pilot river basin outcome report · 2006. 4. 18. · pilot river basin outcome report 1 this...

112
COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (2000/60/EC) PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT 2005 EUR: 21518 EN Testing of the WFD Guidance Documents. PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT

Upload: others

Post on 19-Jan-2021

7 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

(2000/60/EC)

PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT

2005 EUR: 21518 EN

Testing of the WFD Guidance Documents.

PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT

Page 2: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General
Page 3: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1

This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centreand the Directorate General Environment of the European Commission

based on the work carried out by participants in the exercise:

• CECINA (IT)• GUADIANA - Portuguese part- (PT)• JUCAR (ES)• MARNE (FR)• MOSEL-SAAR (BE, FR, DE and LU)

• NEISSE (CS, DE and PL)• ODENSE (DA)• OULUJOKI (FI)• PINIOS (EL) • RIBBLE (EN)

• SOMES/SZAMOS (HU and RO)• SCHELDT (BE, FR, NL)• SHANNON (IE)• SULDALSVASSDRAGET (NO)• TEVERE (IT)

Edited By: Lorenzo Galbiati, Josè Manuel Zaldivar, Francesca Somma, Faycal Bouraoui,

Marta-Cristina Moren-Abat, Giovanni Bidoglio and Joachim D’Eugenio.

2005 EUR: 21518 EN

Page 4: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General
Page 5: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 3

LEGAL NOTICENeither the European Commission nor any person

acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible forthe use which might be made of the following information.

A great deal of additional information on theEuropean Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server

(http://europa.eu.int)

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publication of the European CommunitiesISBN 92-894-8980-4

© European Communities, 2005Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged

Printed in Italy

Page 6: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

4 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

INDEX

INDEX:Structure of the document.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Pilot River Basin Exercise general introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Structure of the PRB exercise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Main aims of the PRB testing exercise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Context of the PRB testing: a rich diversity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

CHAPTER 1: Introducing Phase 1a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13CHAPTER 2: Outcome of the testing, Phase 1a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.1. How to deal with Guidance Documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.2. Usefulness of Guidance Documents (in general and specific GDs).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.3. Transversal issues – coherence between Guidance Documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.4.Practical Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

CHAPTER 3. Conclusion and recommendations, Phase 1a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

CHAPTER 4. Introduction, Phase 1b. Linking Phase 1a and Phase 1b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274.1 Critical improvements/developments since Phase 1a by Guidance Document. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274.2 New perspectives/lessons learnt since Phase 1a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

CHAPTER 5. Outcome of the testing, Phase 1b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315.1 Interlinkages between Guidance Documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315.2 Transversal issues – coherence between Guidance Documents.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315.3 Other issues/other approaches (implementation). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

CHAPTER 6. Conclusion and recommendations, Phase 1b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

ANNEX I: Case studies.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Case studies Phase 1a.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Odense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Oulujoki. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Mosel-Saar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Marne. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Neisse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Shannon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Jucar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Suldal.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Tevere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Ribble. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Case studies Phase 1b.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Tevere. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Suldal.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Odense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Shannon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Page 7: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

ANNEX II: Summarized experiences of the PRBs with Guidance Document. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Summarized experiences oh the PRBs with Guidance Document, Phase 1a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

GD: Pressures and impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75General issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Key issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

GD: Reference Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77General issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Key issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

GD: COAST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80General issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Key Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

GD:. WATECO.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82General Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Key Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

GD: Tools on assesment and classification of GW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85General issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Key issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

GD: Public Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86General issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86Key issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Summarized experiences of the PRBs with Guidance Document, Phase 1b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89GD: Heavily modified water bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

General Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Key Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

GD: Intercalibration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92General issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Key Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

GD: Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92General issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Key Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

GD: Public Participation in Phase 1b of the PRB exercise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95GD: Implementing the Geographic Information System (GIS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Key Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98General Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

GD: Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101GD: Horizontal Guidance Document on Wetland.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

General Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Key Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 5

Page 8: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General
Page 9: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 7

During the PRB exercise, two reports for Phase 1a and 1b were produced. These documents areavailable on CIRCA under: Pilot River Basin/PRB Outcome Report – Phase1a, and Pilot RiverBasin/PRB Outcome Report – Phase1b.These documents presented the PRB exercise, its main aims and the structure chosen for itsimplementation. After completing Phase1b it was decided to merge the two reports in a uniquedocument reporting the overall experiences, conclusions and recommendations coming from thePRB exercise.

The merged document maintains the subdivision of the exercise in two phases. After a generalintroduction, the results coming from Phase 1a are presented in three chapters:1) INTRODUCING Phase 1a2) OUTCOME OF TESTING: Phase 1a3) CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMMENDATIONS: Phase 1a

The same structure is used to present the results coming from Phase 1b of the testing:1) INTRODUCING Phase 1b, Linking Phase 1a and Phase 1b2) OUTCOME OF TESTING: Phase 1b3) CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMMENDATIONS: Phase 1b

At the end of these six chapters two ANNEXES are included:

ANNEX I, which is a collection of the case studies proposed by the PRBs to illustrate the procedureand the work carried out during the testing of the GDs. This annex is divided in two parts reportingcase studies for Phase 1a and then case studies for Phase 1b, respectively.

ANNEX II, which is a summary of the answers to the ToR given by the PRBs for each GDs, in orderto highlight the main outcome for each of them 1.

STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT

1 A third ANNEX collecting the complete answers given by each PRBs during the testing of each GDs is only available in electronic format.The document is available for downloading on CIRCA under: Pilot River Basin/ Answers to the ToR – Phase 1a and Phase 1b.

Page 10: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

8 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

Several countries have proposed river basins andassociated coastal zones within their territorytaking into account the following objectives:• Cover the maximum number of Ecoregions• Commitment and resources for testing the

GDs in this voluntary exercise• Participation of local, regional and national

competent authorities, i.e. water managementadministrations

• Active involvement of NGOs and stakeholders• Dealing with the maximum number of

pressures and environmental problems• Include transboundary river basins with all the

involved partners

PILOT RIVER BASIN EXERCISE, GENERAL INTRODUCTION

PILOT RIVER BASIN EXERCISE, GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Figure 1.

The Pilot River

Basin Network.

During the 2001/2002 Common ImplementationStrategy (CIS) of the Water Framework Directive(WFD) a series of Guidance Documents (GDs)concerning all major aspects of its implementationwere developed by Working Groups (WGs)including representatives of Member States (MSs),Accession Countries, National experts and theEuropean Commission.In order to test and cross validate these GDs, anetwork of Pilot River Basins (PRBs) has beenestablished. It was foreseen that such a networkwould contribute to the implementation of theWFD, leading in the long-term to thedevelopment of River Basin Management Plans.

Page 11: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Directors in June 2004.• Phase 1b, focused on testing the GuidanceDocuments not addressed during the previousphase, and on finishing the testing on severalissues not included in Art.5, i.e. some parts ofHeavily Modified Water Bodies, ReferenceConditions and Public Participation;Intercalibration, Monitoring, GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), Planning Process,and Wetlands. Other specific issues emergedin Phase 1a, were considered in this phase.

• Phase 2, start at the beginning of 2005, will builtup upon the experience gained in Phase 1 andit is expected to cover the period 2005-2006.The detailed Work Programme for this phaseis being developed. Key issues for this periodwill emerge from the analysis of the reportsfrom PRBs on Art.5 implementation 2.

GDs reflect the EU common understanding of theWFD implementation and, hence, they areaddressed to the national-strategic level of MSsrather than to the regional or local-operationallevel. For this reason, some MSs have developedtheir own national guidelines, sometime based onspecific WFD GDs in their national languageand with references to regional/local data sourcesof information. Where possible this report makesappropriate references to these documents.The GDs are available at the following address:http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/water-framework/implementation.html

Main aims of the PRB testing exerciseFor both Phase 1a and Phase 1b, a Terms ofReference (ToR) document was developed. Thesedocuments focus on Key Issues which WG leadersfelt to be of particular relevance when developingthe GDs. In the document three main objectiveswere set out for the PRB exercise:1. to test whether the GDs responds to the needs

of the PRBs; 2. to test whether the inter-linkages between the

GDs are sufficiently developed; and3. to disseminate valuable learning experiences from

the PRB exercise but also to point out similarexperiences from outside these experience.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 9

• Represent data availability in MS.Initial Pilot River testing of the GDs started in2003 and was finished by the end of 2004.Similarly to the rest of the WFD-CIS process thePRB testing is a common exercise of theCommission and Member States. The Institute forEnvironment and Sustainability of the JointResearch Centre (IES-JRC) acts as the technicalsecretariat, and constitutes a part of the WorkingGroup 2B for Integrated River BasinManagement co-lead by France and Spain.

The Pilot River Basin network has been joined by15 river basins all across Europe: Cecina (Italy),Guadiana - Portuguese part (Portugal), Jucar(Spain), Marne (France), Mosel-Saar (Belgium,France, Germany, Luxembourg), Neisse (CzechRepublic, Germany, Poland), Odense (Denmark),Oulujoki (Finland), Pinios (Greece), Ribble (UK),Somes/Szamos (Hungary, Romania), Scheldt(Belgium, France, The Netherlands), Shannon(Ireland), Suldalsvassdraget (Norway) and Tevere(Italy). The geographical location of the PilotRiver Basins is presented in Figure 1.

STRUCTURE OF THE PRB EXERCISEThe PRB exercise was structured into two phases:• Phase 1, has as main objective the testing of

GDs, and included two parts:• Phase 1a focused on the implementation ofArticle 5 of the Directive and tested the GuidanceDocuments affected by this Article (Water BodiesIdentification, Pressures and Impacts, and someparts of Heavily Modified Water Bodies,Reference Conditions, Coast, PublicParticipation, and Economics). The decision totest in advance Art. 5 related GDs was takenbecause the implementation of the WFD wasalready taking place in many countries, whichhad to report to the Commission on specificissues of the Directive Annexes in a relativelyshort time. Furthermore, the horizontal GD onIdentification of Water Bodies was a base for thetesting of the other GDs. Phase 1a was finalisedby end 2003, and the report compiling theoutcome has been presented to the Water

2 The document is available for downloading on CIRCA under: Pilot River Basin/PRB Outcome Report – Phase 1a/PRB Outcome Report- Testing of Art.5 related GDs/PRB Outcome Report - Testing of Art.5 related GDs.pdf

Page 12: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

10 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

testing the GDs was to have several levels ofdata availability to assess the use of differentapproaches, from the application of validatedmodels at the basin scale, to statistical analysisof existing data, to expert judgement wheredata is scarce or not available. For example,the Odense river – small, few authorities,agricultural- has relatively long historical dataseries due to the appearance in 1973 of the firstDanish Environmental Protection Act,whereas the National Surface QualityMonitoring Network organized by the GreekMinistry of Environment, Physical Planningand Public works was designed in 1992 andconsequently the Pinios river basin has muchless historical information available.

However, after Phase 1a became clear that certainissues were common to practically all PRBs,therefore they were considered also in Phase 1b:• Agriculture and hydromorphology as recurrent

topics, despite geographical distribution; inpractically all PRBs intensive agricultureconstitutes one of the major pressures againstthe achievement of the environmentalobjectives in the WFD. It is becoming clear toall PRB participants that a strong link betweenWFD and CAP (Common Agricultural Policy)is urgently needed. For example, the OdensePRB has recognised diffuse pollution fromagricultural origin as one of the major issues totackle, hampering achievement ofenvironmental objectives; in the Shannon PRB,with 73% of the watershed area devoted to thisactivity, agriculture constitutes a majorpressure. Furthermore, the problem of strongregulation of the basin for hydropowergeneration is considered as a major problemnot only in North (Suldalsvassdraget, Oulujoki)but also in Mediterranean (Tevere, Jucar).

• Certain pressures seem to have a stronggeographical connotation: issues related towater over-exploitation and increased tourismpressure during the summer period is relevantin all Mediterranean PRBs (Guadiana, Jucar,Cecina, Pinios and Tevere). Furthermore, dueto climate change impacts, it is expected thatthese pressures can only increase.

• The implementation of the WFD will haveprofound implications in the management of

Context of the PRB testing: a rich diversityThe most striking feature found in the PRBexercise is the rich diversity encountered, whichin turn reflects the enormous disparity that onewill have to expect during actual implementationof the WFD. This diversity has several aspects thatneed comment:• Geographical distribution: the PRBs cover

twelve of the 25 ecoregions for rivers andlakes and four of the 6 ecoregions fortransitional waters and coastal waters definedby the WFD: Annex XI, maps A and B,respectively. For example, Iberic-Macronesianregion for rivers and lakes is represented by theGuadiana-Portuguese side-and the Jucar rivers,whereas Baltic Sea for transitional and coastalwaters is represented by the Oulujoki river.Furthermore, the pilot river basins cover awide range of sizes from 900 Km2 of theCecina (small, Mediterranean, few authoritiesand high degree of participation) to 37170Km2 and 22436 Km2 of the Scheldt(international, highly industrialised, manyauthorities, complex river management,involvement of politic) and Jucar respectively.

• Transboundarity: one important characteristicto consider concerns the trans-national versusthe national character of the testing. This isrelated mainly to the amount of additionalwork needed to co-ordinate the activity betweenseveral MSs and CC, language barriers,disparity on management approaches and dataavailability. In the PRB exercise there are fourtransboundary pilot river basins: Mosel-Saar(Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg),Neisse (Czech Republic, Germany, Poland),Scheldt (Belgium, France, The Netherlands)and Somes-Szamos (Hungary and Romania).For example, the Neisse has different watermanagement systems, which makes datadifficult to compare.

• Pressures: there is a rich variety from theSuldalsvassdraget with a scattered populationwithin the basin area amounting to approx.3000 persons but with a strong regulation ofthe basin for hydropower generation (the riveraccounts for a 5.4% of total Norwegianelectricity production) to the Marne with 2.8million inhabitants.

• Existing data: another important aspect when

PILOT RIVER BASIN EXERCISE, GENERAL INTRODUCTION

Page 13: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

monitoring networks. For example, in Italy theMinistry of Environment is in charge of theimplementation of the WFD, and of themanagement of Protected Areas; however,monitoring of drinking and bathing watersis under the domain of the Ministry of Health.In Norway, the responsibility for monitoringand management of waters are fragmentedinto several ministries and national authorities.

An overview of the GDs that have been tested bythe PRBs during the overall Phase 1 is presentedin Table1. Some of the GDs already tested inPhase 1a have been re-assessed in Phase 1b forsome aspects not previously covered. Specifically,Public Participation has been included, but onegenerally, VFD implementation should beconsidered as an iterative process aiming atrefining the results as data, analysis and newstructures are developed.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 11

water resources in EU. Such conclusion hasalready been reached in transboundary PRBs(Mosel-Saar, Neisse, Scheldt, Somes-Szamos)where new management structures have beendeveloped to address common issues in theWFD implementation. Furthermore, the WFDcalls for an integrated approach to waterissues and, as a consequence, several activitiesthat are administered independently byNational, regional and local administrationsin PRBs will have to be coordinated atwatershed level. For example, in Franceownership of hydrological data is administeredby both the IGN (National GeographicInstitute) and the Ministry of Ecology andSustainable Development. Such jointmanagement could generate some problems inFrench PRBs, e.g. in Marne, for the reportingof results produced for the WFD. Suchfragmentation is also typical in the case of

Table 1: Overview of GDs tested by the PRBs

Page 14: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General
Page 15: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 13

Phase 1a of the PRB exercise is focusing onimplementation of the first requirement of theDirective (Article 5) tested the GuidanceDocuments affected by this Article (Water BodiesIdentification, Pressures and Impacts, and someparts of Heavily Modified Water Bodies,Reference Conditions, Coast, Public Participation,and Economics). The decision to test in advanceArt.5 related GDs was taken because the

implementation of the WFD is already takingplace in many countries, which will have to reportto the Commission on specific issues of theDirective Annexes in a relatively short time.Furthermore, the horizontal GD on Identificationof Water Bodies was a base for the testing of theother GDs. Phase 1a was finalised by end 2003,and the report compiling the outcome has beenpresented to the Water Directors in June 2004.

2.1. HOW TO DEAL WITH GUIDANCEDOCUMENTSThe first question to answer in the PRB testingwas: do the guidance documents respond to theneeds of the river basins? This issue is brieflydiscussed in section 2.2, starting with the generalusefulness of guidance documents. Although theexpectation in advance was that this matterwould be the main subject of this report, thePRBs did not experience much trouble withindividual GDs. In section 2.3 the second issue,on the linkages between guidance documents isdiscussed. Because of the time constraints, thedifferent WFD issues were dealt with in differentworking groups when drafting the GDs. Howdo these GDs work out when applied together?Finally, a lot of the lessons learned were notforeseen when starting with the PRB exercise.These issues are discussed in section 2.4.

2.2. USEFULNESS OF GUIDANCEDOCUMENTS (IN GENERAL AND SPECIAL GDS)In general the GDs were very well received, andtheir usefulness acknowledged. However, as theseGDs aimed at providing some general direction,many PRBs highlighted a need for more specificdocuments. As a general comment, it seems thatthese sets of guidance documents are now part of

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCING PHASE 1A

CHAPTER 2: OUTCOME OF THE TESTING, PHASE 1A

a large body of available information concerningthe implementation of the WFD. During thetesting phase it has been seen that many sourcesof information and guidance are used to achievea successful implementation of the WFD relativeto Art.5. There were some efforts on transnationalbasins to use similar sets of information includingnational documents, however additionalcollaboration will be needed to reach consensus.There was no major issue raised concerningdifferences in interpretation. This testing phase isseen as a screening exercise, while a more refinedapproach will only be possible once impactthreshold criteria are defined. Indeed thesethresholds will be the key issues for identifying thewater bodies at risk of not meeting good ecologicalstatus, and thereafter in the development of theRiver Basin Management Plans. It is expectedthat more questions will arise once the issue ofthresholds is tackled.

During the testing there were noissues related to differences ininterpretation. However, this mightchange when the issues of thresholdsand references conditions aretackled.

Page 16: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

14 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

Concerning reference conditions,some PRBs are favouring theadoption of legislative definitionwhile other PRBs prefer a moretechnical definition.

National versus WFD/CIS GDsThe concern for the national implementation ofthe WFDs lead to the development of guidelinesthat were available prior to the elaboration of theGDs developed in the framework of the CommonImplementation Strategy of the WFD. Twoofficial documents, one German and the otherFrench, are actually available. The GermanDocument produced by LAWA was publishedin 2002 and deals with the implementation of thewhole WFD. In substance this document is similarin intention as the GDs produced in theframework of the CIS, and “is intended to makethe complex structure of the Directive easier tounderstand for enforcement purposes acrossGermany, to ensure a uniform approach toimplementing the Directive and to avoid anyduplication of effort” (LAWA, 2002). The Frenchdocument was also produced in an effort toensure a harmonised compliance with Art.5 of theWFD throughout France. Spain in addition hasalso produced a Manual for conducting ananalysis of Pressures and Impact on Surface waterpollution. This illustrates the need of the MSs toproduce documents readily usable by localmanagers that take into account the specificity ofthe country, including the administrativeenvironment. This is also reflected in the PRBtesting where often a combination of nationaldocuments and CIS GDs were used.

CIS Guidance Documents wereefficiently used in conjunction withnational documents, as the latter aremore specific to certain regions, donot present a language barrier, andhave often been used for a long time.

The conceptual approaches proposed in the GDsseem to be very suitable for all PRBs. For instance,concerning the analysis of Pressures and Impacts,

CHAPTER 2: OUTCOME OF THE TESTING, PHASE 1A

Technical versus legislative quality standardsIt is known that triggering of threshold values ofinternal or external variables in the ecologicalsystem may affect the evaluation of the ecologicalstatus of the system. For this reason, the definitionof quality standards plays a vital role in the WFD. During the testing of the guidance documentsPRBs have stressed the difficulties encounteredcaused by the lack of existence of thresholds forimpact indicators. They felt also that there is alack of legislative thresholds, and thus thepreliminary testing of the GDs should also takeinto account the uncertainties linked with theabsence of these threshold values. However, manyof these thresholds, including those for prioritysubstances, are still under discussion and will beonly available in the coming years. A furtherdifficulty is that there is not always a directrelationship between pressures and impacts evenif threshold values exist.

All PRBs stressed the need forthresholds for impact indicators.There is thus the need to go more indetail respect to specific situation inthe definition of the threshold.Therefore MSs in addition to the EUthreshold used also national data as:monitoring data, both physico-chemical and biological, time seriesfor conducting the impact assessment.

The uncertainty embedded in the preliminaryanalysis of the pressure and impact will have tobe estimated, as they have major implication inthe identification of water bodies at risk of notmeeting the WFD requirements. As illustratedby some PRBs, these thresholds are likely to bedefined at MS-level, based both on scientific andpolitical considerations. Related to this aspect, reference conditions havethe same problem; their establishments in somecases are difficult since there are few pristinesites in Europe. Some countries, e.g. Italy, arediscussing the legislative definition of suchreference conditions or thresholds whereas othercountries consider that a technical definitionneeds to be agreed.

Page 17: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

MSs with valuable insight on how to complywith the Art.5 requirements, and the other basinswill greatly benefit if the testing is conducted asa real case study rather than a “virtual exercise”,as the results should provide clear solutions to theproblems encountered during the realimplementation of the WFD. It should be notedthat many PRBs are also involved at a broaderlevel in the National Implementation of the WFD,and that some of the results of the testing areonly sub-sets of results produced at a much largerscale. For instance, the tools and methodologiesused for Marne PRB cost recovery analysis derivefrom the works already led at the scale of SeineNormandy basin. Strategies and results developedin the PRB projects can also be modelled onfuture national activities. In the Neisse PRBvirtual approaches from the project wereexpanded to a larger scale of other river basins inthe three countries involved.

