ImplementationImplementationof theof the

Water Framework DirectiveWater Framework Directive

- Uncertainty issues - - Uncertainty issues -

Michiel Blind, RWS-RIZA

Three key messagesThree key messages

Including uncertainty is recommended, even required by the Water Framework Directive– What is stated in the legal text and supporting documents?

Uncertainty is a fact of (WFD) life– Several examples of uncertainties at various stages of the

implementation

HarmoniRiB’s products support integrated uncertainty assessment – Few examples of HarmoniRiB case studies

3

Message # 1Message # 1

Including uncertainty is recommended, even required by the Water Framework Directive

Based on:

Blind and de Blois within HarmoniRiB

Siegel within HarmoniRiB

WFD legal documentWFD legal document

section 1.3: (iv) [reference network] The network shall contain a sufficient number of sites of high status to provide a sufficient level of confidence about the values for the reference conditions, given the variability in the values of the quality elements corresponding to high ecological status for that surface water body type and the modelling techniques which are to be applied under paragraph (v).

(Research) Questions:– What is a sufficient level of confidence?– … and how to determine than the sufficient number of

sites?– Who determines this?

WFD legal documentWFD legal document

section 1.3: (v) Type-specific biological reference conditions based on modelling may be derived using either predictive models or hindcasting methods. The methods […] shall provide a sufficient level of confidence about the values for the reference conditions […]

(Research) Questions:– What is a sufficient level of confidence?– Who determines this?

CIS guidelinesCIS guidelines You will need to complete the first analyses, using appropriate

estimates for pressures and impacts but you should be aware, and take account, of the uncertainties in the environmental conditions […] (IMPRESS)

In brief, uncertainties in classification need to explicitly address the question of “what is the probability that a site is assigned to the wrong class?” (RefCond)

“Uncertainty on costs, effectiveness and time-lagged effects of measures needs to be dealt with throughout the economic analysis process, […]” (WATECO)

(Research) Questions:– Which uncertainties need to be included? – How do you determine uncertainties and probabilities?– Which costs need to be included?

CIS GuidelinesCIS Guidelines

“… the required positional accuracy for the reporting is set to a minimum of 1000 meters […] in the short-term, while at the same time it is strongly recommended to strive for a positional accuracy of 125 meters […] in the long-term.“ (GIS)

“compliance with good groundwater chemical status shall be demonstrated by the upper confidence limit of the arithmetic mean (AM) with a confidence level of 1-alpha of 95 %” (GWD)

CIS GuidelinesCIS Guidelines

Look out! Risk assessment is one of the main tool of the river basin planning process (Proclan)

ConclusionsConclusions Including uncertainty is recommended, even Including uncertainty is recommended, even

required by the Water Framework Directiverequired by the Water Framework Directive

WFD legal text requires dealing with uncertainties & risks

CIS guidance documents recommend dealing with uncertainty, risk and models

However: – “Given our current WFD ambition we do not need al these

details, given that we exactly know what is required” (oral communication with a water manager)

– Uncertainty about EC’s position regarding enforcing these requirements (political uncertainty)

10

Message # 2Message # 2

Uncertainty is a fact of (WFD) life

Based on:

Brouwer, R., Uncertainties in the economic analysis of the European Water Framework Directive, HarmoniRiB, 2005

Role of economics in the WFD cycleRole of economics in the WFD cycle(WATECO, 2002)(WATECO, 2002)

Uncertainty in the basin characterisationUncertainty in the basin characterisationReallocating Gross Regional ProductReallocating Gross Regional Product

Mismatch between administrative boundaries

Uncertainty due to allocation

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Ems Scheldt Meuse Rhine-Central

Rhine-East

Rhine-North

Rhine-West

Basin (district)

Gro

ss

re

gio

na

l pro

du

ct

NAMWARiB

Basin area size

Corop area size

Uncertainty allocating emissions Uncertainty allocating emissions to economic sectorsto economic sectors

Example sources from the national emission registration

– Recreational shipping– Traffic– Atmospheric depositions

Economic sectors

– Agriculture– Industry– Service

Baseline and future scenario’sBaseline and future scenario’s(trends in supply and demand)(trends in supply and demand)

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

1000

in

hab

itan

tsRegional prediction Trend from the past

Population growth Scheldt

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

1000

ha

Regional prediction Trend from the past

Arable land Scheldt

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Pro

du

ctio

n (

bln

€)

CPB prediction Trends from the past

Chemical industry Scheldt

Scenario’s: Other uncertaintiesScenario’s: Other uncertainties

Technological uncertainties– What will tomorrow bring? – How fast will technology be taken up?

Political uncertainties– What is the prevailing policy?– What changes if times change to the better or the worse?

Uncertainty in cost effective programmes of measuresUncertainty in cost effective programmes of measures

uncertainty in cause - effectuncertainty in cause - effect

Manure discharge Overflow Influent Effluent

Untreated discharge

Su

rface water

Waste Water

Treatment Plant

Municipal Sewerage System

Industry

Bathers

Boats

Marinas

Agriculture

Households

Horses

Birds

Runoff from promenade

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Untre

ated

sewer

age

CSO w

ithout

mea

sure

s

CSO w

ith m

easu

res

WW

TP

Man

ure fr

om fa

rm

Man

ure fr

om la

nd

Man

ure fr

om c

attle

drin

king

Mar

inas

Recre

atio

nal b

oats

Comm

ercia

l ship

s

Pets o

n sit

e

Bathe

rs

Bird co

lonies

Inte

rnatio

nal riv

ers

Not id

entifi

ed

Estimated relative contribution of pollution source to overall bacteriological bathing water contamination

Ignorance?

