1

The European Water Framework Directive

Groundwater Requirements

Contents

Introduction

EU Water Framework Directive – Key elements

Stepwise Implementation

Conclusions

Danube River Basin - Experiences

2

Base sketch from Meade (1996) and DPSIR from EEA

D

D

P P

S

S

SP

SI

bio-physical system

R

societal system

River Basin Management

Diversity of uses,pressures and impacts

Water Framework Directive Key Elements

Water management based on River Basins

Protecting all waters (surface and groundwaters) and considering connected ecosystems (e.g. wetlands)

Covering all impacts on waters (incl. Climate Change)

Cross border co-operation between neighbouring countries

Pollution prevention and emission control – “combined approach“

Economic instruments - the polluter pays principle

Public participation is mandatory

‘Good Status’ to be achieved, as a rule, by 2015;

Clear deadlines

Regular reporting

Temporary Expert GroupsPermanent Working Groups

EU Water DirectorsSteering of implementation process

Chair: Presidency, Co-chair: Commission

Strategic Co-ordination GroupCo-ordination of work programme

Chair: Commission

Art. 21 Committee

Working Group A“Ecological Status”

Lead: JRC, DE, UK

Working Group F“Floods”

Lead: COM, IE

Working Group D“Reporting”

Lead: COM,EEA,FR

CIS Organisation 2010-2012

Working Group E“Chemical Status”Lead: COM, JRC,

IT,FR

Working Group C“Groundwater”

Lead: COM, AT

“Agriculture and

Water”

Lead: FR, UK

“Water scarcity

&droughts”

Lead: IT/ES/FR

“Climate Change

and Water”

Lead: DE, COM

“Biodiversity and

Water”

Lead: COM/NL

WFD - Main goals

2015: Good status for all waters

Groundwater chemical status quantitative status No significant upward trend - Trend reversal

Surface waters ecological status

BQEs: algae, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, fishes Hydromorphology Physical, chemical parameters

chemical status compliance with all the quality standards established for chemical

substances at European level

WFD River Basin Management Plan (RBMP)

One RBMP for each River Basin District in Europe

Main instrument for

planning

reporting

evaluation of effectiveness

First publication 2009

Updates every 6 years;

GW-Management in a cyclic procedure

10

Good status

River Basin Management Plan

Programme of measures

Status & Trend assessment

Monitoring programmes

Characterisation – Risk assessment

Delineation of Groundwater Bodies

Nomination of competent authorities

Identification of RBDs

6 years cycle

Review/updatePublic participation

GWB delineation

‘Body of groundwater’a distinct volume of groundwater within an aquifer or aquifers

= management unit

‘Groundwater’all water, which is below the surface of the ground in the saturated zone and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil.

‘Aquifer’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.

GWB delineation - Experiences

Groundwater body = Management Unit For adequat description of status For comparing to environmental objectives and For implementing measures

Aim: efficient and practical management units considering administrative burden

Size: depends on variation of characteristics and pressures Grouping of bodies supports efficiency An iterative and on-going process

Experience - Most Member States started with: Hydrogeological boundaries;

Vulnerability maps, subsoil, risk potential, utilisation and protection need, economic importance ...

GWB Initial characterisation

For all Groundwater Bodies

location and boundaries of GW-bodies

pressures

diffuse + point sources of pollution

abstraction + artificial recharge

general character of overlying strata

directly dependent aquatic & terrestrial ecosystems interactions

Basis for Risk Assessment

GWB Further characterisation

For Groundwater Bodies at risk

For all transboundary Groundwater Bodies

where relevant, information on Geological characteristics, …..

Hydrogeological characteristics, conductivity, ….

Points for abstraction

Abstraction rate, …

Review/update every 6 years

Risk Assessment

RISK = Is there a risk that the good status cannot be achieved at the end of the planning period?

Article 5 Risk assessment"Good status in YYYY + 5 ?

Status complianceassessment

YYYY

RBMP x

RBMP x+1

Year

The Conceptual Model/Understanding

Point SourcesDiffuse Effects on GW-body scale

The Conceptual Model/UnderstandingSimple version

The Conceptual Model/UnderstandingKey element for WFD implementation

WFD groundwater monitoring

Chemical Monitoring Surveillance Monitoring (= screening of all GW-bodies)

At least once every 6 years Many parameters To validate risk assessment To assess long term trends

Operational Monitoring (GWB at risk) At least once per year Core parameters + parameters causing risk To assess trends and trend reversal To confirm chemical status

Quantitative Monitoring all GW-bodies Core parameters (water level,…)

Surveillance Monitoring

Operational

Operational

Operational

Operational

Operational

Chemical MonitoringKey principles

Selection of sites – Multi-purpose monitoring Conceptual model and hydrogeological characteristics Combining requirements for e.g.