Many PRBs approached the testingas a real life exercise from whichother river basins already startingthe implementation of the WFD willgreatly benefit.

Level of involvement of stakeholders and publicparticipationThe involvement of stakeholders and PublicParticipation (PP) in the testing exercise shouldbe done at two different levels: testing the publicparticipation GD – 9 PRBs committed to thistesting - and fostering the involvement ofstakeholders during the testing of all the GDs, asan horizontal activity applicable to all the PRBs.During the Art.5 phase there were two mainpositions regarding the involvement ofstakeholders. On one hand, most of the PRBsjudged that the PRB exercise (Phase 1a) was tooearly for stakeholders’ involvement; on the otherhand, some PRBs have started active stakeholderand public involvement at a very early stage,resulting in a satisfying response. The results of thiswas that there was a scarce involvement ofstakeholders in most of the PRBs and that only 2out the 9 PRBs testing the PP GD actually startedactive involvement of stakeholders.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 15

in most cases, the concept of DPSIR seemsappropriate. However, as the testing is still atan early stage, the response part of the analysishas not been performed. It is clear that theIMPRESS guidance document lists potential toolsfor carrying the Pressure and Impact analysis,however, PRBs are happier using tools for whichthey have already collected data, and where thewhole system has been set up and running. Theimpact of local conditions is most evident in thedefinition of the reference conditions and isstrongly controlled by the monitoring strategy inplace. Local expertise is often used in conjunctionwith existing data or modelling results to definereference conditions.The need to produce national guidancedocuments based on CIS documentation in thecontext of national legislation has been underlinedby many PRBs. However, agreement is requiredfor transboundary catchments. The experiencegained during the testing and the elaboration ofthe CIS Guidance Documents is being used duringthe development of the national guidance.

CIS Guidance Documents are veryuseful tools, and local adaptationwas often performed by the PRBsto take into account the national orregional specificity.

Real life versus virtual testingThe testing of the GDs by the PRBs is seen as afront-runner project that will serve for the realimplementation of the WFD. Many PRBs haverecognised this consideration expecially where theselected catchment is ahead of the nationalimplementation process. Many PRBs have takenthe approach that the GDs testing is to beconsidered as “real life testing” for variousreasons including economical and practicalconsiderations. Furthermore, time availablebetween “virtual test” and “real commitment”would be too short to capitalise on the PRBsexperience gained. For instance it was noted thatstakeholders would not be involved in testingthe GDs if such an exercise would be conductedas only virtual testing. Furthermore, it wasrecognised by the PRBs that testing will provide

Page 18: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

16 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

Characterisation and Economic Analysis.• Workshop on Economics

The workshop on Economics took place inParis on 9 - 10 October 2003. The workshopwas organised together with the Agence del’Eau Seine Normandie under the umbrella ofthe CIS. The purpose of the workshop was topresent experiences and examples from PRBsand other national case studies on theimplementation of the economic elements ofthe WFD and to hold a brainstorm session onkey economic issues related to theimplementation of the WFD. Presentationswere made by the Odense PRB on theirexperience of their economic assessment; theMarne PRB on baseline scenario and trendsanalysis; the Scheldt and Jucar PRBs on cost-recovery analysis (see extended Report onthe Workshop on Economics available onCIRCA under: Pilot River Basin/PRBOutcome Report – Phase 1a/ANNEXES).The document concentrates on the inputprovided by the PRBs and the key issuesraised during the workshop.

• Workshop on Initial Characterisation ofGroundwater BodiesUnder Art.5 of the WFD, MSs have to identifywater bodies by 22 December 2004 as part ofthe first characterisation of the river basin.Member States have to carry out an initialcharacterisation of all groundwater bodiesincluding their location and boundaries aswell as identifying pressures and groundwaterbodies at risk of failing to meet the objectivesof the WFD. A workshop on Groundwaterbodies’ characterisation took place in Brusselson 13 October 2003. The workshop wasorganised together with the Ground Watergroup under the umbrella of the CIS. Duringthe workshop the PRBs reported their firstexperiences when testing the ground waterpart of the Horizontal Guidance Document onthe Identification of Water Bodies. The detailedinformation on the initial characterisation atthe National and PRB levels is available onCIRCA under Pilot River Basin/PRB OutcomeReport – Phase 1a/ANNEXES, with anextended Report on the initial characterisationof Groundwater Bodies.

• Workshop on Water Body Delineation

The objective of public participation and stakeholderinvolvement is to bring together key partners, obtaininput of new ideas, share the ownership of theWFD implementation process, improve and focusthe delivery of results, align goals with stakeholders,manage expectations, raise awareness and identifyconflicts at an early stage, “before” confirming thedefinition of water bodies status.For example, the Ribble PRB considers this aspectessential to create a common vision of what onecan expect from the implementation of the WFDbetween stakeholders and public in general. Asoccer analogy for public participation from theRibble PRB is illustrated in the ANNEX I.To avoid confusion among stakeholders,Oulujoki PRB organised a workshop togetherwith officials from the recently established RiverBasin that included both a presentation of RiverBasin and the first results of the testing withinPRB Exercise.The viewpoint of the PRBs that did not involvestakeholders in the process, was to first define theprovisional objectives for the water bodies basedon actual conditions and then, when the watermanagers have a better idea of the type ofconflicts that are likely to appear, start theinvolvement of stakeholders. This is due mainlyto the amount of work river basins managershave to spend for developing the publicparticipation scheme required by the WFD. Forexample Odense PRB has stressed the need toreduce nutrient loading from agricultural originto fulfil good ecological status for 2015 and,hence, after this analysis, they have identified themain problem to be addressed together withstakeholders.Some problems emerge in the identification ofstakeholders at the international level, andespecially the level (regional, national,international) of involvement of the stakeholders.Furthermore, there is some disappointment asclear-cut answers are not always possible forvery specific questions. However, this dialogue iscrucial as it highlights potential future problems.

WorkshopsTo support the PRB exercise, a series ofworkshops were held during the second half of2003. The issues covered by the workshops wereSurface Water bodies Identification, Groundwater

CHAPTER 2: OUTCOME OF THE TESTING, PHASE 1A

Page 19: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

ordinated approach and to avoid duplicationof work. The WATECO and IMPRESS GDssupport this approach. However, during thePRBs testing the practical implementation ofthe economic analysis in many cases seems to bedisconnected from the pressures and impactsanalysis.

Even though an integrated testing ofthe various GDs, such as IMPRESSand WATECO, would have beengreatly beneficial, it seems that inmany PRBs the testing was conductedusing each GD individually.

Among the PRBs, different approaches wereapplied to link the pressure factors identified,impact on water resources and evaluation of costrecovery and economic impact. Generally all thePRBs report problems in developing cost recoveryevaluation at the same scale as that used for theidentification of pressures and impact factors.For example, Marne highlight how cost recoveryanalysis and pressure and impact analysis arenot easily comparable because:• Cost recovery analysis is done at a basin or sub

basin level and indicates the monetarytransfers between user categories (agriculture,industries, domestic).

• Pressure and impact analysis tries to estimatedifferent sources of pollution at the waterbody level.

Thus, cost recovery analysis does not need to beconducted at the same scale than pressure andimpact analysis. The Jucar River and theSomes/Szamos Basins both reported lack ofsuitable economic data at river basin scale, thisinformation being available only at the regionalscale. In the Scheldt transnational river basin theinformation related to IMPRESS and WATECOis plentiful, but the difference in scale at which thedata are available does not allow an economicevaluation and cost recovery analysis of thepressures and impacts. To deal with the scaleproblem the Tevere River Basin has used a “multi-step” approach. Using the pressure list of theIMPRESS guidance document the impact ofpressures were identified. In a second step, conflictbetween these pressures and the basin-specificuses of the water are identified and, on this base,

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 17

The workshop on Surface Water Bodies tookplace in Brussels on 25- 26 September 2003.The purpose of the workshop was to discussand analyse the experience gained in specificriver basins in Europe on the implementation ofthe WFD for the characterisation of surfacewater bodies. Under Art.5 of the WFD, MSshave to identify water bodies by 22 December2004 as part of the first characterisation of theriver basin. The water bodies are the units thatwill be used for reporting and assessingcompliance with the WFD environmentalobjectives. Twelve out of the 15 PRBs haveagreed to test the horizontal Guidance Documenton the identification of water bodies during2003. JRC based the discussion during the two-day meeting on the responses from 12 PRBs toa questionnaire drafted in early September 2003.The PRBs gave presentations on the differentapproaches used to delineate water bodies. Acomplete report on this workshop is available onCIRCA under Pilot River Basin/PRB OutcomeReport – Phase 1a/ANNEXES.

2.3. TRANSVERSAL ISSUES – COHERENCEBETWEEN GUIDANCE DOCUMENTSEconomics and pressuresDuring the Phase 1a testing, stress was placed onthe necessity to look at economic analysis ofwater uses in such a way as to provide a basis forthe assessments needed for WFDimplementation. At the same time, the approachneeded to consist of a first step in which a largevariety of water uses were considered beforefocussing on the most important ones. Throughthis work, PRBs learned that the content of theeconomic analysis should be driven by theinformation needed to answer the WFD GDsas well as by the availability of data. In thiscontext, it is crucial to link the work done on“pressures and impacts” and economics, in orderto improve decision-making in watermanagement and for the practicalimplementation of the WFD. During this phaseof the testing the PRBs used different approachesto consider jointly the economical evaluationof water uses and the pressures and impactanalysis. This transverse relationship should betaken into account in order to guarantee a co-

Page 20: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

18 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

quality of water resources. Considering theirsignificant impact on the water quality of theoutflow from the whole basin, the Cecina PRBhas also identified very small streams as WBs. Inthis case the IMPRESS Guidance was more usefulin the Water Bodies identification than thedesignation according to typology.

In many cases the IMPRESS GDresults to be a useful in tool in theidentification of water bodies withinthe overall basin. IMPRESS GD wasused both as the major factor insome PRBs to identify water bodiesand as one discriminatory factorapplied after having carried out thewater bodies delineation, accordingto ecological and natural criteria.

Some PRBs (i.e. the Walloon part of the ScheldtPRB and the Romanian part of the Somos PRB)have applied a combination of the biological statuscriteria and pressure analysis to identify WBs.Aggregation seems to be applied in most PRBsfor very small WBs if these are not under significantpressures. For example, the Suldal PRB has appliedaggregation to a large extent within the basin.The Suldal considered that if pressures and impactfactors within a water body do not significantlyimpact the ecological status, they are not taken intoconsideration for defining water body borders.

Bottlenecks in the planning processAll WGs and PRBs have been faced with theambitious and legally binding timetable of theDirective. In principle, deviation from thistimetable is not allowed and deadlines cannotbe postponed. Several WGs and PRBs felt that thetimetable, on the one hand, is tight and leaveslittle time to go through the issues in sufficientdetail and on the other hand that thechronological order of the deadlines is not alwayslogical when dealing with the practicalimplementation. This combination often resultsin bottlenecks.Analysis of the actions needed for implementationhas allowed the identification of some bottlenecks.For example, the incongruities in planning that

evaluation of economical impact and cost ofrecovery actions were evaluated. TheMoselle/Sarre River Basin used a similarapproach; the linkage between the pressures andimpacts analysis and the economics evaluationwas based on a national management plan, whichestablishes economic evaluation of the waterresources to be preserved.

When trying to link the testing ofvarious GDs, technical problemsappear, such as the scale issuebetween IMPRESS and WATECO.

Pressures and Water BodiesThe horizontal Water Bodies guidance gives acommon understanding of the definition of waterbodies and specific practical suggestions for theidentification of water bodies under the WFD.Guidance on the analysis of pressures and impactsaddresses the question related to the role of thisanalysis within the implementation process andhow it contributes to the characterisation ofwater bodies, which has to be fulfilled as part ofArt.5 of the Directive. It also shows how thisanalysis feeds into the development of monitoringprograms, River Basin Management Plans andPrograms of Measures. In this context thecoherence between the horizontal Water Bodies(WBs) Guidance and the IMPRESS Guidance isa key point in the implementation of the WFD.The PRBs have taken different approachestowards the relation between WBs delineationand IMPRESS analysis. For example the Mosel-Saar and Marne have begun identifying WBsusing as a first step only natural criteria.Subsequently pressure and impact criteria will beconsidered to achieve the delineation (and to splitas necessary the natural WBs) in order to obtainhomogeneous WBs according to both natural andpressure criteria. The PRB used a similar approachto evaluate the coherence between the IMPRESSand the WATECO GDs. They first identified thewater bodies, and then determined their typologyand finally the pressure and impact analysis wasused to identify water bodies which are size-significant but which can negatively affect the

CHAPTER 2: OUTCOME OF THE TESTING, PHASE 1A

Page 21: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

with data and tools currently available, butthese have to be used in a pragmatic mannerin order to meet the requirements of theDirective. Making the 2004 review is anopportunity to assess the data lacking andshortcomings to be resolved.

Most bottlenecks can be summarised into a fewbasic issues or deadlines within the Directive:• Objectives to be achieved are unclear. The

Directive refers to the achievement of “goodwater status” in 2015, which can be definedby the help of Annex II and V. At present thisinformation is general and needs to beelaborated and made operational. This workis planned to be finalised by 2004. As aconsequence it is hard to tell if a water bodyis at risk of failing the environmental qualityobjectives before 2004 (gap analysis) andwhich measures would need to be taken.

• Data availability. The monitoring programmewill unlikely be in place before 2006; hence recentand complete information (measured values) onparameters of importance to pressure and impactanalysis, settings reference conditions, definingecological class boundaries, intercalibration sites,and indirectly to the designation of heavilymodified water bodies, will only be availablefrom 2007. Also a low monitoring frequency isnot optimal. As a consequence assumptions willbe made about missing data, which increasesthe uncertainties in the analyses and affects thevalidity of the assessments.

The PRBs worked with three types of solutionsfor the bottlenecks, applied in an iterative process. • Use of existing information. In all PRBs, data

available resulting from the present watermanagement system was used, as well as thepresent thresholds (fixed via nationalprocedures).

• Expert judgement. A great part of the existingdata does not fit into the formal WFDstructures. With the use of expert judgement,estimations could be made on the implicationsof the present knowledge for the WFDrequirements.

• Working from coarse to detailed. Most PRBsstarted a process in which first the main lineswere drawn, and after that was zoomed inon the problems and gaps. This made aneffective use of (human) resources possible.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 19

occur when comparing the official deadlinerequirements of the Directive with a pragmaticapproach regarding the implementation. To ensurethese bottlenecks do not cause problems forimplementation, i.e. redundancy of work, theWG on Best Practices in Planning summarisedthe bottlenecks that have been identified by thedifferent WGs of the CIS Strategy.

Bottlenecks appeared during thetesting, as the chronological orderof the work is not always logical.For instance, the lack of informationon reference conditions made thepressure and impact analysisdifficult.

Some of the bottlenecks are specific to a MemberState or River Basins and are due to: lack offinancial or technical means, institutionalarrangements, priority setting, habits and/ortraditions.The following bottlenecks relevant to the firstphase of the RPB testing have been identified.• The lack of data for the first review and the

need for: existing information and data onpressures and impacts, a definition for thesignificant pressures, relation betweenpressures and impacts, baseline scenariosbefore estimating the forecasted impacts, the2015 objectives to assess the risk of failure.

• Data on reference conditions (RC) are aprerequisite for assigning ecologically relevanttypology.

• Need to start monitoring potential RC sitesbefore general monitoring programmes areoperational.

• Need for monitoring data from intercalibrationsites for calculating EQRs.

• Evaluation of the testing and review ofguidance will be too late for the 2005reporting of status.

• Typology, reference conditions and classboundaries are not available. Draft registerbased on expert judgement.

• Finishing intercalibration exercise beforemonitoring programmes are operational.

• The 2004 review of the GDs should be done

Page 22: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

20 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

time available for this first exercise has beenlimited to 6-9 months. Despite the ratherdemanding time constraints the large majorityof PRBs have delivered a general overview of theissues that other river basins may expect to beconfronted with when addressing with Art.5requirements. A recurrent issue is the time neededto start the assessment process. It requires apreparatory period to put in place a managementstructure, which often is not involving only publicauthorities and water managers but also,stakeholders, NGOs. Public involvement toestablish collaboration mechanisms and to gatherthe needed data that is often spread among severalregional/national administrations. The timeneeded to implement these steps should not beunderestimated. For example, in the case of PiniosRiver basin, this first step has been more timeconsuming than subsequent testing of the GDs orimplementing Art.5, since obtaining data ownedby several authorities was essential and raising theawareness of public in general and stakeholdersin particular required considerable effort.

Technical versus Political Art.5 reportOne point of discussion in the PRBs exerciseconcerning the first report on Art.5 have been thelevel of political involvement that should beincluded. Some PRBs considered that this reportis a pure technical testing report developed bywater managers and should not include anypolitical consideration. Other PRBs consideredthat this testing report has to be discussed at amore political rather than just technical level,because it had a close relation with the real

These three types of solutions were applied in aniterative process, working from the broadperspective full of uncertainty, to a more detailedview on the aspects that need attention.The combination of unclear objectives, missingdata and the first major deadline in 2004 (Art.5)made it nearly impossible to give a very exactassessment of current water status and the real riskof failing to meet objectives. Therefore several WGsalready considered the process as being an iterativeone and are undertaking preliminary analyses andassessments, based on available data (if necessary onassumptions) by 2004, and plan to check theseassessments at a later stage when monitoring databecome available. It is important to estimate theuncertainty of these preliminary exercises.

Make the process iterativAlthough not foreseen in guidance documents,this turns out to be the main solution for manyplanning problems within the WFD, e.g. thedelineation of water bodies will depend on theIMPRESS analysis. At this time, this analysisonly can be preliminary. Therefore the delineationof water bodies in the Art.5 report must be opento refinement (if needed) in the subsequent RiverBasin Management Plan.

2.4. PRACTICAL PROBLEMSTime issuesA considerable effort has been put into testingby PRBs, especially considering that the approvedversions of the GDs did not become availableuntil the end of 2002, beginning of 2003. Thus the

CHAPTER 2: OUTCOME OF THE TESTING, PHASE 1A

Figure 2. Technical vs. Political Art.5 report.

Page 23: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

approach one country is following for theimplementation of the WFD. For example, for theidentification of water bodies in the LausitzerNeisse, Germany has followed the water bodiesGD whereas the Czech Republic has used theStrahler (based on stream order) approach. Inspite of these principal differences of theapproaches, both countries have now found anagreement for common transboundary waterbodies, as a compromise between both systemsaiming at defining homogeneous but not toosmall common management units. On the samelines, new approaches have emerged that arefully compatible between States, for example inthe Somes managers have adopted a commonGeographical Information System (GIS) for theentire basin to solve the problems of compatibility.

• Language barriers: communication betweendifferent water managers in transboundaryrivers can be a problem that has to be solvedbefore real work starts. For example, in theScheldt and Mosel-Saar all meetings requiresimultaneous translation (also for documents,with the extra associated costs) whereas inSomes/Szamos River Basin it has been decidedthat all technical reports and meetings arecarried out in English.

• Artificial divisions in terms of implementationof the WFD in some basins: as each countryis responsible for their own part of the basinsome problems may arise when thegeopolitical division is in contrast with thegeographic division. This occurs mainly whenthe river acts as a natural border between

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 21

implementation process. Participants were askedat the PRB Workshop at Belgirate (27-28thNovember 2003) to identify themselves alongthe axis in the Figure 2.

Independent or embedded implementationAnother important issue concerning PRB results(also discussed at the Belgirate Workshop, 27-28th November 2003) is the relationship betweenPRBs and National implementation processesoccurring in MS. Whereas some PRBs are far inadvance in the implementation of the WFD(within their PRBs) with respect to the moregeneral national implementation in their owncountry, others are embedded in the Nationalimplementation process (Figure 3). This is reflectedin the time difference that certain PRBs havecompared to the National implementation plans.

Transnational co-ordinationThe PRBs Network comprises four transboundaryrivers, i.e. Scheldt (Belgium, France, The Netherlands),Mosel-Saar (Belgium, France, Germany,Luxembourg), Neisse (Germany, Poland, CzechRepublic) and Somes (Romania, Hungary). In thesePRBs several issues due to their transboundarycharacter have appeared, among them:• Historical approaches: in transboundary rivers

there exist differences between monitoringapproaches, in terms of sampling frequency andparameters. There are differences in managementapproaches for example with each countryapplying their own national standards. Thesedifferences may, afterwards, condition the

Figure 3. Independent or embedded implementation.

Page 24: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

22 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

CHAPTER 2: OUTCOME OF THE TESTING, PHASE 1A

countries. For example, the Neisse acts forsome of its length as a frontier betweenGermany and Poland. After some initialproblems the Czech, Polish and Germancolleges have been able to define commontransboundary water bodies. The "pressure -impact analysis" and the "risk assessmentanalysis" will be the result of a realtransnational co-operation between the PRB-partners. Concerning the international co-operation the Neisse may serve as a modelfor the implementation of the WFD for alltransboundary surface waters of the threecountries (see Neisse case study in Annex I).

• Decision time: in this case the time betweenwhen a decision is prepared and when it isadopted requires a lot of consultation at localand national levels. An advantage underlined bythe Scheldt and Mosel-Saar PRBs is that whenan agreement has been reached this is seen asproviding a very solid basis for future work.