Not identified = unknown…

Uncertainty in cost effectiveness of Uncertainty in cost effectiveness of individual measuresindividual measures

Uncertainty in dose-effect relationships Uncertainty in costs Social uncertainty (effects on different actors, acceptance,

behaviour) Political uncertainty

– Undesired political side-effects– Time needed for implementation

Uncertainty in cost effectiveness of Uncertainty in cost effectiveness of individual measuresindividual measures

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14R

edu

ctio

n c

olo

ny

form

ing

un

its

(cfu

) /

€

Without Uncertainty With Uncertainty

Message # 2Message # 2Uncertainty is a fact of (WFD) lifeUncertainty is a fact of (WFD) life

Demonstrated– Spatial reallocation problems– Sectoral allocation problems– Scenario’s– Cause-effect– Cost effectiveness

Other– Political uncertainty, e.g. policy choices on cost recovery– Planning process uncertainties, e.g. involvement of stakeholders– Social / behavioural uncertainty – Raw data uncertainty– Integrated uncertainty– …

20

Message # 3Message # 3

HarmoniRiB’s products support integrated uncertainty assessment

HarmoniRiB’s key productsHarmoniRiB’s key products

Comprehensive guidelines regarding assessment of data uncertainty

Comprehensive software to assess and work with data uncertainties

A database that can hold uncertainties Various methodological documents:

– Uncertainty & models– Uncertainty in scaling– Framing the decision making problem

8 case studies of integrated uncertainty assessment

Case study example - GeropotamouCase study example - Geropotamou

Some pictures

Geropotamou past and futureGeropotamou past and future

Business as usual scenarioBusiness as usual scenario

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Oct-77

Oct-78

Oct-79

Oct-80

Oct-81

Oct-82

Oct-83

Oct-84

Oct-85

Oct-86

Oct-87

Oct-88

Oct-89

Oct-90

Oct-91

Oct-92

Oct-93

Oct-94

Oct-95

Oct-96

Oct-97

Oct-98

Oct-99

Oct-00

Oct-01

Time (months)

Ele

vati

on A

bove

sea

leve

l (m

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Pre

cipit

atio

n (

mm

)

Uncertainty in Groundwater level

Precipitation (mm)

Ground elevation (m)

Well Observations (m)

Simulated Groundwater level (m)

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Sep-02

Mar-03

Sep-03

Mar-04

Sep-04

Mar-05

Sep-05

Mar-06

Sep-06

Mar-07

Sep-07

Mar-08

Sep-08

Mar-09

Sep-09

Mar-10

Sep-10

Mar-11

Sep-11

Mar-12

Sep-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

Sep-14

Mar-15

Time (months)

Ele

vati

on a

sl (

m)

01002003004005006007008009001000

Prec

ipita

tion

(mm

)

CS 2 Uncertainty CS 1 Uncertainty Precipitation (mm) Groundwater level observations (m) Ground elevation (m)

Regge effects for different types of Regge effects for different types of hydrological yearshydrological years

N summer averaged concentration for decrease of fertilisation and WWTP discharges

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

N c

on

cen

trat

ion

(m

g/l

)

1999 2015 2031

Average year Dry year Wet year

1997 2013 1993 19962029 2009 2025 2012 2028

N summer averaged concentration for decrease of fertilisation and WWTP discharges

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

N c

on

cen

trat

ion

(m

g/l

)

1999 2015 2031

Average year Dry year Wet year

1997 2013 1993 19962029 2009 2025 2012 2028

N summer averaged concentration for reduction of fertilisation and WWTP discharges

Regge: 2015 resultsRegge: 2015 results

Status Costs Further criteria Criteria

Alternative

Nitrate conc. (mg/l)

Phosphate conc. (mg/l)

Costs (million€)

Side effects

Public support

Acceptance Brussels

1. Baseline scenario 3.08-4.51 0.44-0.59 0 0 0 -- 2. Reduction of fertilization

2.52-2.86 0.41-0.47 175-2,500 -/-- -- -

3. Increase of storage cap.

3.07-4.26 0.44-0.59 62-89 -/+ -/0 --/-

4. Reduction of WWTP discharges

2.24-3.64 0.30-0.45 70-231 0 -/+ -/0

5. Reduction of fertilization and WWTP discharges

1.69-2.02 0.26-0.32 245-2,500 --/- --/- 0/-

6. Combination of all measures

1.72-1.86 0.27-0.33 307-2,500 --/+ --/- 0/-

Important: Study purpose is proof of concept / testing

26

Message # 3Message # 3 HarmoniRiB’s products support HarmoniRiB’s products support

integrated uncertainty assessmentintegrated uncertainty assessment

Examples provided all used:

Uncertainty guidance

Data uncertainty engine

HarmoniRiB database

Relate to WFD issues

…

Concluding remarksConcluding remarks

Three key messages– Including uncertainty is recommended, even

required by the Water Framework Directive– Uncertainty is a fact of (WFD) life– HarmoniRiB’s products support integrated

uncertainty assessment

The reality…

28

Thank youThank you