. Which measures for ecological improvement are already taken in recent years, which otherwise
would have become part of the coming river basin management plan?
Costs
18. How is the Member States’ view on “disproportionately expensive”, especially regarding the
measures related to hydromorphology (art. 4.4a-ii, 4.5 and 4.7)?
a. At what level of scale is the assessment of disproportionate costs taken place? (national,
regional, for each water body)
b. Is this linked to certain types of measures or to cost effectiveness analyses for specific
measures?
c. Is a threshold defined (estimated, indicative, calculated…) to determine when a measure
is disproportionately expensive? If yes, which threshold? If not, how is defined whether
measures are disproportionately expensive?
d. What is the reference level of costs in the process of determining whether measures are
disproportionately expensive (e.g. current costs of water management, an absolute
amount, comparison with measures in other water bodies, other)?
5
e. Are all measures (inclusive the basic measures, art 11.3 ) incorporated in the cost
effectiveness analysis or only/mainly the supplementary and additional measures?
Timing & derogation
19. What is the Member States’ view on extension of the timescale to achieve the WFD objectives
(art. 4.4)? Will this extension be needed for the large water body in question? For which reason?
20. In what way is the priority order for measures determined if the Member State chooses to extend
on the timescale to achieve the WFD objectives?
21. What is the view on the aim to achieve less stringent environmental objectives? (art 4.5)? Is it
foreseen that article 4.5 will need to be applied in the coming river basin management plan?
Please explain why the article will be applied?
22. In the Netherlands article 4.4 (extension of deadlines) will be applied in several water bodies and
specific 2015 objectives will be defined. Is a comparable approach followed for the water in
question? If so, how are the 2015 objectives defined?
Other open questions
23. Is the co-ordination with Nature2000 (BHD) objectives and management plans an issue under
discussion or not relevant? How is dealt with the relation between WFD and BHD?
24. What is the biggest challenge to overcome in order to reach the environmental objectives for the
WFD? What is the biggest challenge to overcome in order to reach the ecological objectives?
25. In what way is dealt with uncertainties about effects of measures?
26. In the Netherlands in several cases uncertainty exists whether measures can be executed. For
instance land ownership or planning procedures may determine in the end whether measures
can be executed. Are similar situations likely to occur in your water bodies? Could you give
examples?
27. Would the interviewee be interested in participating in an international workshop to exchange
experiences on AWB and HMWB for large water systems? This workshop would take place in the
Netherlands, fall 2007.
6