• Administrative burdens: even when there isalready an administrative structure (i.e. aConvention) for river basin management asin the case of major European rivers, e.g.Rhine, Mosel-Saar, Danube and Scheldt, theaccommodation of the WFD may stillencounter difficulties. Administration canbecome even more complex. For example, theInternational Commissions for the Protectionof the Mosel and Saar rivers restructured theirorganisation in order to implement the WFD.However, this basin is only one among thenine working sectors of the transnational RhineRiver Basin, designated within the Rhine. Thusthe co-ordination between these sectors, thecountries and the achievement of the legalobligations of the WFD implementationbecomes a rather complex process.

• In large river basin, there is the risk that sub-districts do not have the same speed indeveloping specific items in the WFDimplementation. This can result in itemsworked out in different ways. Therefore, alsoin large river basins, one should concentrateon guaranteeing comparability in theimplementation process.

In various international river basins the obligationof international co-ordination of the

implementation of the WFD led to a pragmaticapproach on how to develop this co-ordinationin practice. An example of this approach is theriver basin organisations for the Rhine, Danube,Meuse, Scheldt, and the Ems.In principle all WFD obligations are split in 2types of subjects:1. The so-called “A-type subjects” that needinternational co-ordination. These subjects may e.g.be related to pressures which cause an impact onthe entire international catchment of a river basin.2. The “B -type subjects” can best be handled atlocal level having only a local impact. In this way the international co-ordination ofthe implementation of the WFD is brought backto a manageable size. The “A-type subjects” giveas result an internationally harmonised reportingdocument. Each individual Member State sharingthe international river basin district will submitthis (same) document to the EuropeanCommission. First of all as a proof of successfulinternational co-ordination, but also todemonstrate each Member States’ responsibilityfor his own part of the international district.Taking into account all these issues one canconclude that the implementation of the WFD intransboundary catchments constitutes a ratherchallenging process, and PRBs with thesecharacteristics should consider that they willneed more time investments than national PRBs,to reach the same level of detail in theirimplementation. However, co-ordinated action toprotect and improve the water environment willbe jeopardising without it. Special emphasisshould be given to this issue at EU level tofacilitate their work.

Level of detailAs mentioned before, a Terms of Reference (ToR)document focusing on Key Issues felt to be ofparticular relevance by WG leaders for the testingphase was developed and it has served as basis forthe testing of GD by PRBs. The level of detail in theanswers to this document has shown quite largevariability over PRBs reflecting the differentproblems experienced by them in a complex processwith such a tight schedule. However, in some casesthe results exceeded expectations and lead to thepreparation of preliminary Art.5 reports that willcertainly serve as guides for the EU river basins.

Page 25: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Meetings, Seminars and Workshops organized byDG Environment and JRC: meetings betweenPRB leaders and the Commission have been held(every 6 months) to discuss work progress andfuture planning. In parallel, as already mentioned,three workshops dealing initially with generalaspects and subsequently focusing on specifictopics related to Art.5 have been held. As theprocess progressed, seminars with experts thatdeveloped the GDs have been held in water bodiesdelineation, groundwater, economics aspects ofthe WFD. Participation at International Conferences andpublications in peer review journals: the PRBNetwork project has been presented as thekeynote lecture at several International scientificconferences by PRBs members and EC staff. Acomplete list is beyond the scope of thisdocument, we only cite a general overview paper:Murray, C. N., Bidoglio, G., Zaldívar, J. M.,Bouraoui, F., 2002, The Water FrameworkDirective: The challenges of implementation forriver basin-coastal research. FreseniusEnvironmental Bulletin 11, 530-541; and ajournal issue devoted to the subject: EuropeanWater Framework Directive and River CatchmentManagement, in Physics and Chemistry of theEarth 28 (12/13), 521-563. Guest Editors: E.Mostert, G. Bidoglio and W. Rolland.Electronic brochure: information sheets, 2 pageslong, on the Pilot River Basins of the Networkhave been developed and they can be downloadedfrom PIE: http://viso.ei.jrc.it/wfd_prb/sites.html.

Finally, an important product of this exercise isthe Provisional Art.5 Report that some PRBshave already written or are in the process offinalizing (Odense, Cecina, Jucar, Oulujoki,Pinios, Shannon, Suldal, Somes/Szamos, Tevere).These reports will certainly help other river basinsin the preparation of their Art.5 report and willconstitute a complete collection of case studieswhere other River Basins will find inspirationand help when confronted with the realimplementation process. These documents areavailable in CIRCA under: Pilot River Basin/PRBOutcome Report - Phase 1a/Art.5 Reportsprovided by PRB.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 23

Dissemination of resultsAn important aspect of the PRB Network shouldbe the dissemination of the results at National andEuropean level. There has already beenconsiderable effort devoted to this activity at alllevels through:Web dissemination: in addition to CIRCA“Implementing the Water Framework Directive”where all relevant documents have been madeavailable, including this report and annexes,JRC-IES has developed a Platform forInformation Exchange (PIE) at:http://viso.ei.jrc.it/wfd_prb/index.html to facilitatethe exchange between the groups responsible fortesting in the PRBs and the experts from MSs,Accession Countries and the EC who have beeninvolved in the development of GDs. This platformis implemented as a document/information space(complementary to the WFD / PRB site onCIRCA), and a set of mailing lists.Furthermore, the vast majority of PRBs have set-up their own Web pages for example:• Jucar: http://www.chj.es• Odense: http://www.odenseprb.fyns-amt.dk• Tevere: http://www.abtevere.it• Shannon: http://www.shannonrbd.com• Mosel/Saar: http://www.eau2015-rhin-

meuse.fr• Scheldt-Scheldt: http://www.Scheldt.org• Pinios: http://www.minenv.gr/pinios_river.html• R i b b l e : h t t p : / / w w w. e n v i r o n m e n t -

agency.gov.uk/regions/northwest/501317/?lang=_e&region=northwest

• Cecina:http://www.comune.cecina.li.it/cecina_prb/

• Suldal: www.nve.no/prb_suldal

National/Regional dissemination: the vastmajority of PRBs have been involved at local,regional, national and European scale in thedissemination of their results. PRB leaders andidentified stakeholders, NGOs and public haveorganised a large number of meetings in general.Furthermore, several meetings to present theresults of the PRBs have been organised atNational level, e.g. Environment and AgricultureMinistries. An exhaustive list of all these meetingscan be found in the progress reports that PRBshave been submitting every 6 months (availableon CIRCA under PRB section).

Page 26: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General
Page 27: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

• Due to the lack of data and the importance ofexpert judgement, the results of the Art.5analyses have to be considered as provisional.This is even more the case in international RiverBasin Districts (RBDs), as data are often notcomparable and co-ordination of these data isvery difficult. In particular, the risk analyses inthe Art.5 reporting in 2004 are based onprovisional objectives for the water bodies.

• Considering the short time available, the PRBexercise can be considered as a positiveexperience. The amount of effort put in by thePRB network and the results already obtainedin terms of increased information,identification of gaps, problems/solutions,pragmatic management approaches, and thatthe dissemination of the results of this exercise,will, it is believed, provide great help to otherriver basin managers in the first steps of theWFD implementation.

Recommendations• Effective management requires good scientific

information for understanding the mainhydrological and ecological processes andrelevant socio-economic analysis for identifyingthe drivers behind water uses. The results of thePRB exercise have shown that this capacityneeds to be developed by allocating adequatehuman and financial resources in each RBD,and also by including stakeholders and NGOsin the process of implementation and bysharing of information and experience betweenRBDs, regions, and countries.

• Considering the big challenge of theimplementation of the WFD and theimportance to learn from as many pilotexperiences as possible, the PRBs concludedthat the involvement of other river basins in thefuture testing activities deserves consideration(e.g. the larger international river basins asDanube, Rhine, Meuse, Oder/Neisse, etc.).

• The PRBs have tested some of the GDs. Theyhave tried to deal as well as possible with therequirements of the WFD implementation.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 25

Conclusions• The GDs developed in the first phase of the

CIS process have been of great help inpreparing preliminary Art.5 reports. The PRBsconcluded in November 2003 that the presentguidance documents on the Art.5 subjects aresuitable to conduct Art.5 analyses. The focusof the guidance documents has shifted duringtheir development from recipe books for theoperational level to sketches of outlines for thenational scale, but the current level of detailsuits well. Less detail would give too littledirection, while more detail would mean thatnot all situations would fit. Of course, thisapproach implies that specific elements doneed development at a national scale.

• Although no revision of the GDs was feltnecessary at a European level, PRB managersfelt that subjects that still lack clarity, orsubjects that turn out to be impractical duringimplementation, should be elaborated throughspecific workshops leading to fact sheets.People prefer short, focused reports ratherthan new guidance documents.

• The implementation of the WFD intransboundary river basins constitutes an evenmore challenging process that requires moreeffort and time than for national catchments.

• The majority of the PRBs considered the Art.5reporting as a technical exercise – no politicaldecision had to be taken – which might bean explanation for the minor stakeholderinvolvement in the testing (also within PRBsthat were to test the Guidance on PublicParticipation). The big majority of the PRBsdid not consult or actively involve stakeholdersin the technical testing and the drafting of theArt.5 report. Hence the exercise did not counton their active contribution or on theirexternal “validation” of the testing results.In some PRBs (i.e. Odense), the stakeholderswere involved in public presentation anddiscussion of the report but not consultedduring the drafting of the technical aspect ofthe document.

CHAPTER 3. CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS, PHASE 1A

Page 28: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

26 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

• No new GDs seems to be needed. Also, thereseems to be little enthusiasm for radicalrevision of existing GDs. Instead river basinmanagers would like to have fact-sheets withexperiences as a reference base, describingthe characteristics of the basin together withthe outcomes of the implementation of certainparts of the WFD. Moreover, the progressreports and provisional documents availableon some dedicated web sites (see above) couldprovide some useful examples. For thesereasons, this report summarising the mainfindings obtained from the PRB Network,together with their detailed reports on theirprovisional Art.5 assessments, may be ofpractical use to the other EU river basins thatwill have to initiate their analysis andcharacterisation at the beginning of 2004.

Their status of “front-runner” does not implythat the practices they have implemented canbe used as “best practices” to be directlyextrapolated to the rest of the country.

• Considering the importance of theinvolvement of stakeholders for the success ofthe WFD implementation and consideringthat the testing exercise should help to gainexpertise in relatively 'new' subjects like publicparticipation, it is recommended that theinvolvement of stakeholders is tackled in the'real' implementation of Art.5 and in theremaining part of the PRB exercise.

• The Art.5 analyses and objectives should berevised and improved after 2005 as an iterativeprocess, to optimise the design of both themonitoring programmes and the programmeof measures.

CHAPTER 3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, PHASE 1A

Page 29: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

explain what actions WFD will seek toreverse/deliver. As such, they provide not only anoverview of the current status of a river basin butalso a powerful aid for communication, thusfacilitating Public Participation. During severalmeetings it was reported that sometimes it hasbeen difficult for stakeholders, local authoritiesand public to understand the practicalimplications of the WFD implementation.

Outcome of Phase 1a of the PRB exercise hasshown at river basin level the practicalimplications related with the WFDimplementation. The outcome of thisphase (Pilot River Basin ProvisionalArt.5 Reports) has proven to be apowerful aid for communication.

Therefore during Phase 1b many communicationproblems were tackled and solved.

Another important aspect to emphasize is thetransferring of the experiences gained in Phase 1aof the PRB exercise to other national River Basins,to help in the development of Nationalmethodologies related to some aspects of theGDs (Art.5 in Phase 1a). For example, theShannon PRB contributed to the developmentof national methodologies for Art.5 riskassessment, whereas results from the Ribble onPublic Participation have been adopted by theEnvironment Agencies in England and Wales.Furthermore, in some of the PRBs a warm-upperiod was necessary, as the implementation ofthe WFD requires a multidisciplinary team and,hence, the level of experience between thepartners for each PRB was different. After Phase1a the PRBs have reached a better cohesionwithin the partnership and have gainedconsiderable experience and knowledge by meansof “learning by doing” and information exchangebetween the colleagues in the PRB Network. Inthis sense, GDs are considered more as oneelement among others in the process of carrying

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 27

Phase 1b focuses on the testing of those GDs nottested during the previous phase; on finishingthe testing on several issues not included in Art.5,i.e. some parts of Heavily Modified Water Bodies,Reference Conditions and Public Participation;Intercalibration, Monitoring, GeographicInformation Systems (GIS), Planning Process,and Wetlands; and on specific issues emerged in“Phase 1a-Conclusions and Recommendations”.During the discussion on Phase 1b it becameclear that some of the issues addressed duringPhase 1a were also of high relevance to Phase 1b.Moreover, as the testing exercise progressedfurther, some PRBs improved their approach toimplementation of the Directive based on theexperience gained during Phase 1a. In some cases,as discussed in the following paragraphs, thevision on some transversal issues changeddramatically between Phase 1a and 1b. PRBswere thus invited to report in Phase 1b on theimprovements (if any) of their activities regardingGDs testing and WFD implementation sincePhase 1a.

4.1 CRITICALIMPROVEMENTS/DEVELOPMENTS SINCEPHASE 1A BY GDSIt should be emphasized that the implementationof the WFD should be considered as an iterativeprocess in which, as more information becomesavailable, a better assessment is achieved. In thissense, Phase 1a was just the beginning phase ofthe GDs testing. Therefore some of the PRBshave produced more detailed and thoroughlyinvestigated outcome results than in Phase 1a.These results have been incorporated in Phase 1band described in this section of the report. As a general statement, it was highlighted how thepublication and dissemination of the individualPilot River Basin Provisional Art.5 Reports (foreach PRBs) and the Pilot River basin OutcomeReport from Phase 1a has represented a majoroutcome for the WFD. These documents show atlocal level how the Directive will work and

CHAPTER 4. INTRODUCTION, PHASE 1B. LINKING PHASE 1A AND PHASE 1B

Page 30: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

28 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

PRBs felt that GDs have a verytheoretical cut and do not guaranteethat the final results of differentmember states are comparable,which can raise problems intransnational river basins.

Regarding the HMWB delineation, PRBshighlighted that during the first phase of thetesting the delineation was not always carriedout for all the WBs in the basin. For example, theOulujoki reports that during Phase 1a the mainefforts were placed on lakes, where a largequantity of data was available and fieldcampaigns where planned to fill data gaps onbenthic invertebrates and macrophytes data in theriver, necessary later for Phase 1b. In the ShannonPRB, lack of available datasets was a key obstaclefor application and testing of GDs in Phase 1a.Since Phase 1a, many new datasets and GIS layershave been developed which has facilitated betterdelineation of water bodies and assessment ofpressures and impacts. The Odense PRB Phase 1atesting of GDs was performed as a ‘real life’study through preparing a provisional Art.5report. Hereby, the reporting process alsoaddressed topics related to testing of Phase 1bGDs, and the lessons learnt through the processare relevant in the Phase 1b context as well. Theanswering of the questions in the ToR for Phase1a and 1b reflects these experiences (See ANNEXII). In Odense PRB, the GDs test process isconducted in close cooperation with otherinternational projects with EU-funding, of whichthe most important and closely related is theBERNET-Catch-project, where 7 regions (inGermany, Sweden, Poland, Finland, Estonia,Kaliningrad with Fyn County as lead partner)around the Baltic Sea share information andexperience on developing Art.5 analysis andProgrammes of Measures according to the WFD.The project is financed by the EU-Interreg IIIBand by the European Commission’s TACIS CrossBorder Cooperation Program. Another projectwas recently launched; “The Marine Environmentof the Western Baltic Sea” is financed by InterregIIIA. This marine modelling project is conductedtogether with two other Danish Counties andSchleswig-Holstein in Germany. Fyn Countyparticipates in the EU-funded projects

out the WFD (Art.5 analysis in Phase 1a).

4.2 NEW PERSPECTIVES/LESSONS LEARNTSINCE PHASE 1AAs a general approach, River Basins have used thePRB experience as a way to focus and increasetheir efforts towards the WFD implementation.Some PRBs have applied the results from Phase1a to investigate particular issues found ofrelevance at local level. In particular, the OulujokiRB, together with partners in Germany,Denmark, Poland and Lithuania have recentlystarted an Interreg IIIB Baltic Sea Region project"Principles, tools and systems to extend andharmonise spatial planning on water courses inthe Baltic Sea Region – WATERSKETCH". Theproject focuses especially on merging togetherthe forms of water use and demands of societyinto a network of directives, conventions andlegislation in river basin planning. It is a three-yearproject, started in July 2004 and ending in June2007. Another lesson learnt by the PRBs is related to theuse of GDs themselves. The GDs remaintheoretical products and, therefore, do notguarantee that the final results of differentmember states are comparable. This can raiseproblems in transnational river basins. Anexample can be found in designation of waterbodies in the Scheldt – a transnational RiverBasin in the Network. All partners in the involvedcountries (Belgium, France, The Netherlands)used the GDs, and each one developed a differentmethod for the designation of water bodies, withvery different final results. Therefore,consultation, tuning of methods and compromisesbetween the different countries/regions of aninternational river basin district are needed.Despite this, PRBs agreed on the fact that Waterbody determination has become a part of generalimplementation of WFD, especially concerningclassification processes. However, in transnationalriver basins, the water body level doesn’t seem tobe the appropriate level for data collection andrepresentation.

CHAPTER 4. INTRODUCTION, PHASE 1B. LINKING PHASE 1A AND PHASE 1B

Page 31: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

justified by the county’s efforts to improve thewater quality and the environmental managementin the marine waters by initiating the BERNETproject and in the context of the EuropeanCommision’s testing of the GDs for the WFD atthe Odense PRB.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 29

EUROHARP, REBECCA, HARMONIRIB,BERAS, and DANLIM, which all use data fromOdense River basin and provide importantinformation and data analyses for the WFD-process. This year Fyn County received the 2004Swedish Baltic Sea Water Award. The award was

Page 32: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General
Page 33: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

the Impress and HMVB GDs. Odense PRB foundvery important to focus on close cooperationbetween the IMPRESS-work and the REFCONDand MONITORING-work to obtain a soundand well-documented risk assessment for thewater bodies. The foundation and principles ofrisk assessment is a matter of intense discussionin Denmark at present.In other cases, some sets of information arepertinent to activities of just one group, as in thecase of hydromorphological changes (HMWBgroup) or eutrophication (Pressure group). ThePlanning group has gathered results from allWGs presenting them at stakeholder meetings.Ribble PRB reports that no new issues emergedsince submission of the report on Art.5 testing. Inthis phase, they are linking Planning Process andPublic Participation, as these two issues arealready being managed jointly by theEnvironment Agency in England and Wales.

5.2 TRANSVERSAL ISSUES – COHERENCEBETWEEN GDSPlanning Process and Best PracticesDefinition of River Basin District (RBD)boundaries is perceived by PRBs as an importantissue of the Planning GD, spanning also theGroundwater GD for the connected issue ofgroundwater body definition in the case of sharedaquifers. It is also felt that watershed boundariesfor integrated management should be fixed asmuch as possible so as to follow the actualwatershed delineation rather than theadministrative boundaries as sometimes donefor greater convenience. The same criterionshould be adopted were possible also in the caseof international water bodies. However, somecountries, such as Denmark, where there are a lotof small river basins, have chosen to some extentto delineate river basins following existingadministrative borders, with some adjustmentswhere required to avoid catchment splitting.For groundwater body definition the criteriawhere chosen in most of the countries at nationallevel, and then adopted with the necessary

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 31

Some of the issues raised during the discussionamong the PRBs in the Phase 1a of the testingwere considered and proposed to PRBs alsoduring this second part of the exercise. In fact, alot of the effort made for Phase 1a went intoputting together the necessary expertise, collectingthe key information/data in each individual PRB,and devising a proper methodology. In otherwords, for many aspects PRBs developed thenecessary knowledge by means of “learning bydoing”. In the following paragraphs some resultsare reported on the outcome of testing, withemphasis on the inter-linkages among the GDs,coherence between GDs and other importantissues emerging during the Phase 1b of the testing,such as the management of the informationwithin the PRB exercise, time constraint,organizational or political issues, the problemof coordination in the case of transnational riverbasins, dissemination of results.

5.1 INTERLINKAGES BETWEEN GDSIt has been generally agreed that the PRB exercise,along with all the CIS activities, is producing alarge body of information. PRBs found fewinterlinkages among the different GDs (of coursewith some exceptions) and the authors did not usea common glossary throughout the guidancedocuments, e.g. there are differences in termsused between the Impress and HMWB GDs:HMWB uses “physical alterations” whereasImpress uses “morphological pressures”, HMWBuses “specified uses” whereas Impress uses“driving forces”. It would have been useful ifthe same glossary would have been usedthroughout all GDs. Some of these informationare shared between various groups, as in the caseof the Oulujoki PRB, which reported theRefCond and Monitoring groups as working inclose co-operation, sharing methodologies anddata; or the Suldal, reporting that results from theMonitoring exercise are closely linked to activitiesstemming from the HMWB, the RefCond, theImpress and the Wetland GDs. The Suldal alsoreports on the need of a better linkage between

CHAPTER 5. OUTCOMEOF THE TESTING, PHASE 1B.

Page 34: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

32 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

reference conditions.Concerning the relationships between monitoringand reference conditions, a complete set for all thewater bodies defined in the PRBs is not availableyet. For example, a main concern is still the lackof adequate and comprehensive biologicalinformation. However, a considerableimprovement has occurred since Phase 1a.Another issue is posed by those types of waterbodies with unique characteristics (i.e. thevolcanic lakes in the Tevere PRB) for which nocomparison is possible with similar water bodieslocated elsewhere. In the specific case of the HMWB the MonitoringGuidelines do not offer any specification.Therefore, an effort has been made to produce aproposal. It has also been proposed (Tevere) thatephemeral streams (less than 120 days of flow peryear) should not be monitored. Such proposal isof particular relevance in the Mediterranean arc,where there is a high presence of such streams.However, no general consensus has been reachedbetween PRBs on the issue of how to decidewhether existing monitoring networks anddatasets are sufficient and under whatcircumstances. No agreement exists also on theproper stage for initiation of the monitoringprogram, being monitoring related to other issuesof the implementations but being subject also tostrong financial constraints.

