Status box
Meeting: Working Group Data and Information Sharing – Brussels 28-29 April 2015
Agenda point: 5.c) Towards the 2nd RBMPs and the 1st FRMPs
Title: Discussion paper on indicators to communicate progress towards good
status
Version no.:
1
Date:
24 April 2015
This paper follows a number of discussions held under the CIS on the need to develop
indicators to communicate the progress towards good status. While the scientific
robustness of applying the OOAO principle in assessing the impact of multiple pressures
on water ecosystems should be acknowledge, there is a need to be able to communicate
intermediate progress and to show that programmes of measures have already been to
some extent successful in improving the status of EU waters. The most recent discussion
on this issue was held at the 4th European Water Conference in March 2015.
The Water Directors mandated the Working Group DIS to discuss this issue in the context
of the review of the WFD Reporting Guidance. The guidance and the tools are currently
being tested and this is therefore the right moment to reflect on how to make operational
the indicators of progress, and on whether there is a need to adjust some of the elements
of the guidance for that purpose.
The proposals in this paper are intended to trigger reflection and discussion. Some
questions for discussion have been highlighted. The relationship with the WFD Reporting
Guidance also features prominently as any indicators will have to be based on available
data. It is also important to consider how these indicators are going to be implemented in
the WISE system.
Although the intention is not to create a straightjacket for Member States, it is important to
achieve a certain degree of standardisation for comparability between Member States.
This will also ensure that the messages delivered at EU and national levels are
consistent. The paper focuses more on what the indicators should contain or cover rather
than on the format of their presentation, which could be modified according to the practice
in the Member States and at EU level.
It is considered important to set out a clear process to develop this discussion into
operational conclusions within 2015. The degree of involvement and the modalities of
consultation with other relevant CIS WGs (in particular Ecostat, Chemicals and
Groundwater) need to be decided.
The WG DIS is invited to:
- discuss the proposals and considerations made in the paper
- acknowledge the importance of consistent and high-quality reporting of status at
quality element/parameter level for all water bodies to support the use of indicators
and proper communication on progress
- agree a proposal for a process to develop this issue further, to be presented to the
SCG
Contacts:
Joaquim Capitão [joaquim.capitao@ec.europa.eu]
Jorge Rodriguez Romero [jorge.rodriguez-romero@ec.europa.eu]
Contents
1.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................ 3
2.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM ........................................................................ 3
3.
SOME IMPORTANT INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS .............................................. 5
3.1. Difficulties in comparing the status assessment of the 1st and 2nd
RBMPs .............................................................................................................. 5
3.2. Scope of the indicators of progress ................................................................... 5
3.3. Information available from reporting ................................................................ 6
3.3.1. Ecological status of surface water bodies ............................................ 6
3.3.2. Chemical status of surface water bodies ............................................. 7
3.3.3. Chemical status of groundwater bodies ............................................... 8
3.4. Characteristics of the progress indicators .......................................................... 8
4.
PROPOSED INDICATORS FOR ECOLOGICAL STATUS .................................... 9
4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
5.
Schematic representation of status and progress of quality elements ............... 9
Quality elements .............................................................................................. 11
What to do with 'Unknowns' and 'Not applicable' ........................................... 12
The source of the information for the comparison .......................................... 13
PROPOSED INDICATORS FOR CHEMICAL STATUS OF SURFACE
WATERS................................................................................................................... 16
5.1. Schematic representation of chemical status ................................................... 16
5.2. How to deal with new EQS and new Priority Substances ............................... 17
6.
PROPOSED
INDICATORS
FOR
CHEMICAL STATUS
OF
GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................... 18
6.1. Schematic representation of chemical status ................................................... 18
Annex: additional examples on comparing the 1st and the 2nd RBMPs
2
1.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In the context of the bilateral meetings on WFD implementation organised by DG
Environment in 2013, a number of Member States raised questions about how to
communicate the progress towards good status achieved between the 1st and the 2nd
River Basin Management Plans (RBMP). The issue was subsequently discussed at the
SCG meeting in September 2013 which agreed to ask WG DIS to look at the issue, with
support from WG Ecostat and WG Chemicals. The Netherlands made presentations at the
WG DIS meeting in October 2013 and at the Water Directors meeting in December 2013,
who concluded the following:
"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."
These discussions were therefore taken into account in developing the WFD Reporting
Guidance for 2016.
At the Water Conference in March 2015 the Netherlands and France made a presentation
on this issue. The need to develop indicators of progress towards good status was once
more highlighted at this meeting, and some concrete proposals were presented. It was
deemed important to develop together indicators that could be used both at EU and
national level, so that progress is presented in a consistent way.
The objective of this paper is to 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. This should 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 of the
application of indicators provided below are fictional. Their consistency has not been
checked. Therefore they may depict situations that may not make much sense from the
technical point of view. An Annex has been added with some examples extracted from
Member States documents. This is intended to provide real illustrations of some of the
proposed solutions or alternative approaches.
2.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM
The one-out all-out principle is one of the key pillars of the WFD. It is at the core of
integrated river basin management. It ensures that all impacts are taken into account in
the status assessment and consequently provides for addressing those impacts in the
subsequent steps of the planning process (setting environmental objectives and
measures).
The WFD objectives are therefore expressed as overall water status, encompassing both
chemical and ecological status, and each of these two components includes a number of
3
quality elements/parameters. The status assessment is driven by the lowest of the
individual elements/parameters.
If only this overall status assessment is used as an indicator, the progress achieved in
some elements/parameters may be hidden by the lack of progress in others. This may
result in an overly pessimistic view on the progress achieved by WFD implementation.
This is illustrated by the following figure representing the information on ecological
status of a surface water body1:
Figure 1. Evolution of ecological status of an hypothetical surface water body
Although the columns "QE status" reflect a significant improvement from 2009 to 2015,
with most quality elements improving to good status, the overall "WB status" is still
moderate because of one exceedance by a river basin specific pollutant. The assessment
of overall status is correct according to the one-out all-out approach. However, if only
that overall ecological status is used as an indicator, the significant improvement
achieved in the status of the water body is hidden.
The exchanges held to date with a number of Member States indicate that many are
considering the development of indicators at the level of quality element or parameter.
Some have used these in the on-going consultations on the draft 2nd RBMPs.
It is important to stress that these indicators would necessarily be in addition to the status
assessment required by the WFD, on the basis of which the assessment of the progress
towards the WFD objective of "good status" should be measured. They should never be
seen as replacing the obligations under the WFD regarding status assessment, but as tools
to complement and provide a more detailed picture of the progress achieved and of the
results of the measures taken.
Nothing in the WFD prevents Member States and the Commission from developing
additional indicators at quality element level in addition to the status assessments
required by the WFD. It is important to develop an EU-wide concept for these additional
indicators, so that they can be presented at EU level in the WISE system. This would
ensure that the indicators are comparable across (international) river basins and countries,
and would ensure consistency between the messages delivered at EU and national level.
1
Taken from the presentation by the Netherlands at the 4 th European Water Conference, 23-24 March
2015.
4
In the case of priority substances, Directive 2013/39/EU includes the possibility of
differentiating the presentation of chemical status related to newly identified substances,
substances for which stricter EQS have been set, and ubiquitous PBTs. This is an
example of a solution that has been included in the legislation in order to allow
meaningful reporting of progress.
3.
SOME IMPORTANT INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS
3.1.
Difficulties in comparing the status assessment of the 1st and 2nd RBMPs
Comparison of status between the 1st and the 2nd RBMPs will be difficult in many
Member States.
In some cases the difficulties arise from the lack of development of assessment methods
in the first cycle, or from the incomplete intercalibration. This means that usually the
number of quality elements used in the 1st RBMP is lower than in the 2nd. This may have
resulted in a too optimistic view because some quality elements (e.g. fish) were not taken
into account or assessed against non-intercalibrated status boundaries. These countries
may face difficulties because the newly developed methods may result in downgrading
(on paper) the status of some water bodies which were reported as "good" in the 1st
RBMP. The issue may be more prominent in case of heavily modified and artificial water
bodies, as the gaps in developing methods to assess ecological potential were more
important than for ecological status.
A number of Member States also reported in the 1st RBMP the status of water bodies as
"unknown" due to lack of monitoring data and lack of development of an extrapolation
methodology to derive the status of non-monitored water bodies. Where the number of
unknowns was significant, it will be difficult to compare status in the 1st and the 2nd
RBMPs.
An additional difficulty is the re-delineation of water bodies that has taken place in some
of the Member States for the 2nd RBMP. Unless a reference to the water bodies
delineated in the 1st RBMP is maintained, it will not be possible to relate the status
assessment of 2009 to that of 2015.
Another difficulty arises where "the goalposts change", e.g. priority substances are added
to the list or EQS become stricter; this is addressed in section 5.2.
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?
3.2.
Scope of the indicators of progress
The difficulty described above can be raised in the context of the assessment of