Nitrate Directive, Drinking Water Protected Area Monitoring,

Selection of parameters Based on Risk assessment and pressures/impact analysis

Selection of monitoring frequency Groundwater susceptibility and pollutant behaviour

Sampling and Analysis Sampling methods and sample handling Field and laboratory measurement

Quality assurance at each single step

Status assessmentEnvironmental objectives

Quantity Balance between natural recharge and abstractions

Chemistry No saline or other intrusion Compliance with numerical quality standards No diminution of associated aquatic ecosystems No deterioration of dependent terrestrial ecosystems

Trends Reversal of significant sustained upward trends

23

Quality standards – Threshold values

Quality standards Nitrates 50 mg/l Pesticides 0.1 µg/l Total pesticides 0.5 µg/l

Threshold values (= national standards) All parameters causing risk Consider needs of receptors (drinking water, ecosystems, agriculture..) Consider natural background levels (geological background)

24

Status Assessment

Programmes of Measures

Measures designed to

Achieve good status

Protect waters,

Control abstraction,

Prevent and control point & diffuse source of pollution

Prohibition, permits, investigation

Periodic reviews of authorisations / registrations based on regular monitoring

WaterFrameworkDirective

2000

BathingWater Directive

1976/2006

NitratesDirective

1991

Urban Waste Water Directive 1991

Drinking Water

Directive 1998

IPPCDirective 1996

PrioritySubstances

Directive2008

GroundwaterDirective

2006

FloodsDirective

2007

One coherent management frameCoordination of all other measures

BirdsDirective

1979

SevesoDirective 1996

Env. ImpactAssessment

Directive 1985

Sewage SludgeDirective 1986

PlantProtectionProductsDirective

1991

HabitatsDirective 1992

QA/QCDirective

2009

River Basin Management Plan (RBMP)Content

Identification and Characterisation

Analysis of pressures and impacts (Risk assessment),

Economic analysis,

Results of monitoring,

Appropriate measures (protection, control, remediation) in the form of basic measures (linked to effective implementation of parent legislation)

and

supplementary measures (e.g. different specific instruments, economic incentives, research, education etc

Consider result of public participation

Updates every 6 years;

Source: Ministry of the environment, Québec, Canada

Management instrument for the river basin

Make inventory, identify gaps and improve

Clear steps and clear schedule

Stepwise, cyclic approach, helps focusing efforts

Conclusions - Benefits of WFD

Considers regional variation

Source: Ministry of the environment, Québec, Canada

All waters + protected areas

Public participation

Quality & quantity

All users / Sectoral policies / Scientific community

Conclusions - Needs for integration

Transboundary co-operation

Cooperation = administrative and technical level;Regular meetings

Share experience and best practice

Facilitate exchange of data and information

Make use of existing guidance and adapt to local needs

Bilateral agreements needed

Consider amendments of administrative structure

Conclusions (3/3) Lessons learnt

International Cooperationin Water Management

Experiences from the Danube River Basin

Significant water management issues

Vision and management objectives

Criteria & Multi-lateral agreement

Identification of transboundary GWBs

Templates

Common characterisation and risk assessment

Templates

Coordinated monitoring (data exchange)

Criteria, Rules, Templates

Data analysis &Status presentation

ReportingRBMP, yearbooks

Joint Programme of Measures

Groundwater Management

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Nutrient Pollution

Danube River Protection Convention

Secretariat

Task Groups

Observer organisations

Public participation

Joint Programme of Measures

National Measures

Access to information

Heads of Delegation

Visions and management objectives

Good Groundwater Status

Expert Groups

• High political committment• Common legal basis• Administrative body (ICPDR)• Common objectives• Clear hierarchie• Clear responsibilities• Data exchange• Full transparency

34

Contact & Information

Andreas Scheidleder

andreas.scheidleder@umweltbundesamt.at

Tel.: +43 1 31304 3541

Umweltbundesamtwww.umweltbundesamt.at ■ Paris, April 2013