WetlandsSome tendencies have been evidenced by thetesting exercise, although no general conclusioncan be reached for all PRBs as only a few haveparticipated in the testing of this guidancedocument at this early stage: most MSs alreadyhave regulations for management and protectionof wetland areas; not enough is yet known aboutsuch environments, both in terms of generalknowledge of the water body and the relatedecosystem, and in terms of specific knowledge(evaluated in terms of presence of monitoringnetworks, quality indicators etc.). Also,management issues are of relevance as healthstatus of the wetland affecting the feedingcatchment.The PRBs feel that the information provided inthe Guidance Document is a good starting pointfor identification of wetlands and obligations to

adaptation by all basin districts. Criteria were alsoset for assignment of each shared ground waterbody to all the pertaining river basins, based onavailable information about hydrogeology(bedrock geology, tracing study results,groundwater flow regime and direction) and thepresence of dependent ecosystems (groundwater-fed lakes, rising from underground streams,groundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems).In the case of shared river basins or groundwaterbodies, the issue of cooperation becomes essential,particularly in the development of the programof measures and river basin management plans,to ensure that such interconnected water bodiesand associated ecosystems are adequatelyprotected.In case of transboundary river basins (e.g. Scheldt)or transboundary groundwater bodies,administrative discussions have to take place tomanage issues related to upstream/downstreamuser relationships (withdrawals, discharges, etc.).Another transversal issue in the case of surfaceand groundwater bodies is related to theecosystems supported by such water bodies (e. g.wetlands).

MonitoringBecause of the large relevance of monitoring in theimplementation of related procedures (such asthose deriving from the HMWB, Wetlands orRefCond GDs), there is a strong need forintegrating existing monitoring networks(drinking, bathing water standards, surface andground water bodies, protected areas) to achievea cost-effective use of resources in all PRBs.During the testing exercise, all PRBs haveidentified monitoring needs and actualmonitoring network capability, including possibledeficiencies in the existing networks and potentialbottlenecks in future improvements. It is generallyacknowledged that most of the existingmonitoring programs in PRBs do not meet WFDrequirements. Most PRBs have also determinedwhich additional parameters and criteria,pertaining to local situations and not foreseen inthe WFD, are needed for effective andcomprehensive monitoring, and in some caseshave drafted national guidelines accordingly. Inthe case of old standing networks, historical datacan also contribute to the identification of

CHAPTER 5. OUTCOME OF THE TESTING, PHASE 1B.

Page 35: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

from mines, harbor construction. Impacts arethe lowering of water levels and pollution.However, PRBs have not specified how they willassess the significance of pressures and impactson wetlands.The PRBs recognize the positive functions ofwetlands (biodiversity enhancement nutrientattenuation and storm flow abatement), andconsider that the original wetlands need to berestored and the existing ones maintained tocontribute to the good status of the wholecatchment. However, the need for integratedmanagement at river basin scale is alsoemphasized.

Public ParticipationDuring Phase 1a most of the PRBs have regardedArt.5 characterizations as a purely technicalexercise, therefore public participation was notfully developed by the PRBs. During thediscussion among the PRB Leaders, it was agreed

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 33

them under the WFD. However, more examplesor the definition of some specific wetlandparameters is deemed necessary, to avoid thedanger of Member States disregarding smallwetlands that cannot be annexed to larger waterbodies or those of small-medium size wetlandsthat cannot be classified as part of rivers, lakes,transitional or coastal waters.The lack of knowledge on the water needs and theconsequent need for hydrological and ecologicalstudies to fill this gap has been pointed out, aswell as a knowledge gap regarding particularly thedelineation of the zone of contribution ofwetlands.As far as protected areas are concerned, thosemost often include already some wetlandsaccording to international, national or locallegislation. Significant pressures are due to waterabstraction, regulation works, drainage, earth-filling, urban development, point and diffusesources of pollution, air pollution, peat extraction

The requirements on Public Participation (PP) in the WFD seem to lead to repetitive discussions,indicating that the terms are not commonly understood. Therefore a short recapitulation of theWFD and PP guidance is presented. Although the phrase “public participation” does not appear inthe Directive, three forms of public participation with an increasing level of involvement are mentioned:• Information supply;• Consultation; and• Active involvement.According to the Directive the first two are to be ensured, the latter should be encouraged. Thedifferent levels of participation are not mutually exclusive. They build on each other: consultation impliesinformation supply and active involvement implies consultation. Moreover, different levels can be usefulat different stages. The choice of level depends on aspects like: the timing of public participation andthe stage of the planning process, the (political and historical) context for public participation,available resources, objectives or benefits of public participation and the stakeholders identified to beinvolved. Who should we involve? The Directive is prescriptive in the sense that at least stakeholders (i.e.interested parties) should be involved (when dealing with active involvement) and also the public whendealing with consultation. Background information should be available at any time for anyone. Oneof the key messages of the PP guidance is that for the competent authority, it is very important to startwith a stakeholder analysis. By knowing the positions of stakeholders – by this is meant public andprivate stakeholders – a competent authority can optimally fit the PP process to the given specificsituation.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE WFD

Page 36: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

34 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

i.e. analyses of the expected economic costs forthe agricultural sector in order to obtain ‘goodecological status’. This has led to discussions ona very fundamental level on how to definereference conditions and how to distinguishbetween ‘good’ and ‘moderate’ ecological status.These discussions and definitions should be kepton a solely technical and scientific level, andshould not be influenced by stakeholder pressure.According to the Odense PRB, massivestakeholder involvement thus should bepostponed until a technical sound foundation inthe form of an Art.5 report is obtained. In theScheldt PRB, stakeholders are invited toparticipate in the coming about of theinternational Art.5 report. This might be veryuseful for the implementation of the Programmeof Measures and to involve stakeholders in theArt.5 analysis (as equally stated in the PublicParticipation guidance). Stakeholder involvementis primarily relevant when discussing how toobtain the environmental objectives and designingthe management plans, i.e. discussions andnegotiations on which measures are the mostcost-effective. River basin enhanced publicparticipation by upgrading the homepage, settingup a mail service for orientation, and establishinga new discussion forum for the WFDimplementation in addition to the regional andnational advisory boards: a technical workinggroup with 12 members, covering the mainstakeholders, with 2-4 meetings per year. InOdense PRB, it was also use the regular RegionPlanning process running through the summer2004 to present the WFD-activities to themunicipalities and to the public in generalpresentation of the OPRB-results in meetingswith Danish NGO’s, regional and municipalauthorities, at EU-seminars, official meetingswith representatives from other countries etc.

Participation of specific stakeholdersWithin the Jucar PRB, the main goal was to studyand develop different pilot experiences regardingthe Public Participation (PP) within the planningprocess. Concerning the results of Art.5 analysis,the provisional report (which was released inthe PRB Meeting on February, 2004) was alsodisseminated to the NGOs, which were invited toparticipate in the follow up to the Guidance

(as reported in the PRB Outcome Report, testingArt.5 related GDs) that benefits from publicparticipation should be considered also duringPhases 1b and 2 of the exercise.

Consultation of the general publicShannon reports that NGOs are not currentlydirectly involved with the Shannon PRB. Astrategy for public participation in the RBDprojects is being developed nationally. Aconsultation paper on public participation inriver basin management in Ireland, including inthe Shannon PRB, has been prepared and isavailable at www.wfdireland.ie. However, theShannon RBD project (parent project of ShannonPRB) has completed a series of eleven publicmeetings throughout the River Basin betweenJanuary and February 2004, which were attendedby over 300 people. The objective of thesemeetings was to inform interested individualsand organizations of the WFD river basinmanagement process and help identify key watermanagement issues for the Shannon River Basin.Key water management issues raised by attendeesat these meetings were: environmentalenforcement; boat cruising; forestry; septic tanks;wastewater treatment plants; agriculture;fisheries; cost recovery; and education/awareness.In the Mosel/Saar PRB the WG for the IntegratedTesting (CIPMS/TI) has not agreed yet on theparticipation of NGOs and/or stakeholders otherthan official representatives to its formal meetings.Each contracting Party remains free to consult atthe local/national level. Some current practiceswere recalled in the letter the CIPMS addressedto JRC, 30th July 2003. In the Odense PRB, thestakeholders were involved in public presentationand discussion of the report, but not consultedduring the drafting of the technical aspects ofthe document. After issuing the provisional Art.5report from Odense PRB, a technical workinggroup was formed in 2004, where the mainstakeholders were represented. The experiencesfrom this technical working group show thatstrong involvement of stakeholders is a very timeconsuming process, and it would not have beenpossible to conduct the Art.5 reporting within thetime frame, if this had been the case from thebeginning of the process. During the process theagriculture asked for ‘analysis of consequences’,

CHAPTER 5. OUTCOME OF THE TESTING, PHASE 1B.

Page 37: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

building event at a secondary school withchildren at General Certificate of SecondaryEducation level (age 14 - 16) in the Blackburnarea. Despite showing interest in principle,schools were unable to schedule in such anevent at short notice.

Many other water managers will recognize theproblem of timing and it therefore can berecommended to start the planning of publicparticipation as early as possible. Within Oulujoki PRB, involvement ofstakeholders took mainly place at WG level or atlevel of specific symposium. Local nature-protection associations organized a WFD relatedseminar for all northern nature protectionassociations during March 2004 with more than50 participants. Activities in the framework of thePRB experience, played a key role in meeting, andtwo members of Oulujoki PRB gave presentationof its status. PRB results were presented in severaltraining seminars, workshops and lectures foruniversity students. Several newspaper articlesspread information of the basics of WFD andexperiences of testing activities for large public.Stakeholders ranging from specialist ofhydropower companies and environmentalistswere attending especially in workgroup HMWB.However, there was a general tendency thatOulujoki PRB work was merged to normalimplementation of WFD with its first Publicparticipation themes. The Scheldt PRB organized a workshop on publicparticipation on November 21st 2003. Theobjective of this workshop was to present anumber of case studies on public participation onthree different levels (local, national/regional andinternational) and to exchange ideas on the actionplan “Information and active involvement” forthe Scheldt International RBD. In December2003 it was decided by the plenary meeting of theInternational Scheldt Commission (ISC) thatfrom then on, experts from NGOs would beadmitted to project group meetings. In February,the Heads of delegations of the ISC approvedall applications from NGOs. At this momentthere is at least one NGO-expert per projectgroup, except for the project group “Pressureand impact” (this was the only one for whichno NGO applied). However, attendance fromNGO-experts on project group meetings

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 35

Testing Process for implementation of WFDwithin the Jucar PRB. All these NGOs were askedfor comments, suggestions and improvementson the technical aspects on the analysis. Onlyone feedback response was received on accountof this consultation. On the other side, twomeetings were held with Representatives of theIndustrial sector in the Júcar River BasinHeadquarters. In the first meeting, on May 27,2004 there was a broad explanation on theimplications of the WFD by the Júcar PRB staff;participants were given a questionnaire to fillup on the features of their own industrial field andsignificance of water as a resource in theirindustrial process. In the second meeting, onApril 27, Public Participants (PPs) had the chanceof making a presentation of their response tothe questionnaire and there were laid the basis forfuture collaboration. The information gatheredin all this process is deemed to be very valuableto the economic characterization of the riverbasins. Finally a Public Participation Plan isbeing conceived to organize all the processdefining phases and issues to be tackled; rest ofstakeholders and sectors of the broad public;schedule of activities; periodic assessments ofthe process; and summarize and diffusion of theresults. Ribble PRB delivered an extensive OutcomeReport on Public Participation and River BasinPlanning - Early Experiences -. This report isavailable on CIRCA under: “Pilot RiverBasins/PRB Outcome Report – Phase 1a/Art.5Reports provided by PRBs/Ribble Pilot RiverBasin Provisional Art.5 Report”. As main point,it was noted that time was a considerableconstrain in the development of publicparticipation, with the testing being completedwith very restrictive deadlines. Increased planningtime, coupled with the “piggy-backing” of otherevents to raise awareness of workshops wouldhave enabled:• a more diverse range of stakeholders to be

contacted and involved in each event;• attendees to schedule work around events to

ensure continuity in participation from keyorganizations;

• participation of schools, as they need to fitevents with tight school schedules. The RibblePilot Project intended to include a vision-

Page 38: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

36 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

remained very low up to now. The differentcountries/regions that are part of the ScheldtInternational RBD are of the opinion thatconsultation of the general public is theresponsibility of the member states. At the levelof the International RBD, up to now,participation of the general public is limited todissemination of information (website,newsletters, brochure, information events).Thanks to the Scaldit project, it was possible todisseminate information at the level of the RBD(database with 1500 persons) from the beginningand on a regular basis. Actually, this tackles theso-called ‘scale-issue’, (mentioned in the GD),in a quite practical way.

5.3 OTHER ISSUES/OTHER APPROACHES(IMPLEMENTATION)Information managementThe gathering of information and theirmanagement is seen by PRBs as one fundamentalpart in the implementation of the WFD. Thisinformation traditionally has been collected andstored by different public bodies at differentorganisations. The WFD calls for a managementof information at the watershed level and,therefore, a collective effort has to be carriedout to recover, prepare and organize all thisinformation, which in most of the cases is geo-referenced. Therefore a coupled database-GISsystem has to be implemented.Some approaches have been developed in the PRBsNetwork: from collecting and moving all the datato the river basin authority; to development ofmeta-databases that access to the relevantinformation. For example an important task in theJúcar PRB has been the adaptation of theirHydrologic Information System to the WFDrequirements. This, amongst other tasks hasincluded designing the structure of the databaseand GIS data according to the terms and conceptsof the WFD, the integration of several databasesand GIS into an unique information system, theestablishment of links between Jucar River BasinAuthority Departments and other organisations,the collection and incorporation of new data intothe Hydrological Information System and thedevelopment of modules able to generateinformation accordingly to criteria of GISGuidance. Similarly, concerning biological

CHAPTER 5. OUTCOME OF THE TESTING, PHASE 1B.

parameters in the Oulujoki PRB metadata basecontaining all relevant information data from the1970s onward, has been compiled and publishedon maps.The experiences from the Odense PRB show thatconduction of the analyses and reporting needed forthe Art.5 report for a water district within a limitedtime frame of one year is a challenging task, whichdemands adequate human and financial resourcesin the water district. In Denmark, the resourcesneeded for performing the Art.5 analyses havebeen a matter of intense discussion between the stateand the regional authorities. Lack of resources interms of money as well as staff has lead to a decreasein level of ambition on solving the task instead ofallocation of the necessary resources. The centralissue of risk assessment thus has not yet (September2004) been addressed by the national level. Withregard to cartographic data in the Scheldt PRB, itwas agreed to use a common reference andprojection system for the production of maps(ETRS89). This means that the cartographic dataof the different regions – which all use differentreference and projection systems – have to beconverted into the common reference system.

Transnational coordinationSeveral risk factors that have to be consideredduring the implementation of the WFD bytransboundary catchments were alreadyhighlighted in Phase 1a report. Those includedifferent historical approaches, language barriers,artificial divisions, decision time and administrativeburdens. During Phase 1b other “more practical”problems have also arised. Among them,differences between the partners with regard todata availability: the problem of data availabilitybecomes more important in an international riverbasin, as the same data have to be available to allof the involved regions/countries (five regions inthe case of the Scheldt PRB) at the same scale, atthe same level of detail and in the same format.If one of these conditions is not fulfilled, the datacannot be analysed on the transnational level.A different situation but that produces effects inthe same way is the implementation process thatoccurs in the Mosel-Saar PRB, were dataavailability is not the primary problem but ratherhow to select (technically and politically speaking)the relevant data.

Page 39: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

• Scheldt: http://www.scaldit.org/,• Shannon: http://www.shannonrbd.com/,• Tevere: http://www.abtevere.it/.As previously said, the experience of PRBs hashelped in the development of National guidelines(e.g. Odense and Suldal). For example, the SuldalPRB has participated in the development of theNorwegian guidance for the characterisationperiod (under the leadership of the NorwegianState Pollution Authority), whereas the RibblePRB has participated in the experimental report onpublic participation and planning presented tothe Commission by the UK Government. In thesame spirit, the Shannon PRB was also involved intesting the development of national methodologiesfor the Art.5 risk assessment.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 37

Dissemination of resultsThe river basins that constitute the PRB Networkhave been actively involved in disseminating theirexperience at EU level through the publication ofthe Provisional Art.5 reports and the presentationof their findings in the WD meeting at Dublin(June, 2004). Furthermore, updated informationhave been put in the web pages of the PRBs: • Jucar: http://www.chj.es/index2.HTM, • Mosel-Saar: http://www.eau2015-rhin-

meuse.fr/, • Odense: http://www.odenseprb.fyns-amt.dk/,• Oulujoki:

http://www.environment.fi/default.asp?node=14750&lan=EN,

• Pinios: http://www.minenv.gr/pinios_river.html,

Page 40: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General
Page 41: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

information needed for the implementation ofthe WFD reach the competent authorities ateach river basin that have the task of itsimplementation.

• PRBs agreed on the fact that there is no needof introducing changes in the GDs or producenew GDs. On the other hand PRBs highlightthe needs for documents related to the nationallevel of the implementation and local scaleproblematic related to this problem.

• PRBs generally highlight the necessity toimprove linkage and communication withother groups and initiatives involved in theCIS. For example PRBs stress on theimportance of the intercalibration process inrelation with the design of the Programme ofMeasures. In this context an informationexchange with the ECOSTAT group wouldbe useful.

During the conference on Active Involvement inRiver Basin Planning, including presentationson lessons learned in public participation from theRibble, Jucar, Scheldt and Danube, 10 key pointsfor active public participation were highlighted:1. Good involvement takes time, start early! 2. Develop and share a sense of ownership for the

river basin.3. Work to build and maintain trust with your

partners.4. Undertake “mapping” of stakeholders to find

out more about them and their interests.5. Learning from mistakes is as important as

sharing successes.6. Listening is as important as talking.7. Be passionate for your cause, passion

persuades.8. Work with each other and build a common

vision for your basin, to put the managementplan into context.

9. Nobody can do it alone. True partnershipleads to shared responsibility and decisionmaking for shared actions.

10. Where cultures and traditions vary, agreekey messages and adapt to their needs.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 39

Conclusions• The outcome of Phase 1a of the PRBs exercise

has shown at river basin level the practicalimplications related with the WFDimplementation. The exercise has proven to bea powerful aid for communication and raisedawareness on topics related with theimplementation of the directive. For example,based on this experience, during Phase 1bmany communication problems raised at thebeginning of the process were tackled andsolved.

• The GDs developed in the first phase of theCIS process have been of great help inplanning and implementing the WFD.However, PRBs reading the GDs with differentperspectives. This gives room for regionaldiversification, which could lead to the needfor regional case-studies, informationexchange, etc.

• The definition of River Basin Districtboundaries, spanning also groundwater isperceived by PRBs a fundamental issue to befixed earlier in the process. Furthermore, theseboundaries should be defined as much aspossible so as to follow the actual watersheddelineation rather than the administrativeboundaries as sometimes done for greaterconvenience. The same criterion should beadopted were possible also in the case ofinternational water bodies.

• There is a strong need for integrating existingmonitoring networks and for complementingthe actual deficiencies, from the point of viewof meeting the WFD requirements.

• The structure of many administrations withtasks in water management does not fit theWFD requirements. This could often raise toproblem during the implementation of thedirective.

Recommendations• MSs should try to harmonise monitoring

competences in such a way that the

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS, PHASE 1B

Page 42: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General
Page 43: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Sectors considered within Scheldt NACE-codes

Agriculture Agriculture, horticulture, forestry and fishery 01+02+05

Industry Agro-food industry 15+16

Textile 17+18+19

Paper & cardboard, wood & furniture 20+21+22+36

Chemistry 23,2+24+25

Materials 10+11+12+13+14+23,1+23,3+26+37,2+45

Metallurgy 27+28+29+30+31+32+33+34+35+37,1+50

Energy 40

Households Commerce & services 51+52+55+60+61+62+63+64+65+66+67

+70+71+72+73+74+75+80+85+91

+92+93+95+96+97+99

Public utilities 41+90

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 41

B) Pressures and waterbodiesWhen carrying out the pressures and impactanalysis on the scale of an entire river basindistrict, the waterbody level turned out to be notthe appropriate level for the presentation ofdriving forces and pressures, due to differencesbetween the partners with regard to dataavailability and to the level of detail of the data.Therefore, the partners decided to present thedata on driving forces and pressures on the sub-basin scale.However, the information is gathered on awaterbody scale (or, if this is not possible, onthe most appropriate scale) by each partner. Thenthis information is aggregated on a sub-basinscale for the purpose of the transnationalcharacterization and analysis.C) Transnational Co-ordinationScaldit - name made up of Scaldis, latin name for

SCHELDT

A) pressures and impact analysisWithin the Scheldt IRBD, the pressures andimpact analysis, as well as the economicanalysis is based on following driving forces:

• Households• Industry• Agriculture, horticulture and forestry• Fishery and aquaculture• Tourism and recreation• Transport• Natural land useThese driving forces are linked to NACE-codesfor both the pressures and impact analysis and theeconomic analysis. In this way, data on pressurescan be more easily linked to economic data.Following table gives an overview of the NACE-codes considered per driving force.