Ecological status/potential of surface water bodies
Chemical status of surface water bodies
Chemical status of groundwater bodies
5
In all these cases the status is defined in the basis of a number of quality
elements/parameters and the one-out all-out principle is applied to derive the overall
status.
The issue is not considered relevant to the quantitative status of groundwater bodies.
Because of the nature of the problem identified and of the existing provisions in WFD
Annex V structuring the assessment into quality elements/parameters, the indicators of
progress will necessarily rely on information at quality element/parameter level.
The indicators should be designed to be applied at sub-unit, RBD, Member State and EU
level. The development of indicators at water body level in this CIS activity is not
considered necessary. However MS will be able to reflect these principles in their own
communication at water body level if deemed necessary.
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?
3.3.
Information available from reporting
The WFD Reporting Guidance for 2016 has been endorsed by Water Directors at their
meeting in Crete in June 20142. In developing any indicators it is essential to consider the
information that Member States will have to report in 2016 as part of the 2nd RBMP.
Indeed, it would be not be helpful if indicators were based on information that will not be
available at EU level.
The following sections list the schema elements from the Reporting Guidance that are
considered useful for the development of indicators.
3.3.1. Ecological status of surface water bodies
This is addressed in section 2.4.3.2 of the WFD Reporting Guidance.
If it is decided to complement the information at quality element/parameter level with the
information on overall ecological status, then the following element is relevant:

SWB/SurfaceWaterBody/EcologicalStatusOrPotentialValue
This schema element provides the overall ecological status (or potential) of each
surface water body.
The following information reported at water body level is considered important for the
purpose of developing indicators of progress for ecological status. The X should be
replaced by the 19 quality elements as described in the Reporting Guidance3:
2
The Reporting Guidance and the tools developed are being tested at the moment and are available at
http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/WFD/WFD_521_2016. All references to the Reporting Guidance are
done to version 4.9 of 30 January 2015.
3
QE11Phytoplankton,
QE123Macrophytes,
QE12OtherAquaticFlora,
QE124Phytobenthos,
QE121Macroalgae,
QE122Angiosperms,
QE13Macroinvertebrates,
QE14Fish,
6

SWB/SurfaceWaterBody/QualityElement/QEXStatusOrPotentialValue4
This schema element provides the status (or potential) of each quality element for
each surface water body.

SWB/SurfaceWaterBody/QualityElement/QEXStatusOrPotentialChange
This schema element provides information on whether the status of the quality
element has changed since the 1st RBMP.

SWB/SurfaceWaterBody/QualityElement/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 (see section 3.1 above on difficulties in comparing the
status between 1st and 2nd RBMPs). This schema element is conditional, only
needs to be reported if QEXStatusOrPotentialChange is reported.

SWB/SurfaceWaterBody/SWFailingRBSP
This schema element provides the failing River Basin Specific Pollutants in each
surface water body.
In addition, depending on the desired aggregation level, other schema elements may be
needed (e.g. the ones containing information about the water category, whether the water
body is natural, heavily modified or artificial, etc.).
3.3.2. Chemical status of surface water bodies
This is addressed in section 2.5.3.2 of the WFD Reporting Guidance.
If it is decided to complement the information at substance level with the information on
overall chemical status, then the following element is relevant:

SWB/SurfaceWaterBody/SWChemicalStatusValue
This schema element provides the overall chemical status of each surface water
body.
The following information reported at water body level is considered important for the
purpose of developing indicators of progress for chemical status of surface water bodies.