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES

ANNEX I is a collection of the case studies proposed by the PRBs to illustrate the procedure and the work carried out during the testing of the Guidance Documents.

CASE STUDIES PHASE 1A

Page 44: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

42 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

transboundary nature it poses quite a task as thepolitical and administrative cultures of theriparian states differ greatly and operate ondifferent levels (central, regional, provincial,

Scheldt and Integrated Testing- is an Interreg IIIB North- West Europe project that is contributingin the PRBs Network by testing the feasibility ofthe GDs developed in the CIS. Due to its

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1A

The organisation chart

of the International Scheldt

Commission.

The different reports that

will be produced within

the context of the Scheldt

project and how they are

related to each other.

Page 45: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

data from lakes, abundance of wetlands 100years ago…

• simple as well as complex models • linking pressure/impact variables with

ecological indicators• information of water quality and ecological

status in areas with no major antropogenicimpact

Reference nutrient concentrations in streams arevery important to estimate in order subsequentlyto evaluate the reference nutrient load to – andhence the reference nutrient status of – lakes,fjords and coastal marine waters.Monitoring results from Danish streams drainingcatchments with no agricultural activity and nooutlets of sewage can be used to assess theReference nutrient load from Odense River Basin(ORB) to the Odense Fjord, (Tabel 1). Howevermonitoring results from these Danish streamshas to be corrected to represent reference valueson nutrient concentration and loadings in streams,because the ecological/chemical status of thesestreams is still anthropogenic affected by airbornepollutants ex. ammonia from agriculturalactivities. Figures in Table 1 on reference nutrientloadings and concentrations in streams aretentatively corrected taking into account theimpact of airborne pollutants, where the upperrange values represent the uncorrected values. Tabel 1. Estimated reference nutrient loadingand concentrations in streams draining theOdense River Basin

The range in Table 1 representing the estimate ofthe reference concentrations and nutrient loadingsindicates uncertainty. In example phosphorusconcentrations (Table 1) might in some cases evenbe higher than stated in the Table by receivingwaters rich in phosphorus from old marinedeposits in the catchments. In such cases reference

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 43

local). Furthermore, different monitoring andevaluation systems for determining the status ofwater exists in the area as a whole and hence, theneed for a harmonisation strategy is essential.For these reasons, the project has been embeddedin the International Scheldt Commission.However, this embedding complicatesconsiderably the taking of decisions within theframework of the Scheldt project and slows downthe progress of the project, but the advantage ofthe political basis that is created in this way forall decisions taken and results achieved within thecontext of the project may not be underestimated.

ODENSE

The Odense Fjord PRB-study includes (a.o)• Estimates of reference water quality in streams,

reference nutrient loading to - and nutrientconcentrations in - the Odense Fjord

• Agricultural Pressure and Impact on diffusenitrogen loading to streams

• Assessment of the risk of failing to achievegood ecological quality in the Odense Fjord by2015 [the case studies were provided by:Jørgen Windolf, Mikael Hjorth Jensen andHarley Bundgaard Madsen - Fyn County–Denmark]

A) Reference conditionThe quantitative definition of referenceenvironmental quality is a key issue in the WFDimplementation process. However, noquantification tools are provided in the WFD-guidance’s. In the preliminary Art. 5 report for theOdense River Basin (ORB) several approacheshave been used including • sparsely historical information • distribution of eelgrass, palaeolimnological

Transport per ha ORB Concentrations In watercourses Riverine load To Odense Fjord

Kg/ha y Mg/l Tones/y

Total N 2.5-5 0.7-1.5 250-500

Total P 0.08-0.17 0.022-0.050 8-17

Tabel 1. Estimated reference nutrient loading and concentrations in streams draining the Odense River Basin

Page 46: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

streams and the amount of fertilizer used in thecatchments. This can be demonstrated by relatingthe measured nitrogen concentrations in differentstreams in the region to the total amount ofnitrogen applied in the specific catchments(manure + artificial fertilizer), Figure 1.This pressure/impact analyse has also included theuse of a simple, empirical nitrogen leachingmodel, (GIS). These modelled results are shownin the figure as well.

Major experience gainedThe models used so far demonstrate the overallimpact of the pressure from agriculture(Nitrogen). However, in the management plans,which have to be developed in the comingimplementation steps of the WFD, it will benecessary to develop more complex models

concentrations might be as high as 0.15-0.20 mgP/l. However, such high concentrations is rareand does not reflect the general referenceconcentrations in most streams.Major experience gainedMore scientifically sound information of referencenutrient concentrations and loading in streamsincluding the natural spatial variation due todifference in hydrological cycle andgeomorphology is needed based on cross borderinvestigations/collection of data from undisturbedareas within ecoregions ie the Baltic sea area.B) Agricultural Pressure and ImpactThe major source of nitrogen in streams andhence the major source for the nitrogen loadingof Odense Fjord is nitrogen leaching fromagricultural areas. There is a strong correlationbetween the quantity of nitrogen flowing in

44 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1A

Figure 1. Relations between Nitrogen application

(manure + art. fertilizer) in different catchments and

measured nitrogen concentrations in these streams.

Modelled mean catchment specific nitrogen

concentrations in root zone (1 m) are shown as well.

Figure 2. Relations between different external nutrient

loading (scenarios) and modelled abundance of macro-

algae (upper) and relations between annual measured

nitrogen loading and measured nitrogen concentration

(Total N) in surface waters at two monitoring stations

in Odense fjord (lower).

Page 47: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 45

enabling proper scenario analyses of differentagricultural farming practices to combat diffusenitrogen pollution.

C) Risk AssessmentThe WFD Art. 5 report shall include anassessment of the risk of not achieving goodecological quality in the different water bodies bythe year 2015.In the Odense PRB report such risks have beenpreliminary evaluated. For the Odense Fjord it hasbeen demonstrated that an improvement in theecological quality of the fjord will imply a reductionin the nutrient loading of the fjord. This evaluationis based on the results of the comprehensiveeutrophication model for the fjord using differentexternal nutrient loadings as driving variables(scenarios). Examples of the relation betweennitrogen loading and model derived quality in thefjord are shown in Figure 2 (upper), using amountof macro-algae as an indicator for ecological quality.However, neither in the WFD nor in the Guidancedocuments specific quantitative definition of goodecological quality is included. In Figure 2 goodecological quality has been indicated using reference

state + 50% as a preliminary definition.Furthermore it is shown in Figure 2 (lower) that theannual measured concentrations of total Nitrogenin surface waters in the fjord are correlated to themeasured annual Nitrogen loading to the fjord.The measured concentrations are lesser in the outerpart of the fjord than in the inner part due toexchange of more nutrient poor sea-water. Major experience gained (a.o):The WFD Basic Analyse (form and content) is avery good platform for the following making ofWater Management Plan’s including the publicinvolvement and experience of potential areasof conflicts.• Quantitative definition of the ‘Good Ecological

Quality’ is lacking both at European andnational scale as well.

• The WFD Basic Analyse (form and content) isa very good platform for the following makingof Water Management Plan’s including thepublic involvement and experience of potentialareas of conflicts.

• More simple models linking ecological qualityin near coastal waters and fjords and thepressure variables have to be developed.

Page 48: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

46 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

at Oulujoki PRB. It follows the principles ofHMWB guidance and takes into account ascarcity of relevant biological data. Based on thisscheme main river branches were provisionallydesignated as heavily modified, whereas in mostof regulated lakes and in smaller rivershydromorphological pressures were non-significant.

OULUJOKI

Provisional designation of heavily modified waterbodies at Oulujoki Pilot River Basin.Hydro power production plays an importantrole in Fennoscandinavian water systems.Following three-phase approach was developed

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1A

Page 49: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

MARNE

A) Public ParticipationFollowing the publication of the CIS guidance on

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 47

MOSEL-SAAR

Process for delineation of WBsThe icon drawn from different views of a

presentation shows, on the basis of a theoreticalsituation, the different steps to delineate the riverWater bodies according to the natural criteriaand the risk to reach or not the good status by2015.

public participation, the French mirror groupwrote a national guidance to adjust themethodology to the French water managementcontext.

Page 50: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Elaboration

Participation

and active

consultation

Information

Action

Elaboration

of RBD

characterization

Consultation

of local state

offices

Consultation of

interested parties

Focus group

WFD on the

Internet

Consultation of local

authorities

Public consultation

Means

Web Site

Lots of meetings

Web Site

Meetings

parliament of water

(2/year)

Questionaires

Meeting

Web Site

Mail

Web Site

To be defined

Reached people

Experts

All state

offices (20)

250 people

12 people

Broad public

Local authorities

Broad public

Results

Second draft

in 11/2003

Shared vision

of the basin

characterization

Very good attendance

Good sharing

of information

Sample of broad

public consultation

On going

Implement progressively

the WFD at local level

To be done

Main difficulties

No NGO

involved.

Very difficult to share the

WFD vocabulary

(technical documents

to support consultation)

Necessity of short

documents. Too many people

for debate.

Not representative of the

whole population

Need synthesis

Manage numerous

answers

48 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

in public participation is the water parliament ofabout 40 permanent members and 160-200invited members from different sectors (1/3 localauthorities, 1/3 users, consumers, NGOs and1/3 of representatives of State).The three steps of public participation are

The Marne river basin is about 12 000 km2.The population of the basin amounts to 2.8Millions of inhabitants. At Marne basin level,works of WFD implementation integrate 3 levelsof public participation as shown below and manydifferent tools. The main organisation involved

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1A

Source of non cost recovery IMPLEMENTATION

Subsidies from the tax payer

Taxpayers subsidise the water invoice from 0,5 to 2,5% for households, “craft & small industry” and industry, and

for 200% for agriculture. Nevertheless the amount is quite low for agriculture (Cf diagram).

Direct transfers Transfers between users

These transfers are mainly due to the attribution of subsidies by the Water Agency (balance between contributions

and aid received). Net transfers originate from households and “craft & small industry” (1,5% of their water

invoice) towards industry and agriculture for 1,5% and 71% of the cost of their water use.

Mitigation costs These additional treatment costs include nitrogen & pesticides specific treatment costs, new uptakes because of

pollution. According to our calculation, these costs represent 2 to 4% of the water services costs.

We can add the cost of bottled water and the cost of diseases deriving from water (estimation through the cost of

sick leave…) which represent from 6 to 30% of the water invoice.

Current expenditure in favour of the environment (do not include sanitation) : 4 M € per year

Environmental costs Willingness to pay : 80 M €Cost to avoid nearly all pollution : on going

Page 51: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

and breeding effluent management systems).The Wateco guidance underlines that three kindsof economic transfers may lower the cost recoveryrate. Moreover these macro-economic costs haveto be calculated at the basin level (or sub basin).We implemented these recommendations atMarne basin level as follow:

ConclusionsOn this basis, the comprehensive cost recovery ratearises to 90% on average in the Marne basin puttingaside environmental costs. The weight ofenvironmental costs may reduce the cost recovery rate.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 49

gradually implemented from the elaboration (assoon as 2001) to public information (2004) andconsultation (2005). The different actions arepresented below, as well as the time table.

B) Cost Recovery: Overview of the usersThe invoice: water & sanitation invoice paidyearly amounts to 175 M € for households, 95M € for Craft and small industries connected todomestic water supply and sanitation systems,212 M € for industries (including their ownwater supply & sanitation system) and 1.4 M €for agriculture (considering irrigation systems

Page 52: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

50 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1A

method, but common, comparable results). Ingeneral when a river stretch was delineated towater bodies in different national ways, the largerscale was accepted as water body with nationalsubdivision into "sub-water bodies". For the riskassessment also the national results basing ondifferent methods were merged. In transboundarywater bodies with different national risk assessmentresults, the final judgement was done by expertjudgement in a trilateral discussion. No generalstrategy to deal with these different results wasdeveloped.

NEISSE

Transboundary water bodiesThe implementation of the WFD in transboundarycatchments has to be coordinated between thecountries involved. In the Neisse basin threedifferent national approaches on water bodydelineation already existed and, therefore, startingwith a common approach was not feasible. Theimplemented strategy was to merge the threenational sub-basins with delineating transboundarywater bodies by expert judgement (i.e. no common

Page 53: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Agriculture is the principal activity in the RiverBasin (73% of total area); the dominant landuse being pasture. There are some significantareas of wetland (12%), mainly peatland. Thecatchment is not notably industrialised and agri-industries, such as milk and meat processing arethe most prominent.

Groundwater Body DelineationThe Geological Survey of Ireland (GSI) has carriedout the delineation of groundwater bodies inIreland, including the Shannon PRB. Thedelineation process involved several stages.

Groundwater Management for the WaterFramework DirectiveThe first requirement of WFD is to identifygroundwater bodies at risk of failing to meet theenvironmental objectives set out in Article 4. Toachieve these objectives requires makingoperational the programme of measures specifiedin the River Basin Management Plan. A proposedrisk assessment methodology to identify GWBs atrisk is presented overleaf. This process will allowfor the prioritisation of resources in the RiverBasin Management Plan. The focus of theprogramme of measures should be on the high

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 51

SHANNON

MANAGING GROUNDWATER BODIES INTHE SHANNON PILOT RIVER BASIN FORTHE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVEIntroductionThe Shannon Pilot River Basin (PRB) is the largestriver basin in Ireland draining a land area ofsome 18,000 km2 in central Ireland. It includespart of 18 local authorities in the Republic ofIreland and has a small transboundarycomponent of approximately 6 km2 in CountyFermanagh, Northern Ireland. Carboniferous rocks dominate the bedrockgeology of the Shannon PRB. Of these, highlykarstified pure bedded limestones predominate inthe upper reaches of the basin. Groundwaterflow in these rocks is dominated by conduit flow.In contrast, in most of the rest of the basin,groundwater flows through fissures and faults inrelatively low transmissivity aquifers. In the west,on either side of the Shannon estuary, beddedshales and sandstones of Namurian age dominate.Between the upper & lower reaches of the basin,unbedded pure limestones and impure limestonesare folded around cores of older rocks.

Mapped rock units were assigned an aquiferclass based on the existing GSI aquiferclassification system. These aquifer classes werethen grouped into four aquifer types based ongroundwater flow regime, i.e. Karst aquifers,Gravel aquifers, Productive fissured bedrockaquifers and Poorly productive bedrock aquifers. Preliminary groundwater bodies were thendelineated using no-flow geological boundaries,as well as boundaries based on groundwaterhighs, differing flows and flow lines. Finaldelineation incorporated major surface watercatchment boundaries except in areas wherethe influence of topography is diminished (e.g.karstic or confined aquifers).

This process resulted in the delineation of 97bedrock groundwater bodies with a mediansize of 53 km2 (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Groundwater Bodies in Shannon PRB (Geological Survey of Ireland).a

Page 54: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

52 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

the use of limited resources is optimised. Example of risk assessment methodology for diffusegroundwater pollution in the Shannon PRBThe following approach is a screening exerciseusing available GIS layers and follows the ‘source-pathway-receptor’ model. The objective is toidentify groundwater bodies at risk and allowfor prioritisation in the programme of measuresand river basin management plan.

impact potential areas of “at risk” GWBs.Different aquifer types will require differentmanagement responses appropriate to their spatialextent, flow regime, degree of groundwater-surfacewater interaction, and connectivity withgroundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystems.This approach will require a detailed conceptualunderstanding of each GWB to ensure the mostsuitable programme of measures are applied and

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1A

Step 1 Develop a good conceptual understanding of each groundwater body.

Step 2 Combine information on groundwater vulnerability with aquifer flow regime characteristicsusing risk matrices to identify the degree of pathway susceptibility to diffuse pollution.

Page 55: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 53

Step 3 Set pressure magnitude thresholds e.g. for stocking density. Thresholds will need to bedeveloped for all pollutant types.

Step 4 Combine Pathway Susceptibility and Pressure Magnitude using risk matrices to produce anImpact Potential Map.

Step 5 Final risk designation

Identification of whether a groundwater bodyis “at risk” will be determined by percentagearea thresholds for all pollutant types combinedwith verification using monitoring data. Lackof monitoring data and pressure layer information

will affect the confidence in the risk designation.Further assessment may be required to determinewhether associated surface waters orgroundwater-dependent terrestrial ecosystemsare adversely impacted.

Page 56: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

54 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

resource (MOCR) in a certain location and timecan be defined as the cost for the system of havingavailable one unit less of resource. The assessmentof the MOCR, is made by means of hydro-economic models at the river basin, able torepresent dynamically the marginal economicvalue in different locations in the basin, takinginto account resource availability, storagecapacity, losses, return flows, surface and groundwater interactions, and willingness-to-pay (ormarginal economic value) of the various demandunits. Monthly economic value functions thatexpress the relation between the supplied waterand the marginal value for each month of theyear are defined for the water uses. Theintegration of the demand economic function upto a certain level of supply (area under thedemand curve) provides the economic benefit

JUCAR

RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL COSTASSESSMENT FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSISThe provision of Article 5 and Article 9 of WFD,requires carrying out an economic analysis(Annex III of WFD) which allows assessment ofthe accomplishment of the principle of costrecovery for water services, includingenvironmental and resource costs, taking accountof the long term forecast of supply and demandfor water. The Jucar PRB apportions the total cost intothree separated components: financial, resourceand environmental. The financial cost is evaluatedby means of the expense assessment for all waterservices. The marginal opportunity cost of the

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1A

Figure 1 - Schematic

of the hydro-economic

models for Júcar RB.

Figure 2.- Annual and

monthly disaggregated

demand economic functions.

Page 57: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

The proposed approaches can be applied to theJúcar PRB since hydrological models for watermanagement have been previously developedand successfully applied on Júcar HydrologicalPlan, and the computation modules forincorporating the economic analysis have beenrecently developed and tested. Finally, it has to benoticed that, once the hydro-economic models arein service, they can provide additional interestingeconomic outputs. For instance, a similarapproach could be applied in order to assess theopportunity costs incurred by the society as aconsequence of the use of the resources to achieveand implement the environmental regulationsand the resulting reduction in production. Giventhe difficulty in assessing environmental cost asthe costs of damages to the ecosystem, an indirectpartial assessment of the environmental costscould be the marginal opportunity cost of theenvironmental measures that allow maintainingthe good ecological status. For example, themaintenance of ecological flows in a reach ofthe river represents a cost for the system, whichcorresponds to the economic losses for supplyreduction in the affected demands.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 55

imputed to this supply level. Operating cost to beconsidered include variable cost of intake,distribution and treatment of the resource forboth surface and groundwater supply.

Two complementary approaches are followed.The optimisation approach assumes that perfectmarket conditions exist, which allow foreconomically optimal water use, and the analysisof shadow prices or dual values yields an upperbound of the MOCR at different locations andtimes. The simulation approach assumes thatthe system is operated with allocation rulesestablished a priori. These rules can correspondto the priorities and historical rights, hencereproducing the current modus operandis of thesystem. The MOCR is obtained by comparing theaggregated benefits of the system with the benefitsthat would occur if a unit less of water wereavailable at a given location and given time. Thegap between the results corresponding to theeconomically optimal water use and to the currentwater allocation system allows assessing the“distance” between the optimum and anymanagement analysed.

Figure 3.- Time evolution

of MOCR at a reservoir

(red) and at a diversion

point (blue).

Page 58: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

56 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

rivers. The anthropogenic influence and present-day pressure to many of these waters are low orinsignificant, with a consequently low risk ofdeteriorated status according to the WFD. It issubsequently a challenge to divide these watersinto reasonable WBs for management purposes,appropriately meeting the WFD requirements,as well as designing appropriate hydrographicalunits, avoiding a huge number of small WBs

SULDAL

DELINEATION OF SURFACE WATER BODIES(WBS) - AN APPROACH APPLIED TONORWEGIAN FRESHWATERSThe Norwegian climate and topography hascreated a large number of small and large lakes,as well as a complex network of streams and

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1A

Page 59: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

crosses type-borders (e.g. timber line, post IceAge marine boundary), it should be assessedwhether a new WB should be defined or not.This assessment needs to be based on whetherthere are significant changes in ecology andalso the size and importance of the potentialnew WB. As an example where a new WBshould not be identified is when a tributaryruns a few hundred meters in the valley belowthe marine boundary before it reaches themain river. A change from above to belowthe marine boundary would normally lead toanother type of WB and consequently a newWB. However, in this example, the tributarywould still be dominated by the upstreamecology.

• The WBs will be identified as far as possiblebased on management units. WBs will begrouped into larger units for managementpractices, such as monitoring, reporting andclassification.

• The size of a WB will depend on identifiedpressures. However, there needs to be aminimum limit on how small a WB can be.This has to be decided based on qualifiedjudgement like how serious the environmentalproblem is and how suitable the unit is formanagement purposes. An example of aminimum limit is that it needs more than a 100meters reach of reduced river water qualitycaused by pollution or encroachments beforea new WB needs to be identified.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 57

with no significance for practical purpose.Norway has applied the following mainadaptations during the first phase ofcharacterization (8 pilot studies) according toArticle 5. • Lakes < 0.5 km2 are generally included in the

river network and are merged into the adjacentriver WB. Single, small lakes may still beselected as separate WBs if there are significantmanagement issues.

• Lakes > 0.5 km2 (which number approx.4500 in Norway) are always identified as aseparate WB. However, the associated rivermay still be a continuous WB through thelake, joining the upstream and downstreampart of the river into one single WB.

• Catchments with homogeneous ecologicaltypology, as well as facing comparablepressures and impacts throughout, should notbe divided into subunits even if the size is >>10 km2. Consequently, the river networkwithin a large catchment may consist of onesingle river WB.

• Small rivers which drain separately into thesea, a large river or a lake, are merged withneighbouring catchments into one single WBif typology, pressure and impact are alikethroughout. The resulting WB might be >> 10km2, but is separated from the WB it isdraining into, which has a different typeand/or category

• When an insignificant part of a catchment

Page 60: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

58 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1A

TEVERE

Page 61: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 59

Page 62: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

60 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1A

RIBBLEPublic participation

Page 63: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 61

TEVERE

CASE STUDIES (MONITORING)During Phase 1b, the Tevere River BasinAuthority, in collaboration with the RegionalEnvironmental Agencies, carried out monitoringactivities in order to verify and examine types andreference conditions further in depth.The following are 2 case studies containingpreliminary considerations on the results of theseanalyses.

TESTING OF THE WFD 2000/60/EC, PRBTESTING PHASE 1B: WATER BODYECOLOGICAL STATUS IN RELATION TOTYPE CLASSIFICATION.AUTHORS: Fedra Charavgis, TatianaNotargiacomo, Elisabetta Ceccarelli, LindaCingolani, Angiolo Martinelli (ARPA Umbria =Umbria Regional Environmental Agency)

ASSESSMENT OF WATER BODYECOLOGICAL STATUS IN RELATION TOTYPE CLASSIFICATION BASED ONHYDROMORPHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS

The Nestore river and the Assino torrent havebeen selected as water bodies in order to evaluatewhether the type classification based onhydromorphological parameters proposed in theWFD 200/60/EC and used by the Tevere PRB inthe context the WFD testing activity, alsorepresents a homogeneous ecological water bodycharacterization.

CASE STUDY 1: THE NESTORE RIVER (main stem of the river only type 1)The entire course of the Nestore river, a tributaryon the Tevere river’s hydraulic right, has beenclassified as Type 1. Due to the scarcity of anatural base flow and to the presence of differenttypes of anthropogenic pressures (farming,industry, agriculture, civil waste water discharge),the watercourse is considerably polluted. It’shydrological regime, subject to marked flowfluctuations during the year, is clearly torrential.Among the tributaries of the hydrographic right,

the Caina and Genna torrents are very polluted,due to wastewater discharge from urban centres,pig-farming activities, and industries.Data from the monitoring activity carried outalong the watercourse within the project “Indicatori Biologici per I Corsi d’Acqua e CanaliArtificiali = Biological Indicators for Watercoursesand Artificial Canals (APAT CTN_AIM,ARPATCTN_AIM leader, year 2003)” is available for theecological characterisation of the Nestore river. During 2003, three monitoring stations for theidentification of the chemico-physical parameterslisted in Annex 1 (Tab. 4) of D.Lgs 152/99 andof the benthic macroinvertebrate community(EBI) were sampled on a seasonal basis.Monitoring station n. 1, situated in the initialstretch of the river, upstream of the Piegara urbancenter, was chosen as reference for the naturalcharacteristics of the watercourse. The surroundingarea, covered by woods and cultivated land,generates a weaker anthropogenic impact in respectto the downstream part of the river. The benthicmacroinvertebrate community that was identifiedis taxa-rich and characterised by sensitiveorganisms (Plecoptera and wide-headedEphemeroptera), which are indicators of goodwater quality. The Extended Biotic Index values forwater quality range from class I to class II.Monitoring station n. 2 is located in Compignano,in the municipality of Marsciano, downstream ofthe immission of the Genna torrent, that stronglycontributes to the deterioration of the Nestoreriver’s water quality. The torrent is characterisedby a modest flow. It receives the effluent of the Piandella Genna treatment plant (that treats part of theurban and industrial discharge of the city ofPerugia). It is subject to the pollution loading fromintense farming activities. Withdrawals carriedout in the monitoring station showed that taxa wasdrastically reduced, sensitive groups completelydisappeared, and a very tollerant community,tipical of an environment with strong organicloading and low oxygen levels, developed. TheEBI values that were recorded correspond to classV quality (completely deteriorated environment).The analysis of chemical data confirm the presenceof a considerable anthropogenic impact.

CASE STUDIES PHASE 1B

Page 64: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Tab.2 –Nestore river surface water chemico-physical data

Parametri chimico-fisici Staz.1 Staz.1 Staz.1 Staz.2 Staz.2 Staz.2 Staz.3 Staz.3 Staz.328-05-03 9-09-03 10-11-03 28-05-03 9-09-03 10-11-03 28-05-03 9-09-03 10-11-03

3 3 3 3

pH (unità di pH) 8,15 8,18 8,12 7,77 7,78 8,33 8,06 7,88

Temperatura acqua °C 15,5 10 20,6 20,5 11 21,6 21,2 13

Ossigeno disciolto (DO) mg/l 9,3 10 2,4 1,2 2 8,8 6,5 8,8

Conducibilità(20°C) µS/cm 530 611 859 958 750 774 962 736

BOD5(O2) mg/l 0,7 0,8 22 7,2 6,2 12 4,4 9

COD(O2) mg/l 7,9 6 53 28 26 36 22 26

Fosforo totale(P) mg/l 0,05 <0,02 2 1,3 1,2 1 0,67 0,82

Ortofosfati (P) mg/l 0,03 <0,02 1,3 1 1,1 0,67 0,61 0,7

Azoto totale(N) mg/l 1,4 <1 14 8,7 9,9 6,1 6,8 8,4

Azoto nitrico (N) mg/l 0,58 0,35 1,2 4,7 2,8 1,7 5,2 3,6

Azoto nitroso (N) mg/l 0,01 <0,01 0,37 0,78 0,52 0,34 0,17 0,23

Azoto ammoniacale(N) mg/l < 0,04 <0,04 5,6 2 4,9 0,16 0,13 2,9

Solfati(SO4) mg/l 20 26 52 107 53 48 99 54

Cloruri (Cl)mg/l 36 50 87 99 69 69 100 76

Solidi sospesi mg/l 26 15 120 43 24 26 38 14

Durezza(CaCO) 275 298 339 376 271 319 358 253

Nota: per le condizioni idrologiche (fiume in secca), nel mese di luglio non è stato possibile effettuare il prelievo macrobentonico per la stazionen.1.

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1B

62 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

quality class IV or III) confirm the negative effectsof pollutants. In this part of the river theenvironmental status is classified as “poor”according to the legislation in force.Also biological data from the period October2003-April 2004, from two monitoring stationssituated upstream and downstream of thePietralata ENEL hydropower plant (in a stretch of

Monitoring station n. 3, called Fornaci Briziarelli,is located downstream of the Marsciano urbancenter, before the confluence of the Nestore riverwith the Tevere river. This station is included inthe regional monitoring network for surfacewaters in accordance with D.Lgs 152/99.Also in this monitoring station, the considerablealterations to the benthic community (6-8 taxa,

Tab. 1 – Benthic macroinvertebrate community in the Nestore river (CTN project).

Staz. 1 Staz.1 Staz.1 Staz. 2 Staz. 2 Staz.2 Staz. 3 Staz. 3 Staz. 3

mag-03 lug-03 Ottobre mag-03 lug-03 Ottobre-03 Maggio-03 Luglio-03 Ottobre-03

I.B.E 10-9 8 3 2 3 5 5/4 6

CLASSE I/II II V V V IV IV III

IN S

ECCA

Page 65: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 63

Tab. 3 – Relevant parameters in monitoring station upstream of the Pietralata hydropower plant

Localizzazione Nome Punto Comune Data prelievo Indice Biotico Classe di Qualità Temperatura acqua - °CPrelievo Esteso (I_B_E_)

Fiume Nestore A monte Centrale Panicale 08-ott-03 6 III

Pietrafitta

Fiume Nestore A monte Centrale Panicale 03-feb-04 6-5 7,0

Pietrafitta

Tab. 4 – Relevant parameters of the monitoring station downstream of the Pietralata hydropower plant

Localizzazione Nome Punto Comune Data prelievo Indice Biotico Classe di Qualità Temperatura acqua - °CPrelievo Esteso (I_B_E_)

Fiume Nestore A valle Centrale Montepetriolo 08-ott-03 6 IIIPietrafitta

Fiume Nestore A valle Centrale Montepetriolo 03-feb-04 6-5 III/IV 7,5Pietrafitta

Fiume Nestore A valle Centrale Montepetriolo 12-mar-04 6 IIIPietrafitta

Fiume Nestore A valle Centrale Montepetriolo 12-apr-04 6 IIIPietrafitta

the river comprised between monitoring stationsn. 1 and n. 2 of the CTN project), are available.The results of the EBI analysis in this stretch ofthe river identified an altered macrobenthiccommunity, characterised by third class qualityorganisms.This data allows us to classify the Nestore river,from an ecological point of view, into three mainstretches:• From the mouth to the Piegaro built-up area:

the environment shows moderate signs pfpollution and alteration. The water qualityfrom a chemical and a biological point ofview is good;

• Between Piegaro (downstream) and theconfluence with the Caina river: the overallwater quality is sufficient;

• From the confluence with the Caina river tothe confluence with the Tevere river: theenvironment suffers from the discharge ofheavy pollutant loadings from the twoaffluents. The final stretch is characterised bypoor water quality and it is very altered.

ConclusionsIn this case of a torrent classified as one type(type 1), 3 water bodies have been identified.However, on the basis of current available data,it is not clear whether the different ecologicalstatus is only due to pollution loading or if itreflects further typology sub-division.

CASE STUDY 2: THE ASSINO TORRENTThe Assino torrent is a tributary on thehydrographic left of the Tevere river. It is about 22km long and its total catchment area amounts to174.29 km2. Assino torrent’s main tributaries arethe Cesa torrent on the hydrographic right and theLanna torrent and S. Donato ditch on the left.On the basis of the WFD’s classification criteria,the torrent was sub-divided into two types: Type1 from the upstream stretch to the final stretch;Type 2 for the intermediate stretch. Regarding the torrent’s ecological characterisation,there is available data from three monitoringstations (year 2003), identified and sampled todraft the regional fish map, and from single data

Page 66: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

64 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

moderately polluted in monitoring station 1(quality class II) and with slight alterations inmonitoring station 2 (quality class II/I); thereare no industrial activities and urban settlementsthat exert a strong anthropogenic impact.Chemical analyses confirm the results obtainedfrom the biological parameters.Monitoring station 3 is situated in Piandassino,before the confluence of the Assino torrent withthe Tevere river. The surrounding environment ischaracterised by the presence of seed crops, urbansettlements, and a quarry in the stretch upstreamof the monitoring station, on the right side.Data from this monitoring station (final stretch ofthe Assino torrent), show signs of deterioration ofthe water quality, from a biological point of view(quality class III, sufficient). The disappearing ofmore sensitive taxa and the reduction of diversityindicate that there is a polluted and alteredenvironment. The chemical parameters, althoughinsufficient for a complete characterisation of thetorrent from a chemical point of view, on the

on sampling carried out in the most downstreammonitoring station, in the context of testing ofthe WFD on minor water bodies (year 2004).Monitoring station 1 is situated in the upstreamstretch of the river, in the area of Mocaiano(Gubbio plain), before the confluence with S.Donato ditch. The surrounding environment ischaracterised by cultivated fields and theMocaiano built-up area. Monitoring station 2 is located in CampoReggiano, in the municipality of Gubbio,upstream of the confluence with the Lannatorrent and after the confluence with the Cesatorrent, that conveys good quality water. Theenvironment is mainly characterised by woods onthe left side and by fields and scattered houses onthe right side. In this stretch the watercourse ismore natural and diverse.On the basis of the results from the analysis of themacrobenthic community, the Assino torrent’supstream stretch and the intermediate stretchare characterised by good water quality,

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1B

Tab 5 – Biological and chimico-physical parameters for the Assino torrent (Regional Fish Map, year 2003).

Ambiente Codice punto Località comune Data prelievo I. B. E. Classe BOD5 (O2) COD (O2) Azoto prelievo di Qualità mg/L mg/L ammoniacale

(N) mg/L

T. Assino 06assi01 Mocaiana Gubbio PG 26/06/03 8 II

T. Assino 06assi01 Mocaiana Gubbio PG 07/10/03 2,7 11 0,17

T. Assino 06assi02 Campo Reggiano Gubbio PG 25/06/03 0,8 9,1 <0,04

T. Assino 06assi02 Campo Reggiano Gubbio PG 26/06/03 9/10 II/I

T. Assino 06assi02 Campo Reggiano Gubbio PG 14/10/03 1,2 8 <0,04

T. Assino 06assi03 Ponte SS 3 BIS Umbertide PG 06/06/03 7 III

T. Assino 06assi03 Ponte SS 3 BIS Umbertide PG 25/06/03 0,9 8,3 <0,04

T. Assino 06assi03 Ponte SS 3 BIS Umbertide PG 14/10/03 2,1 10 0,1

Tab. 6 - Biological parameters and macrodescriptors, monitoring station upstream of confluence with Tevere river

Ambiente Codice punto Località comune Data prelievo I. B. E. Classe BOD5 COD (O2) Azoto (N) mg/Lprelievo di Qualità (O2) mg/L mg/L ammoniacale

(N) mg/L

T. Assino 06assi03 Ponte SS 3 BIS Umbertide PG 27/05/04 7 III 1,8 7,1 <0,04

Page 67: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

and the second stretch (type 2) have similarecological characteristics and can therefore beconsidered as an only water body. The fact thattype differences are “masked” may be due to theimpossibility of describing ecological differences indetail using only one indicator (EBI).

SULDALProposed procedure to determine futuremonitoring in the Suldal PRBA 5-step approach has been developed asprocedure to design the monitoring of the Suldalcatchment to be able to fulfil the requirements ofthe Water Framework Directive (WFD). Thisapproach is based on testing the CIS-guidance onmonitoring (MONITOR) and on otherpreliminary experiences of the PRB project.

1. Provisional characterisation as basis

2. Requirements of the WFDThe MONITOR GD gives few quantitativecriteria for monitoring and opens for nationaladaptation.

’Surveillance monitoring’• Surveillance monitoring is needed, but not

necessary within the catchment if otherrepresentative locations exist outside the

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 65

Azoto Azoto Fosforo Ossigeno Temperaturanitrico nitroso Totale disciolto acqua(N) mg/L (N) mg/L (P) mg/L (DO) mg/L

1,7 0,07 0,15 8,8 13,2

1,6 0,01 0,06 8,9 21,4

1,8 <0,01 0,05 11,6 12,7

1,2 0,01 0,03 8,2 23,2

0,88 0,02 0,06 9,8 14,2

(WFD testing activity, year 2004).

Azoto Azoto Fosforo % sat. Escherichianitrico nitroso Totale Ossigeno coli(N) mg/L (N) mg/L (P) mg/L disciolto

2 <0,02 107,8 430

contrary, show that the water quality is good. Theresults of the analysis carried out in 2004 formonitoring station n. 3 confirm what wasdemonstrated by precedent sampling.

From an ecological point of view, the Assinotorrent can be sub-divided into two stretches:

- From the source to Camporeggiano: theenvironment shows signs of pollution andslight alterations. The water quality from achemical and biological point of view is good;

- From Camporeggiano up to the confluencewith the Tevere river: Although the impactfrom anthropogenic activities is not verystrong, the water quality from a biologicalpoint of view is one class lower, also due to theminor turbulence and slower velocity of thewatercourse’s flow.

ConclusionsThe results from the monitoring activity showedthat the first stretch of the Assino torrent (type 1)

Suldal PRB – only surface water included in this case

Area 1561 km2

Water Bodies 113 identified

Category River Lake Bekkefelt * HMWB

43 stk 27 stk 43 stk 54 stk

Type 5 river 4 lake 3 types ”bekkefelt”

* Due to a large number of rivers and lakes, a new category has been

identified as “sub-catchment river network” (Bekkefelt).

Status: 54 HMWB (automatically at risk in the provisional

characterisation) and 59 water bodies not expected to be at risk.

Page 68: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

catchment. • Reference stations to monitor natural

condition for each type (12 types within thecatchment).

• Today’s condition needs to be monitored: for12 water types and 5 types of pressures(maximum 60 locations).

• Parameters: biology, physio-chemistry andhydromorphology.

• Natural trends and long term changes causedby anthropogenic activity.

‘Operational monitoring’: only in water bodies”at risk”. • In Suldal PRB that will be on HMWB that will

not reach maximum potential. • Risk assessments for HMWB are not executed

in the provisional characterisation.

‘Investigative monitoring’: not identified needs inthe catchment.

3. Existing monitoring in the Suldal PRB

4. Classification of existing monitoringSurveillance monitoring: chemistry, heavy metals,water flow and temperature. Operational monitoring: monitoring in the RiverSuldal related to the adjustment of a new

66 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

regulation regime (biology, chemistry, sedimentsand temperature) and related to the limingactivities (biology, chemistry).

5. Proposal for future monitoring in the SuldalPRBThe monitoring is aimed to be as cost-effective aspossible. It should as far as possible be based onexisting monitoring with good co-ordinationbetween different authorities and organisations.

Monitoring in the Suldal PRB will to a largeextent be classified as surveillance monitoring(reference locations and trends). A nationalnetwork needs to be established to finally decidehow many locations that are needed within theSuldal catchment.

The monitoring will be based on the knowledgeof the pressures in the area and on establisheddose-response relationships between indirectparameters, e.g. water flow and ecological statusor pH values and fish stock. Large parts of thecatchment are remote areas with low pressure andwill automatically be characterised as “low risk”and monitoring in these areas will only benecessary as part of monitoring referenceconditions and natural trends.

ODENSE

A) CASE STUDIES ON WETLANDSThe purpose of the Water Framework Directiveincludes the protection, restoration andenhancement of the water needs of wetlands.Deterioration of the status of wetlands can becaused by other parameters than the water level.Par example overload of nutrients, not only fromground water as mentioned in the Directive, butalso from drainage and air pollution, can causedamage to wetlands. Removing peat from mirescan also cause deterioration. As wetlands in many cases already in the textare defined as part of the water bodies, ifbelonging to riparian, lakeshore or inter-tidalzone, it is also relevant to protect these parts ofthe water bodies from other factors changingtheir conditions than water level. Wetlands can

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1B

A. Biological paremeters;

• Macrophytes and periphyton : : 9 locations

• Fish - young : 16 locations

• Benthic fauna : 13 locations

• Spawning fish : 21 locations

• Hazardous substances in fish : 1 location

B. Physiochemical parameters

• Water chemistry : 11 locations

• Water temperature : 12 locations

• Long-range transported air/rain : 13 locations

• Metals in lakes : 1 location

C. Hydro-morphological parameters

• Water flow : 11 locations

• Sediments : 3 locations

Page 69: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

hydrological regime changes through a rivervalley, but most of the valley will always beaffected of either ground water, water level inriver or drainage conditions. If about 50 % of acatchment area as per example on Fyn inDenmark is drained with tiles, it is very importantto look at the hydrology for surface water runoff,drain water and root zone runoff more thanground water levels. Even ground water fromthe root zone will be collected in the drain tiles.Historically all this water has been seepingthrough the soil to the river valley. Hydrology andtopography must be decisive for which areas areassociated with a water body. Formerly wetlandsshould also be included as potential, because arestoration of such areas can be very importantin relation to fulfil the objective of par examplegood ecological status for a water body. FynsCounty in Denmark has maps showing wetlandsfrom 1890’s, which we expect to use as guidelinesfor finding wetlands adapted to water bodies,also the potential ones.It can be recommended to have equal obligationsto wetlands that are not individual water bodies,and to “open water” wetlands, which areidentified as water bodies.