SWB/SurfaceWaterBody/SWImprovementChemicalStatus
QE21HydrodologicalOrTidalRegime ,
QE22RiverContinuityConditions,
QE23MorphologicalConditions,
QE311TransparencyConditions,
QE312ThermalConditions,
QE313OxygenationConditions,
QE314SalinityConditions,
QE315pHConditions,
QE3161NitrogenConditions, QE3162PhosphorusConditions, QE33RiverBasinSpecificPollutants.
4
The references to the schemas are using the notation of the XSDs version 4.9 available at the testing
webpage http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/help/WFD/WFD_521_2016.
7
This schema element provides for each surface water body the Priority
Substances which have improved from poor to good chemical status since the 1st
RBMP.

SWB/SurfaceWaterBody/SWExceedances/SWChemicalExceedances
This schema element provides for each surface water body the Priority
Substances that exceed the EQS.
In addition, depending on the desired aggregation level, other schema elements may be
needed (e.g. those containing information about the water category, whether the water
body is natural, heavily modified or artificial, etc.).
3.3.3. Chemical status of groundwater bodies
This is addressed in section 3.5.3.2 of the WFD Reporting Guidance.
If it is decided to complement the information at substance level with the information on
overall chemical status, then the following element is relevant:

GWB/GroundWaterBody/GWChemicalStatusValue
This schema element provides the overall chemical status of each groundwater
body.
The following information reported at water body level is considered important for the
purpose of developing indicators of progress for chemical status of groundwater bodies.

GWB/GroundWaterBody/PollutantsCausingFailure
GWOtherPollutantsCausingFailure
and
This schema element provides for each groundwater body the pollutant(s) or
indicator(s) of pollution that are causing the failure to reach good chemical status.
Questions for discussion:
5. Is there any other information specified by the reporting guidance that is considered
important to develop the progress indicators?
3.4.
Characteristics of the progress indicators
A wish list can be developed of the characteristics of the progress indicators. The
indicators should be
a) as simple as possible
b) based on quality elements or parameters, as the purpose is to present information
on the improvement in these components that contribute to the determination of
ecological and chemical status
c) based on the definitions of ecological and chemical status in the WFD (and
daughter directives)
d) usable at various geographical scales (sub-unit, RBD, international RBD,
Member State and EU level)
8
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 way
g) 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?
4.
4.1.
PROPOSED INDICATORS FOR ECOLOGICAL STATUS
Schematic representation of status and progress of quality elements
The following is a basic chart of the proposed representation of the information on status
of quality elements alongside the overall ecological status that will be used to illustrate
the proposal:
Figure 2. Ecological status, representation with all classes
At this stage it is not the intention to discuss the format of the presentation (type of chart,
colours, etc.) but rather the information displayed, which should be able to highlight any
improvements that have been made.
The Y axis represents any aggregation of surface water bodies (number of water bodies,
percentage based on number, percentage based on length or area).
The number of water bodies (or length/area) the aggregation is based on should always
be indicated, e.g. in brackets in the X axis. The above representation shows five classes,
but it can also be presented as two classes (good or better and less than good):
9
Figure 3: Ecological status, representation with 2 classes
To present progress an additional column can be added to each quality element:
Figure 4: Ecological status and progress,
representation with all classes grouped by
quality element
Figure 5: Ecological status and progress,
representation with 2 classes grouped by quality
element
Or two blocks of quality elements can be displayed for the two periods:
Figure 6: Ecological status and progress,
representation with all classes grouped by period
Figure 7: Ecological status and progress,
representation with 2 classes grouped by period
Another way of presenting progress where the "two classes approach" is used is to stack
the improvement:
10
Figure 8: Ecological status and progress, representation with 2 classes and stacked periods
One question that arises is how to depict deterioration in such a chart.
These concepts can be easily reflected also in maps drawn separately for each quality
element/parameter. These "disaggregated" maps should inform but not substitute the
representation of overall ecological status.
The following sections discuss some important issues in preparing these charts.
Questions for discussion:
7. Please comment on the proposed approaches, their advantages and disadvantages;
discuss other potential ways of displaying the information.
4.2.
Quality elements
Annex V of the WFD lists the quality elements that form part of the definition of
ecological status. These vary depending on the water category. In order to be able to pull
together in the same chart information about different water categories, the quality
elements could be grouped as follows:







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
The following considerations about these groups of quality elements should be kept in
mind when using them for the presentation of status information.
The quality element "Other aquatic flora" pulls together two types of flora which in the
Annex V normative definitions are together for rivers and lakes (macrophytes and
phytobenthos) and separated for coastal and transitional waters (macroalgae and
angiosperms). In the case of rivers and lakes, some Member States assess macrophytes
and phytobenthos jointly, others separately. The WFD Reporting Guidance allows
Member States to report either the quality element as a whole (schema element
QE12OtherAquaticFlora) or separately (schema elements QE121Macroalgae,
QE122Angiosperms, QE123Macrophytes and QE124Phytobenthos), depending on their
assessment system. Pulling these two types of flora together in the progress indicators
does not entail any change on the way Member States deal with these elements. In
11
building the indicator for 'Other aquatic flora' the reported information will be used:
either QE12OtherAquaticFlora or, in case of separate reporting, the worst class reported
for the relevant individual elements QE12X will be used.
According to the CIS classification guidance, hydromorphology only determines a
downgrading from high to good status. Therefore, some Member States have developed
hydromorphological assessment systems that only cover two classes "high" and "good or
less". Others, however, have developed systems that contain more than two classes, in
some cases to try to address the lack of biological methods that reliably capture
hydromorphological pressures. These differences need to be taken into account when
developing EU indicators.
In the WFD Reporting Guidance there are three elements reported separately for
hydromorphology:
QE21HydrodologicalOrTidalRegime,
QE22RiverContinuityConditions, QE23MorphologicalConditions. When pulling together
the three to build the hydromorphological quality element, the worst class reported for
the three individual indicators will be used.
In case of Member States which follow the minimum requirements of the CIS
classification guidance and have developed a two-class system for hydromorphology
("high status" and "good or worse") it would not make sense to display hydromorphology
separately where the presentation of indicators is based on two classes ("good or better"
and "less than good").
Physico-chemical quality elements include the parameters that are referred to under the
heading "General" in WFD Annex V. These correspond to the following quality elements
in
the
WFD
Reporting
Guidance:
QE311TransparencyConditions,
QE312ThermalConditions, QE313OxygenationConditions, QE314SalinityConditions,
QE315pHConditions, QE3161NitrogenConditions and QE3162PhosphorusConditions.
As for the other components, in building the indicator for "Physico-chemical" quality
element, the worst class reported for the individual parameters will be used.
In case of RBSP, it should be noted that usually only the two classes approach would be
possible, as most Member States apply a pass/fail assessment to them.
It is important to stress that the other grouping of quality elements could be helpful for
certain purposes. For example, it would be possible to separate nutrient quality elements
to highlight improvement in eutrophication, or river continuity to assess improvements in
this hydromorphology parameter. The approach proposed above should be seen as a
starting point but should not exclude the use of other groups of quality elements for the
illustration of specific issues.
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?
4.3.
What to do with 'Unknowns' and 'Not applicable'
The WFD Reporting Guidance requires Member States to report the information
available on the status assessment at quality element level. However it is expected that
12
there will be water bodies for which Member States will not have the information for all
quality elements, or will not report it. They will be reported as 'Unknown'.
There are also quality elements that are not relevant for a significant proportion of water
bodies (e.g. phytoplankton in small rivers) and therefore will be reported as 'Not
applicable.
The status reported as 'Unknown' can be displayed as a sixth class in grey:
Figure 9
Figure 10
In 2012 the EEA decided not to include the unknowns in the charts on the basis of the
following reasoning: The reason was to ease interpretation of the ecological status
diagrams, where one could not immediately read the percentage in different status
classes when the unclassified were part of the total. Moreover, it could not be known
whether the pressure and impacts information for these water bodies was complete. By
using only the classified water bodies it was assumed that the classified water bodies
were representative for the entire population.
As regards the 'Not applicable', if the display of water bodies in the Y axis is made on the
basis of percentages of assessed water bodies, the 'Not applicable' water bodies for each
quality element do not need to be included in the chart. If the basis of the Y axis is
number of water bodies or absolute length/area, then a seventh class needs to be
displayed for 'Not applicable' (for example in white).
4.4.
The source of the information for the comparison
As presented in section 3.1, comparing the status of water bodies in the 1st and 2nd
RBMP will not be easy.
In general, it will not be possible to compare status classes at quality element level
between the 1st and the 2nd RBMP as reported in WISE.
In 2010 the Reporting Guidance requested the status class only where the quality element
was monitored in a particular water body. The reporting at quality element level was
anyway patchy and inconsistent: only some Member States reported, and those who did
did not always follow the agreed guidance.
In the 2016 Reporting Guidance the requirement is to report the status class if the quality
element is assessed, independently if the element is monitored, modelled or extrapolated
from other similar water bodies. It is expected that much more information will be
13
reported at quality element level, also because of the longer series of data available.
During this exercise it is crucial to agree on reporting all elements following the same
guidance, otherwise we run the same risk of having large inconsistencies similar to the
2010 exercise.
As a result of the recognition of these difficulties in the comparison, the schema element
QEXStatusOrPotentialChange was included in the 2016 Reporting Guidance. This
schema element provides information on whether the status of the quality element has
changed since the 1st RBMP (simple plus or minus classes, e.g. +2, +1, 0, -1 or -2, or
unknown). Due to the fact that the status changes can be due to different reasons, this
information is combined with the schema element QEXStatusOrPotentialComparability,
which 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
(see section 3.1 above on difficulties in comparing the status between 1st and 2nd
RBMPs). This schema element is conditional, only needs to be reported if
QEXStatusOrPotentialChange is reported. The possible values of this schema element
are the following:




‘Consistent change’ = A real change in status due to measures or due to
increased/decreased pressures.
‘Inconsistent monitoring’ = A significant change in monitoring (site,
methodology) since the 1st RBMPs.
‘Inconsistent assessment’ = A significant change in the assessment method since
the 1st RBMPs.
‘Inconsistent monitoring and assessment’ = A significant change in monitoring
(site, methodology) and the assessment method since the 1st RBMPs.
It is proposed that, for the purpose of the comparison of status at quality element
level, the baseline of the 1st RBMP is derived from the status information in the 2nd
RBMP (as reported to WISE in 2016), by means of the schema element
QEXStatusOrPotentialChange, and considering only the status changes reported as
‘Consistent’ under the schema element QEXStatusOrPotentialComparability.
This is to ensure that only “real” changes to status are counted. Changes due to updates
of the monitoring and assessment systems (e.g. because fish is being assessed for the first
time in the 2nd RBMP) are not taken into account in the comparison. Otherwise the
picture may be completely distorted and even for some Member States there will be an
apparent significant deterioration which may be largely due to more complete and
updated monitoring and assessment methods.
The success of this approach relies heavily on the quality of the information reported by
Member States, in particular for the two schema elements mentioned above
(QEXStatusOrPotentialChange and QEXStatusOrPotentialComparability).
The following table presents how the information would be processed, starting as an
example with a water body in moderate status in the 2nd RBMP.
14
QEXStatusOr
PotentialValue
(Status 2nd
RBMP)
QEXStatusOr
PotentialChange
QEXStatusOr
PotentialComparability
+2
Consistent
Status 1st RBMP
(used for assessment of
progress)
Bad
+1
Consistent
Poor
0
Any value
Moderate
Moderate
Good
-1
Consistent
Any value
Inconsistent monitoring,
Inconsistent assessment, or
Inconsistent monitoring and
assessment
Moderate (or
unknown?)
Unknown status
Any value
No information or unknown
Unknown
Any value
Unknown status
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?
15
5.
5.1.
PROPOSED INDICATORS FOR CHEMICAL STATUS OF SURFACE WATERS
Schematic representation of chemical status
The definition of chemical status is based on the assessment of a number of priority
substances against the respective standards (the EQS). As recalled in the introduction to
this paper, the 2013 amendment of the EQS Directive allows differentiating the
presentation of chemical status related to newly identified substances, substances for
which stricter EQS have been set and for ubiquitous PBTs. These presentations can be
used in addition to the presentation of the overall chemical status. The objective is to
avoid situations where changes in the EQSs or the lack of progress on some substances
hide the progress achieved on others.
One possibility to show progress towards good status is to report the number of
substances failing in each water body as proposed by the Netherlands in the following
map5:
Figure 11
Combining this concept with the differentiation on the basis of the types of substances
(ubiquitous PBTs and others) would give a schematic representation as follows:
5
See footnote 1.
16
Figure 12
As with ecological status, the number of water bodies (or length/area) the aggregation is
based on should always be indicated, e.g. in brackets in the X axis.
In order to show progress it would be possible to display the information for the 1st and
the 2nd RBMPs:
Figure 13
The handling of "unknown" status could be similar than that described above for
ecological status.
5.2.
How to deal with new EQS and new Priority Substances
The 2013 amendment of the EQS Directive introduced:


stricter EQSs for a few existing priority substances: the assessment according to
these new standards needs to be reported in the 2nd RBMP in 2015 to inform the
programme of measures for achieving those standards by 2021.
a number of new priority substances and EQS that need to be assessed as part of
chemical status in 2021, and the standards achieved in 2027, for which there
should be a supplementary programme of measures in 2018 based on preliminary
monitoring.
17
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.
Questions for discussion:
13. Is the proposal to use "number of substances failing" a good basis for communicating
progress? Any other ideas?
6.
PROPOSED INDICATORS FOR CHEMICAL STATUS OF GROUNDWATER
6.1.
Schematic representation of chemical status
The same general approach as for surface water is proposed for groundwater. The
number of substances failing can be a good basis to show progress towards good status.
As regards the types of substances, there can be a distinction on the basis of the following
categories:



Nitrates
Pesticides
Other pollutants
EU-wide quality standards for the first two are included in Annex I of the Groundwater
Directive. Member States derive threshold values for 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.
Figure 14
As with surface water, the Y axis may be constructed on the basis of the number or the
area of water bodies, either in absolute numbers or percentages.
18
The handling of "unknown" status could be similar than that described above for
ecological status.
One additional potential difficulty in comparing the 1st and 2nd RBMPs is if the Member
States have modified their threshold values. In this case the progress achieved should be
depicted on the basis of the same baseline, i.e. the values in the 1st RBMPs. The approach
would then be similar to that taken for surface waters in case of updated EQS for existing
priority substances (see section 5.2 above).
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?
19
Annex: additional examples on comparing the 1st and the 2nd RBMPs
Comparing pressures
In addition to comparison of ecological and chemical status in the two RBMP periods
there is also the option to compare pressures (or water bodies at risk) in the two RBMPs.
Austria has, for example, a diagram with comparison change in hydromorphological
pressures.
Source: Bundesministerium Für Land- Und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt Und Wasserwirtschaft 2014: EU
Wasserrahmenrichtlinie 2000/60/EG Österreichischer Bericht der Ist-Bestandsanalyse 2013
20
Same concepts used at water body level
The development of indicators at water body level is of limited relevance for the
discussion at EU level, but the same concepts can be applied at water body level, see the
following example from the UK:
21
Alternative approach: start by comparing the water bodies one by one
There is another option to start with a comparison of the status in the two RBMPs per
water body and then aggregate this comparison to the number with improvement, no
change and deterioration. The diagram on the next page tries to illustrate this.
22
Combining more information
In addition to the suggested diagrams on proportion of water bodies (or length/area) in
different classes, a diagram illustrating the number of quality element/RBSP/Priority
substance not achieving at least good status may be an option to illustrate change
between the two RBMP periods. See the Dutch example below.
The right chart illustrates the proportion of water bodies with good and failing to achieve
good status; and the left diagram illustrate the number of substances failing per water
body.
23
Chemical status: examples of maps applying the split between uPBTs and nonuPBTs
Many Member States have such a split in their draft RBMPs. Below find two examples.
24