ExamplesAn example is the regulation of the River Odense,which took place over the period 1941–1960.This resulted in the cultivation of the lowlandareas along the watercourses. It has not beenpossible to maintain this cultivation on all ofthis land right up to the present time, however.For example, large areas around UlvebækkenBrook are presently meadow and mire. Asubsidence survey (Nielsen, 2002) has shownthat large parts of the lowland areas havesubsided by up to 1 m, while those alongsideUlvebækken Brook has subsided by up to 3 m.The rule of thumb is 1 cm pr year. There areseveral reasons for the subsidence. When thewater level is lowered in peaty soils these dryout, thereby enabling consolidation to take place.At the same time the peat becomes oxidized dueto drainage, where after it decompositionincreases. The new water table in re-createdwetlands will therefore have to be adapted tothe subsidence that has taken place; otherwise,very large lakes will form in the watercourse

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 67

of course need water of different reasons, butwetlands can also be overloaded with nutrients,so that the retention capacity will minimize andleaching of phosphorus and other substancescan occur. Recommendations on wetlandmanagement from the international projectBERNET (Baltic Eutrophication RegionalNetwork) are attached.In Denmark wetlands can be categorized in fourtypes:

• existing natural wetlands• restored wetlands with water level adapted

to existing nature values • restored wetlands with natural hydrology• restored wetlands with natural hydrology

used as nutrient sinks

It is important to ensure that all types of existingwetlands are protected and prevented fromdeterioration in relation to the Water FrameworkDirective, because all wetlands whether naturalor restored, are transforming nutrients leaving thecatchments and thereby the surface water bodiesare protected. In some countries, now also inDenmark, you find political decisions describingthat the highest priority is international designatedareas. That makes a more general protection ofwetlands on an international basis absoluterelevant. Another aspect is that the “obligationsto prevent more than very minor anthropogenicdisturbance to the hydromorphological conditionof surface water bodies at High Ecological Status”including the “structure and conditions ofriparian, lakeshore or inter-tidal zone” also haveto cover wetlands adapted to water bodies withlower status than High Ecological Status. Reasonis that wetlands can be of great importance inrelation to downstream water bodies, which canhave a higher status than the water body closestto the wetland. So actually it is necessary to lookat wetlands in the whole catchment of a waterbody at High Ecological Status. In addition to thatit can be recommended that above-mentionedobligations also must apply for water bodies atGood Ecological Status.It is also important that the whole river valleys aredefined as relevant to the achievement of theDirective’s objectives and not only smaller partsof the valley, as shown in figure 2. Often the

Page 70: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

68 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

systems themselves, which is undesirable from thepoint of view of fish passage. And historicallythere have not been large lakes in these areas, buta meandering river.Since 1890, the area of extensively farmedlowland has decreased by 45% in Odense RiverBasin. This reduction is typically attributable to

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1B

drainage and ditching of meadows/wetlands,straightening and deepening of watercourses andthe pumping of water away from wetlands.Watercourse maintenance has also influencedthe water level in the adjoining wetlands. Prior toadoption of the new Watercourse Act in 1983, thewatercourses were maintained frequently, and

Page 71: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 69

in a hard-handed manner. With the newWatercourse Act the purpose was changed suchdrainage has to be ensured while concomitantlytaking into consideration the environmentalrequirements to watercourse quality.Abstraction of groundwater for drinking water,industry and irrigation also influence the waterlevel in wetlands. This is particularly the casefor wetlands located in upwelling areas. A lowerwater table will also diminish water flow in thewatercourses, however, which will have a moregeneral effect on all the wetlands along thewatercourses and hence have a great impact.An example of a wetland that has been drained, butwhich has now been re-established under the ActionPlan on the Aquatic Environment II, is the reach ofthe River Odense upstream of Tørringe Brook.This reach was regulated during the period1944–1950. Scenarios for the consequences ofdrainage of the floodplain have been established for

the 1930s, the 1960s and for drainage state inbetween. These have been used in connection withthe re-establishment of a new wetland in 2003 (SeeFigure 4.4.1). The whole river valley is permanentlylaid out as wetland areas and 4 km of the river isrestored with new meanders placed like the originalones. During winter time 2003/04 huge amounts ofsand and other suspended materials were depositedon the meadows in the river valley. Investigations ofnutrient transformation are running. The newwetland of 78 hectares is expected to transformabout 205 kg N/ha/yr, corresponding to 16 tonnesN/yr in total. Especially in relation to rivers and river valleys it isvery important with coherence to optimise allaspects. With regard to the wetlands being re-establishedunder the Action Plan on the AquaticEnvironment II, the aim is to denitrify as muchnitrogen as possible and retain as much

Page 72: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

70 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1B

Quality Elements Odense Pilot River Basin

MonitoringLocation

Rivers

Lakes

Coastal Waters

Water supply wells ****(ground water)

Private Wells ****(ground water)

Special ground water monitoring program

Nature, terrestrial

Wetlands ( re-created)

Wastewater TreatmentPlants

Number of locations/Total number of Stations

32 / 32

35 / 71

3/11

63 / 230

4000 / 4000

3/14

5 / 180

3/8

19 / 38

Parameter/Number of stations/Sample frequency (number of stations)

NPO / 32 / 365 per year (2), 20 per year (10), 2-3 per year (20)HMETAL / 2 / 12 per year HAZSUB / 1 / 12 per year

NPO / 35 / 19 (1), 7 every 3’rd year (9), 6 every 6’th year (16), 1 every 6’th year (9)NPO_SED / 36 / 1 every 6’th year (6), 1 every 10’th year (30)HMETAL/ 30 / 1 every 10’th year

NPO / 5 / 26-51 (p) per yearHMETAL / 2-3 / 1 per yearHAZSUB / 2-3 / 1 per yearSEDFLUX / 3 / 10 every 3’rd year

NPO / 230 / 1 per 2-5 years HAZSUB / 230 / 1 per 2-5 years HMETAL / 230 / 1 per 2-5 years MCG / 230 / 1 per 2-5 years

NPO / 4000 / 1 every 5’th year

NPO / 67 / 1 per year HAZSUB / 62 / 1 per year HMETAL / 14 / 1 per year MCG / 67 /1 per year

NPLANT / 50 / 1 per year NpH_SOIL / 20-30 / 1 per yearCNP_SOIL / 20 / 1 every 6’th year

NPO / 8 / 12-24 per year

NPO / 38 / 52 per year (2), 2-24 per year (36)HMETAL / 14 / 2-4 per yearHAZSUB / 1 / 4 every 3’rd year

Chemical monitoring

****: The monitoring of groundwater in accordance with Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC

Parameters:

BACT: Coliforme Bacteria, BENTH: Benthic fauna

BIOLext: Physical index, macrophytes (in-stream, borders, riparian zone), macroinvertebrates, fish, water chemistry

BIOLint: Physical index, macrophytes (in-stream, borders, riparian zone), macroinvertebrates, fish, water chemistry, soil composition/groundwater table in riparian zone

CHLO: Chlorophyll-a biomass (p: may involve profiles, i.e. ≥ 1 sample), CNP_SOIL: Carbon, Nitrogen and Phosphorus in soil

FISH: Fish (**: Survey), HAZSUB: Hazardous substances (pesticides, ……..)

Page 73: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 71

Parameter/Number of stations /Sample frequency (number of stations)

BIOLext / 19 / 1-1/6 per year.BIOLint / 4 / 1 per year.INVERT / 265 / 1 per year.BACT / 10 / 12 per year.

CHLORO / 37 / 19 (1), 7 every 3’rd year (9), 6 every 6’th year (16), 1 every 6’th year (9) ), 6 every 6’th year(16), 1 every 6’th year (9) PHYTO & ZOOPL / 12 / 19 per yr. (1), 1 every 3’rd year (9)MACRO / 35** / 1 (1), 1 every 3’rd year (9), 1 every 6’th year (25)FISH / 8**/ 1 every 6’th year BENTH / 8** / 1 every 6’th year

HAZSUB / 3 / 1 per year PHYTO / 1 / 26 per yearBENTH / 50 / 1 per year CHLO / 5 / 26-51 (p) per yearFISH / **/ 1 every 6’th year BACT / 12 / 10 per yearMACRO / 9** / 3 per year

BACT / 230 / 1 per 2-5 years

BACT / 4000 / 1 every 5’th year

VEG / 180 / 1 per year

BACT / 6 / 2-4 per year

Number of locations / Total number of stations

265 / 265

35 / >35**

3/80

63 / 230

4000 / 4000

5 / 180

3/6

Biological monitoring

HMETAL: Heavy metals , INVERT: Macroinvertebrate survey (Danish Stream Fauna Index)

MACRO: Macrophytes (**transects or surveys, not stations),

MCG: Main constituents of groundwater, sulfur, ammonium, oxygen, iron, aggresive carbon content, chloride, pH, ect.

NPLANT: Nitrogen in plants, NpH_SOIL: Nitrogen, pH and conductivity in soil and soil water

NPO: Nitrogen, Phosphorus and BOD (p: may involve profiles, i.e. ≥ 1 sample), NPOSED: Nitrogen, Phosphorus and other substances in sediments.

PHYTO: Phytoplankton species and biomass, SEDFLUX: Nutrient flux to/from sediments

VEG: Vegetation analysis, ZOOPL: Zooplankton

Page 74: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

72 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

phosphorus as possible while concomitantly re-creating some natural habitats with naturalhydrology as an alternative to cultivated fields.Nitrogen retention amounts to 200–350 kgN/ha/yr for the 21 wetlands that have either beenre-established and monitored or have beeninvestigated and calculated in Fyn County. Sixof these 21 wetlands are located in Odense RiverBasin, corresponding to approx. 570 ha. Of this,approx. 220 ha of wetlands have been establishedby the end of 2003. This corresponds to a nitrogenreduction of approx. 114–200 tonnes N/yr inOdense River Basin. This reduction especiallyhas a positive effect on the Odense Fjord.Wetlands re-established under Action Plan on theAquatic Environment II, which is financed nationallyand regionally, are encompassed by permanentprotection at the national/regional level. The areasare encompassed by agreements – recorded in theLand Registry under the property in question –permanently designating the land as wetland. Another example is a re-established wetlandfrom 2001 at Wedellsborg on Fyn, Denmark,where the pumping of drain water has beenstopped and the drain tiles are cut. Thereby theground water level has raised and the lowlandareas are irrigated with drain water. 40 hectaresof mainly agricultural land has been converted towetland and surrounding meadows with naturalhydrology. Some of the 40 hectares have turnedinto lake, others into swamp and more or less wetmeadows. Before the re-establishment there werea few hectares of protected grasslands. Insteadnature got a lake and much more grasslandsaround that. It is important to weigh the differentinterests, to look at the projects in their entiretyand to see the perspectives for the nearest waterbody and for the final recipient.This wetland area has been investigated from anutrient and a biological point of view. Thenitrate transformation has with background inmeasurements been calculated to 230 kg N/ha/yr.Biological this area has developed to a paradisefor birds. Even very rare birds for this regiznhave found their way to the new wetland, parexample Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia), LittleEgret (Egretta garzetta) and Black-winged Stilt(Himantopus himantopus).

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1B

RE-ESTABLISHED WETLAND AT ODENSE RIVER BASIN

B) CASE STUDIES ON MONITORING

Monitoring programme of the OPRB-area, FynCounty

The Danish monitoring programme was startedin 1974 by the regional authorities, the Danishcounties, due to the obligations of the first DanishEnvironmental Act. In 1989, a national andregional combined monitoring programme wasstarted in agreement between the regionalauthorities and the state. This programme wasrevised in 1998, and again in 2003. The presentnational and regional monitoring programme isconducted by Fyn County as a part of theobligations in the Environmental Act, the APAEI and II, and the Danish transposition of theWFD.The purpose of the present monitoringprogramme is to describe:

• the present ecological state of the surfacewaters and the chemical state of the groundwater and drinking water.

• species diversity and quality of terrestric nature(Habitats areas).

• pressure factors in terms of loads of nutrientsand hazardous substances and waterabstraction.

• impact of the described pressure factors on theecological status of the water resources.

• effects of measures (point sources, diffusesources, physical improvement etc.).

• nutrient removal and development of recreatedwetlands.

Through this programme, a sound basis isestablished for describing the necessary means ofregulating the man-made impact of the aquaticenvironment, and thus facilitate the politicaldecision process.

Traditionally, the Danish monitoring programme,running since 1976, has been focused on nutrientsand eutrophication, which has been consideredthe main problem in the Danish aquaticenvironment. Since 1998, however, attention has

Page 75: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Figure 2 Area “A” of Figure

1 in more detail. Whilst the

topographic divide indicates

a gradient to the south,

hydrogeological studies

indicate that groundwater

flows to the northern river

system and turloughs

(groundwater fed lakes).

In this case the area was

assigned to the Western

RBD.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 73

also been paid to hazardous substances. Theprogramme has been revised in 2003, and nowincludes terrestric nature quality. The programmewill be revised again in 2006, when the WFD-monitoring programme shall be established, tomeet the requirements of the WFD.

Physical pressure factors have not been an integralpart of the program till now, but will be animportant factor to consider in the newprogrammes designed for the WFD.A general overview of the monitoring programmein the OPRB-area is presented in the map,showing all monitoring sites located in the area,and a table summing up number of stations,frequencies and parameters.

SHANNON

ASSIGNMENT OF SHARED GROUNDWATERAND ASSOCIATED WETLANDS BETWEENRIVER BASINS IN THE SHANNON PILOT RIVERBASIN

Introduction & MethodologyGroundwater bodies were delineated in theShannon Pilot River Basin (PRB) using no-flowgeological boundaries. In some cases this resultedin shared groundwater between river basins,mainly in areas of karst groundwater where the

influence of topography is diminished (see Figure1). Article 3(1) of WFD states that ‘Wheregroundwaters do not fully follow a particularriver basin, they shall be identified and assigned tothe nearest or most appropriate river basin district’.

The decision to assign groundwater to the mostappropriate river basin was based on the existingsurface water boundary, groundwater flowregime, tracer studies, bedrock & structural

Figure 1 Karst areas in the Shannon PRB where the

topographic & groundwater divide to not coincide.

Page 76: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

74 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

will be essential in developing programme ofmeasures and river basin management plans, toensure that such interconnected water bodiesand associated ecosystems are adequatelyprotected.Acknowledgements: Environmental ProtectionAgency and Geological Survey of Ireland.

geology, modelled groundwater source protectionareas, and the presence of dependent ecosystems(e.g. groundwater fed lakes). Figure 2 illustratesthis process for area “A” of Figure 1.

ConclusionsCooperation between neighbouring river basins

ANNEX I: CASE STUDIES PHASE 1B

Page 77: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

potential significant pressures is recommendedby Suldal,

• The Mosel/Saar PRB would have preferred amore detailed and more extensive list ofcriteria for identifying significant pressures,especially when it comes to groundwater.Others (Marne; Shannon) appear to be moreskeptical about absolute criteria for individualpressures and therefore look for integratedapproaches that take into account thepotential impact. Oulujoki have notdetermined yet the criteria for assessing thesignificance of pressures.

• A major issues emerges from the fact thatsome PRBs can not see how a detailed analysisincluding the whole list of pressure at a waterbody level could be conducted consideringthe large number of water bodies present intheir catchments (Odense). Furthermore suchdetailed analysis would require a huge amountof data that might not be available (Neisse), orcould not be done in a timely manner(Scheldt).

• Some of the responses included details aboutlocal approaches to identify pressures (Jucar),and how the list of pressures was includedinto a methodological risk assessmentapproach (Shannon).

• It appears that the LAWA screening tool hasbeen used in several PRBs to start the pressureand impact analysis

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 75

Since that water bodies delineation is anhorizontal guidance a dedicated report wasprepared and it is available on CIRCA underPilot River Basin/PRB Outcome Report – Phase1a/ANNEXES.

GD: PRESSURES AND IMPACTS

General issuesThe Guidance document on pressures and impactwas supposed to be tested on the following 12PRBS: Suldal (Su), Jucar (Ju), Oulujoki (Ou),Mosel/Saar (MS), Neisse (Ne), Odense (Od),Marne (Ma), Pinios (Pi), Shannon (Sh), Tevere(Te), Cecina (Ce), Scheldt (Sc).

Key issues

QUESTION: IS THE LIST OF "PRESSURES"AND THE RELATED "CRITERIA" ADEQUATEAS A BASIS TO DEFINE THOSE SIGNIFICANTPRESSURES AT WATER BODY LEVEL THATPOSE A RISK OF FAILING TO MEET THEENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES?

The responses are quite mixed however, overallit seems that the list of pressures listed in theIMPRESS documents are adequate.• It is stressed however that the list strongly

focuses on pollution sources while notsufficient attention is given to morphologicalpressures, and pressures linked with wateruse and management, which seems to be thecase in Norway. This point is also underlinedby the Scheldt. In this context a integration ofthe HMWB analysis and the analysis of

ANNEX II: SUMMARIZEDEXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS

In ANNEX II the answers to the ToR given by the PRBs were summarised for each GuidanceDocuments in order to highlight the main outcome for each of them.

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITHGDS, PHASE 1A

Page 78: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

QUESTION: IS THE LIST OF "IMPACTINDICATORS" AND "THRESHOLD SIZES"ADEQUATE TO ASSESS THE RISK OF FAILINGTO MEET THE ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES?

Most of the responses agree that even thoughthe list of impact indicators is quite thoroughand complete, there is a lack of specific thresholdvalues. Suldal and Mosel/Saar call for a morespecific list of indicators combined with specificthreshold values. It seems that many PRBs willrely on already existing national thresholds valueswhen possible for conducting the pressure andimpact analysis as no specific values are given inthe guidance document or are not yet available.• several PRBs noted the necessity to include

water bodies vulnerability in the analysisprocess

• several PRBs also stressed the need of datain order to assess the state of water bodies,which are not always available, in particularas far as impacts from changes in thehydrological regime or in the morphology ofthe water bodies are concerned, whereas thedata availability concerning the physico-chemical quality elements is better althoughquite often not yet desegregated to the waterbody level.

Marne hints to the limits of indicators with regardto assessing the biological impact andrecommends the use of additional sources ofinformation like expert judgement, modellingresults, investigative monitoring.It is highlighted that the criteria and thresholdscan be helpful to identify a potential impact butare not sufficient as a basis for a decision whethera water body might be at risk of failing to meetthe good status.

QUESTION: IS THE DPSI(R) CONCEPTAPPLICABLE IN PRACTICE?

Most of the PRBs agree on the applicability of theDPSI(R) framework even though the variousPRBs are at various stages of implementation ofthe process, especially the response part thatshould be tested later on.• One of the major concern is that the

distinction between “state” and “impact” isnot always clear as mentioned by the Scheldt,

Neisse, and the Odense• Different methodologies are being used going

from expert judgement (Odense), to simpleand sophisticated models (Mosel/Saar, Odense,Neisse)

• The Czech part of the Neisse states that theDPSI(R) framework is only applicable to largebasins, and has limited applicability to smallwater bodies due to extensive datarequirement

• It was also underlined that clear links betweenimpact and pressures do not always exist

QUESTION: HOW WAS DEALT WITH THEPROVISIONAL IDENTIFICATION OFHMWB AND WB?

Many PRB made reference to the HMWBguidance for a detailed answer (Odense, Oulujoki,Scheldt, Suldal, Mosel/Saar and Marne). Work isstill under progress for the Scheldt, Shannon.For Suldal, a screening of hydropower installationwas carried in the identification of water bodies.• Many PRBs noted the lack of available

definition of good ecological status. For theJucar, since no definition is availableconcerning good ecological status, it classifiedthe HMWB only on significant hydromorphological alterations using the followingcriteria: large reservoir or dams, urban riverstretches, water bodies downstream of dams,and artificial channels. The Marne performedthe classification of the HMWB independentlyfrom the pressure and impact analysis.Mosel/Saar also stresses the lack of availabledefinition of good ecological status in relationto HMWB.

QUESTION: HOW WAS DEALT WITH THEIMPACT OF "AUTONOMOUSDEVELOPMENTS" AND "EXISTINGPOLICIES" IN THE IMPACT ASSESSMENTS?

Most of the responses state that work concerningautonomous development and existing policies is stillunderway or has not been assessed yet (Jucar,Oulujoki, Shannon. Scheldt). Some research workis performed on the Odense to assess the trend inagricultural production and expected trends inwastewater discharge in response to improvement

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS, PHASE 1A

76 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

Page 79: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

in a consistent and transparent manner.• For the Suldal, the major issue is the need of

a tool for data collection and management,with the requirement that all data be linked tothe River Network.

• For the Mosel/Saar, common modellingapproach (PEGASE model) will be used on thewhole international basin to asses (and tosimulate) the impact of the point pollutionsources (organic matter, nutriments), takinginto account the diffuse sources (agricultural)as a background.

• Oulujoki has organised stakeholder workshopconcerning this issue

• Odense underline that the most significantproblems linked with human activities arealready known, and have been identifiedindependently of the WFD, during the nationallegislation since 1974. This is clearlymentioned in the Art-5-report Summary andconclusion, and is also to be extracted from theOdense ToR - answers. Odense also underlinehow management details related to all specificwater bodies will first be identified through thewater management planning

QUESTION: CLARITY OF THE GUIDANCE

Suldal and Mosel/Saar gave answers to thisquestion. For the latter, the shortcoming of theguidance is that no threshold is given forgroundwater, and it is expected that thegroundwater daughter Directive will remedy this.For Suldal, the guidance lacks clarity and couldbe improved in the link between IMPRESS andHMWB guidance. Suldal also requests to providea better description of what the recommendationsare concerning the assessment of the impact ofdifferent pressures.

GD: REFERENCE CONDITIONS

General issuesIt emerges from the answers that theestablishment of reference conditions for surfacewater bodies in the pilot river basins is at theearly stages of the implementation due to differentreasons. Firstly because the spatial based

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 77

already decided. Mosel/Saar stresses the necessity totake into account the requirements of other ECdirectives and the respective schedules forimplementing these directives, the measures requiredby existing national or regional legal obligations orpolitical decisions as well as all existing informationon already determined developments like the closingdown of industrial sites.

QUESTION: HOW IS/WILL THE GAINEDINFORMATION BE SYNTHESISED TOBECOME THE OFFICIAL ART. 5 REPORTFOR THE COMMISSION?

• For the Suldal, the gathered information canbe presented at different aggregation levelsfrom natural boundaries (basin, sub-basin)to administrative units. Aggregation level willdepend upon the EU decision on reportingrequirement. Similarly, the Oulujoki waits forguidance from the CIS reporting group. Noanswer was possible for the Scheldt becausework is still under way.

• For the Mosel/Saar information could beaggregated at water body scale, river basinor management unit. The final scale will takeinto account the clarity of the information tobe provided

• Jucar will report results at the water bodyscale.

• For the Odense and the Shannon the scale ofthe GIS map will dictate the degree ofaggregation. However, guidance on the EUrequirement is needed.

QUESTION: HOW TO IDENTIFYSIGNIFICANT WATER MANAGEMENTISSUES (ART 14.1 WFD)?

Jucar and the Scheldt are still investigating theissue of identification, while for the Odense thisprocess will only be possible once the pressureanalysis is completed.• For the Marne PRB, the most significant

problems linked with human activities arealready known and have been identifiedindependently from the WFD implementation.Similarly, for the Shannon some issues areknown a priori, the human impact analysiswill confirm a posteriori the significant issues

Page 80: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

78 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

network, some PRB are using the monitoringnetwork for surface waters which is run andestablished at level state (Neisse), while others isusing its own network specially set up for thefollow-up of its currently in force WaterManagement Plan in its territorial domain (Jucar).The joint apply of models and land use coverageas a practical pressure criterion seems the morecommon and appropriated approach adoptedby PRB for assessing the impact associated topressures on diffused pollution (Oulujoki,Odense)

WATER BODY DELINEATION SYSTEM.

There is a common position of the majority ofPilot River Basins for all types of water bodies onthe use of System B (Annex II, WFD).Obligatory factors of system A are also beingused as a regular basis for this matter, thoughsome basins report there is a lack of information(e.g. in the Suldal basin depth data are notavailable for Norwegian lakes).Some of the PRB (Jucar, Odense) are still decidingwhich factors of system B will use jointly with theobligatory factors of system A. For instance theJucar PRB is conducting a spatial analysistechnique for the defining and characterisation ofecotypes/ecoregions prior to the selection of thefactors, while the Odense due to the abundanceof relatively small waterways have proposed theuse of special factors and tested an alternativetypology in a particular sub-basin.It is to note that some of the pilot basins(Shannon, Jucar) are doing the delineation ofwater types within the context of an ongoingnational program.Finally the Flanders part of the Scheldt basinreports that it has not been decided yet whichsystem to use for lakes.

PRACTICAL PRESSURE CRITERIA.

From the answers it follows that the majority ofbasins are making use of this criteria in greater orlesser detail for the identification of referenceconditions sites and the quality class boundaries.Yet, this is an ongoing activity and no final resultsare available for any basin.In the Odense basin the criteria are used, and in

approach seems a priori the most desirable wayto proceed for PRB since it is the most direct,suitable and trustful of them, and so this methodis applied whenever possible. But the maindifficulty for its implementation, besides therequirement of infrastructure, depend on findingsites within basins for all the homogeneousregions (ecoregions) with no or very minordeviation from undisturbed conditions. Secondlybecause as a result of it, PRB have to use indirectmethods as predictive models or temporally basedtechniques like historical data or paleo-reconstruction which are time-consuming to setup since they need to be calibrated and validatedfor each ecoregions and water body type theyare created for. This has led to adopt expertjudgement or the use of the practical pressurecriteria approach as the interim last resorts inmany cases, while the others methods are tuning.And finally because the final step of setting RCis the validation and the establishment of valuefor the boundary between classes will beestablished through the intercalibration exerciseto be finished by the end of 2006.

Key issues

AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURES.

The availability of infrastructure on expertise,databases, models and organisational structure ispresent in more or less extent in all River Basin,though its grade vary from basin to basin. Thenext conclusions can be drawn from the responsesto the ToR.Several PRB (e.g. Sudal, Odense) agree that whiletheir infrastructure provide good level ofinformation for the broad surface of the basin,there is a need for improvement in some parts ofthe basin because “...almost no data exist.” orsome type of information “is well known formajor catchments, but not for small areas”, orthat monitoring network provide not enoughinformation for small streams, and so on. OthersPRB giving the intricacy of the subject have set upan expertise group for dealing specifically with theestablishment of RC (Odense, Shannon andScheldt)There are a diversity in the use of the monitoring

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS, PHASE 1A

Page 81: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

In particular the Pinios basin allege that due to thelack of biological monitoring data “RC will bebased mainly on expert judgement”, or in thecase of the Scheldt “...in most cases using expertjudgement”.

VALIDATION

It seems from the answers that the process ofestablishment RC is in the early stages for allpilot river basins and no validation process hasbeen carried out yet. Nevertheless some of thebasins specifically point out that once the RCare set out, the validation practice will be done(Jucar, Shannon and Scheldt).

STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES.

The responses to this matter are quite similar tothe previous one, it seems that is too early for thisquestion since RC are not set yet. Anyway itseems that no pilot river basin is considering thistechnique useless in future implementation ofWFD.

QUALITY ELEMENTS SELECTED FORECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT.

Many of the PRB are not reporting this mattersince RC are not yet established, neverthelessSuldal and Oulujoki basin give some biologicalquality elements as a reference (phytoplankton,macroinvertebrate, etc), while Jucar and Odensebasin have not especially disregard any qualityelements since the process of setting RC is beingcarried out and the natural biodiversity is highand “many elements are needed to ensure arobust classification”.

SETTING CLASS BOUNDARIES.

Many of the PRB are not reporting this issue,only Oulujoki specifically states that will use the“a priori” method but only the phytoplanktondata was sufficient enough to test the setting ofthe class boundaries. It seems that is too early forthis question to be asked and should be addressedduring the intercalibration exercise.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 79

general about half of the river courses, 75% of thelakes and all the coastal waters are at risk tofulfil the good environmental quality in 2015,because of high impact of nutrients, physicaldisturbance and for the coastal waters alsoinfluence of hazardous substances. On the other side is interesting the proposaladopted by the Jucar basin as a preliminaryevaluation of reference sites that will use modelsfor carrying a quantitative analysis of pressuresand impacts, which produce a pre-ordinationlist of water bodies indicating the level of pressure.Generally it may be concluded (Scheldt, Jucar)that the list provided by table 2 covers all possiblespectrum of pressures, which lead to assessmentof ecological impact.On the other hand drawbacks were reported forthe implementation related to:Subjective interpretation and should consideralso water quality trend criteria (Oulujoki),Practical Pressure Criteria is “a useful initialscreening tool but not a basis for referencecondition establishment” (Shannon), and finally Not enough data to characterise all qualityelements mentioned in table 2 (Odense).In addition, the practical pressure criteria is beenconsidered as a tool for risk assessment of failingto achieve the GES, as an alternative and parallelmethod than more direct and suitable techniques(spatial analysis, predicted modelling), but it isalso clear by the answers that the method to putit in practice is still being developed (Suldal,Jucar).

SETTING REFERENCE CONDITIONS.

It follows from the answers that wheneverpossible the spatially based method is the mostdesirable option for the establishment ofReference Conditions (Suldal, Jucar, Oulujoki,Odense, Shannon, Scheldt). Nevertheless, twosimultaneously conditions are needed for itsimplementation: enough monitoring data andsites with low pressure and impact.Since usually one of the two conditions fails somepilot basins foresee the use of different techniques(indirect methods, paleo-reconstruction,regionalisations etc), but as a regular basis almostall basins agree in the use of expert judgement(Suldal, Jucar, Oulujoki, Odense, Pinios, Scheldt).

Page 82: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

80 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

GD: COAST

General issuesThe Pilot River Basins network has beenestablished to test the Guidance Documents forthe implementation of the Water FrameworkDirective (FWD). There are 15 Pilot River Basins(PRB) proposed to date and 8 PRBs, i.e. Jucar,Oulujoki, Odense, Pinios, Shannon, Guadiana,Tevere, Scheldt, had agreed to test the GuidanceDocument on Typology, Reference Conditionsand Classification Systems for Transitional andCoastal Waters (COAST).The report is based on the responses from thePRBs submitted through the questionnaire Termsof Reference (ToR).This is a preliminary report as not all PRBs havecompleted this exercise (6/8 answers).

According to the PRBs answers, the GD is wellwritten but there are three important aspectsthat could be improved:Even though in the GD is stated that regularinteraction with experts from other WorkingGroups of the CIS had occurred the PRBs felt thatcross references and a common approach betweenGD 2.2 (HMWB, coastal part) and GD 2.3(REFCOND) is not fully developed.Concrete examples are needed on: How to define the limit between transitional andcoastal waters?Which are the best practices?The GD does not answer in how to establishReference Conditions

Key Issues

DEFINING SURFACE WATER BODIES

There are several different responses to thisquestion. The Directive defines coastal waters(Article 2(7)) as “surface water on the landwardside of a line, every point of which is at distanceof one nautical mile of the seaward side fromthe nearest point of the baseline from whichbreadth of territorial waters is measured,extending where appropriate up to the outerlimit of transitional waters”. This is the Jucaranswer based on already national legislation

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS, PHASE 1A

(Decree 627/1976) and Oulujoki using GIS-baseddata. This is the first step as proposed for thehierarchical approach to the identification ofwater bodies, but then it is necessary to divide thecoastal/transitional waters into types using factorslisted in Annex II (System A and B). For exampleOdense and Pinios have chosen system B.Shannon is also using System B because thistypology is largely being derived from a jointUK and Ireland typology for Ecoregion 1.

ASSIGNING COASTAL WATERS WITHIN THERIVER BASIN DISTRICT

This assignation has been carried out followingexisting administrative boundaries (Jucar,Oulujoki, Odense, Pinios and Shannon). Noproblem of cross influence between river basinshas been reported yet. However, there is noanswer for the case of big watersheds as Guadianaand Scheldt where its influence may extend toboundary river districts.

COASTAL LAGOONS

The question of the ToR concerning thedifferentiation of lagoons between coastal andtransitional has not been answered because therewere no lagoons (Oulujoki, Odense or Scheldt)or because its identification has not beencompleted yet. A clear example is missing andcould help other river basins on this issue.

COASTAL AND TRANSTITIONAL WETLANDS

The answers to the question concerning theassociation between transitional and coastalwaters and wetland have been answered indifferent ways. Some PRBs like Jucar and Odenseensures a high degree of registration of wetlands,due to the national legislation and also becausethe wetlands are part of the Nature 2000Network. Other basin, i.e. Pinios, Shannon andOulujoki did not answer due to lack of data ornot presence of wetlands in the basin.

DEFINING TRANSITIONAL WATERS

Several problems have appeared in this aspect.

Page 83: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

REFERENCE CONDITIONS

About the methods used to define referenceconditions all the PRBs answer that RC havenot been established or that there is a problemwith lack of data. Oulujoki could not apply themethod a), b/ and c/, i.e. existing undisturbedsite or with minor disturbance, historical data andmodels, therefore they applied the method d)expert judgement. Odense reported that dynamic as well asempirical modelling has been used based onexisting biological (macrophytes) data to establishsome sort of reference conditions but furtherverification is needed since there is no a clearprocedure to define RC in coastal waters. Beingan agricultural catchment their main pressure isnutrient load on the fjord and hence simulationhas been employed to study different nutrientloads on macrophytes biomasses (Ulva sp.). Theyalso plan to use data from similar river basins forother types of biota. i.e. macrobenthos.Furthermore, they explain that the relationshipsbetween nutrient load and response in the marineecosystem are poorly known for several variables,i.e. HAB, fisheries, priority substances, etc.

CLASSIFICATION TOOLS

Oulujoki and Odense were the only two PRBsanswering to the question if any of the classificationtools suggested in the Annexes were used. Odensereport that the suggested tools are not applicableto Danish coastal waters, but some might be usefulafter adaptation to local conditions. Oulujoki hasto adapt the methods because of highly differentnature in Bothnian Bay.

CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES

There are also problems on combining all thequality elements into a single score. Again onlyOulujoki and Odense answered this question.Oulujoki could use only chlorophyll a datawhereas Odense stressed the need to keep theconcept “one out- all out” since there will beonly few variables well documented andmeasured for many marine ecosystems. Theypropose to use a running 6-year mean (whichcoincides with the EU reporting interval) instead

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 81

Pinios and Odense have chosen to define onlycoastal waters. In the first case due tophysiographic features of the river mouth whereasin the Odense because there is no a clearindication in the Guidance for what is meant by“substantially influenced by fresh water flows”in the WFD definition and the special salinitysituation in the Baltic Sea. Oulujoki employed amixture of the first three approaches suggested bythe GD: using the boundaries defined under otherEuropean and national legislation such as theUrban Waste Water Treatment Directive (method1), Salinity gradient (method 2) andPhysiographic features (method 3). Jucar hasstill not identified their transitional waters butthere is an study being conducted. The modellingmethod (method 4), was not use by any PRBs.Odense reports some critics to the GD especiallyin the lack of consistent quantitative approach.

SIZE OF TRANSITIONAL WATERS

The minimum size of transitional waters of 1km2 suggested by the GD was considered useless.Shannon report minimum size of 0.1 km2 andmaximum size of 124 km2. Jucar, Pinios andOulujoki did not report with quantitative data tothis question while Odense did not comment theissue for similar reasons as stated above.

DESCRIPTORS FOR TYPOLOGY/ OPTIONALDESCRIPTORS.

Oulujoki and Scheldt did use the descriptors in theGD, but the Scheldt PRB did not consider theorder as a ranking. Oulujoki introduced severalmodifications, i.e. 30m depth is high for thedefinition of shallow waters, they used 20 minstead; salinity 3‰ was used. Odense underlinesthat they applied the Danish nationaltypologization proposal, which was launchedbefore the GDs were prepared. This nationallegislation is comparable with the descriptorlisted in the GD for system B and, based on thisproposal, there are 16 types in Denmark of which3 occur in Odense PRB. Jucar, Pinios andShannon did not answer to the question. No additional descriptors have been used in thePRBs.

Page 84: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

82 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

• trend analysis• scale (for data collection, for analysis)

LACK OF DATA FOR THE DESCRIPTION OFWATER SERVICES AND WATER USES

A list of these water services and water uses arethe basis for the cost recovery assessment. Ingeneral, PRBs have used the list provided by theWATECO Guidance but they mention problemsof data availability. • Public statistical data have been used

(Somes/Szamos and Odense): For theHungarian part of Somes/Szamos, a hugeamount of detailed data has been collectedfor the characteristics of water servicesconcerning water production, water supply,water demand, wastewater treatment,irrigation water supply, other services (storage,reservoirs). The water uses have been identifiedand will be characterised with a number ofindicators concerning agriculture, industry,gravel and sand extraction from Somes, floodcontrol. For the Romanian part of theSomes/Szamos, general socio-economicindicators have been collected according toRomania Statistic Annual (2001). Also dataregarding the water uses and water serviceslike water demand, water supply irrigation,flood protection and other services (storage,reservoirs) was collected from the NationalAdministration “Apele Romane” (Somes Tisabranch) data base which are in charge whichsuch kind of services. A large number of dataregarding the water production, waste watertreatment, was collected from the LocalCouncils. The Odense PRB used statisticalinformation from the national Statistic Bureau.

• Existing public statistics need to becomplemented: Some specific data provided byother sources are necessary (from watercompanies in Odense or Somes). Specificmodels and studies are used in Jucar, Marneor Tevere.

• The description of water uses has been moredifficult than the description of main waterservices: Thus, for Odense, the description ofwater uses and the assessment of theireconomic importance has been a difficult task.The main water uses identified are households,

of the 5-years running mean they are using inDenmark.

GD: WATECO

General IssuesPilot River Basins have not reported on difficultiesin testing that could be linked to the content ofthe Guidance on Economics itself. The difficultiesencountered seem to be more likely related toan overall lack of data or lack of methodology,particularly in the assessment of resource costsand environmental costs. In practice, most ofthe PRB seem to be at the beginning of theirreflection on cost recovery assessment andevaluation of environmental costs.

To fulfil this gap, some further developmentcould be useful for some specific issues. Thiscould be addressed within the two DraftingGroups on Economics under the umbrella ofWorking Group 2B (Integrated River BasinManagement), especially to the drafting group"environmental costs" created under the WFDCIS, which will give a common approachregarding the environmental and resource cost inthe future weeks.

All reporting PRBs are currently involved in thedata collection on water uses and water services.This data collection is well advanced in somePRBs. However in most PRBs, the analysis hasnot really begun concerning the repartition ofcosts between categories of users (cost recoveryassessment). The methodologies for trend analysishave been set up or are being set up in mostPRBs. For the cost recovery, lack of data onenvironmental costs and resource is often noticed.For the moment, no work has been done aboutcost-effectiveness analysis (except in OdensePRB).

Key IssuesSome specific key issues can be distinguished:• a lack of data for the description of water

services and water uses• a lack of data for the assessment of

environmental and resource costs• cost recovery assessment

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS, PHASE 1A

Page 85: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

economic transfers from agriculture, industryand households towards environmentalprotection, assessment of willingness ofcitizens to pay for a better environment,assessment of costs for restoration (wetlands,river flow, treatment of pollution, etc).

Odense mentions that there is no comprehensivecollection of data on environmental expenditurein Denmark because these costs are oftenintegrated into changes in production process.Odense underlines also the lack of methodologyto take into account subsidies and incentives toagriculture and the lack of suggestions / examplesof the Guidance Document in this field.

COST RECOVERY ASSESSMENT

Pilot River Basins gave only few informationsabout the methodology they used for costrecovery assessment. It seems that most of themdid not conduct these works to the end. The work which has been done by theSomes/Szamos PRB (shared by Hungary andRumania) should be especially underlined. Datafor year 2000 have been investigated and collectedfor a number of indicators. But cross-subsidybetween the different economic sectors(agriculture, industry and households) could notbe defined. In particular, an interesting workconcerning data on efficiency of water billscollection has been conducted with WaterCompanies. Some PRBs (Mosel-Saar, Odense) are consideringthat annex IV- 1 of the guidance document is anexcellent tool for calculating cost-recovery.

TREND ANALYSIS

For the Mosel Saar PRB, Rheinland Pfalz hasnot begun with the trend analysis. The Frenchpart will base its analysis upon past tendencies soto be able to forecast as much as possible thefuture tendencies. The list of indicators is notdefinitive but these indicators will concern theevolution of population, agriculture and industry.The Land of Saar will study the same indicatorsplus the environmental evolution and underlinesthat these evolutions will be quite unprecise dueto uncertainty about climate change,technological improvements, globalisation and

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 83

industry, public institutions, agriculture andnursery gardens, and leisure and touristactivities. There is in general a few dataavailable, particularly for the agriculturalsector, for which the Guidance document doesnot give suggestions or examples. In general,the water uses issues are less addressed in theGuidance than other issues. A similar difficultyis noticed in Romanian part of Somesparticularly when looking at sub basin level.Some other lacks related to hydropoweractivities and material abstractions as well assome leisure activities such as hunting andfishing were pointed out in Marne.

• Links were made with the IMPRESS activities:The WATECO guidance indicates that internalprivate costs of services should be taken inthe analysis where necessary. In the Marneprocess, it was assessed that ”where necessary”would apply to services that have a significantimpact on water status. As a consequence,this assessment was co-ordinated with theinputs from pressures and impacts. The Frenchpart of the Mosel Saar PRB underlines thatworks on economics and works on pressuresare closely co-ordinated.

LACK OF DATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND RESOURCECOSTS

The lack of available information aboutenvironmental and resource costs has beenoutlined by all reporting PRBs. Moreover, Tevereis considering that, at the present stage, costrecovery of environmental and resource costscan be noticed only indirectly.To fulfil the gaps, PRBs used several types ofmethodologies for evaluating the environmentaland resource costs. • Simulation models: Jucar used simulation

models both for evaluation of resource costsand environmental costs. The Flemish partof the Scheldt will also develop anenvironmental costs model.

• Expert judgement: For the Somes/Szamos,these costs have been evaluated based on theassessment of experts’ panels.

• Economics methods: Marne uses acombination of three methods: current

Page 86: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

84 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

focusing on the geographical areas dealing withactual or future scarcity of water resources.

SCALE

• Scale for data collection: The scale at whichdata are available (or not) is an importantissue. The Jucar reports that lots of dataneeded are not known at the level of the riverbasin and must be requested to other levels.For the Romanian part of Somes/Szamos,data about costs are available at the level of theentire Water Division and Water ManagementSystems and most of data concerning socioeconomic indicators are available only atadministrative level (county). For water usercharacteristics, data are mainly available atdistrict level and there is a lack of data at sub-basin level. Economic data are often availableat an administrative level when technical data(pressures and impacts) can be collected atdistrict level.

• Scale for analysis: Jucar considered two scalefor analysis (Jucar and each one of theAgriculture and Urban Units) and willcompare the results after aggregation.Somes/Szamos (both parts) succeeded inrestructuring the available informationaccording to hydrological boundaries and thisprovides high quality information but is verycostly and time consuming. This was doneusing the publicly available statisticalinformation and calculation of weightaverages in proportion of number ofpopulation or geographical territory. ForOdense, reporting on economic analysis andtrend scenario were made at the Odense RiverBasin level but lower spatial scales have beeninvestigated during the collection of data(municipal level) and have been aggregated atthe Odense RB level. In the Mosel Saar PRB,the data were also collected at the lowest levelpossible (municipality) in order to use them atthe level of the management unit / water body.The Marne PRB used mainly the district levelbut used the sub-basin level for theestablishment of the baseline scenario. Forthe Scheldt, the economic analysis is assessedat the scale of river basin district and whenpossible some information can be provided at

therefore the impacts about the resource andwater demand cannot be forecast. For the Jucar it is not foreseen to conduct a trendanalysis since this issue is not a competence ofwater administration but of the Ministry ofEconomics and its Departments in AutonomousRegions to which information will be requested. The Somes/Szamos PRB is defining themethodology for the trend analysis. For theHungarian part, an expert panel was establishedto identify the drivers. A qualitative descriptionwill be given for each driver in co-operation withthe Romanian part. The Romanian part hasevaluated the importance of the economicincrease and the corresponding evolution of waterdemand and the necessary investments in watersector to meet the requirements of the EuropeanDirectives. Also data regarding the water usesand water services like water demand, watersupply irrigation, flood protection and otherservices (storage, reservoirs) was collected fromthe National Administration “Apele Romane”(Somes Tisa branch) data base which are incharge which such kind of services. A largenumber of data regarding the water production,waste water treatment, was collected from theLocal Councils. They have then taken intoaccount the regional developments tendenciesin the main economical sectors but they face ahigh uncertainty with regard to the consequencesof the restructuring process of economy to themarket conditions that make more difficult policyprojections. Odense used the list of potential drivers providedby WATECO guidance and considers it is as agood checklist. The business as usual scenario wasdeveloped based on the statistical forecasts ofpopulation growth, the current waterconsumption level for each sector, the evolutionof price elasticity and income elasticity, in orderto have a forecast of the total consumption level.Losses in the pipes and unaccounted for waterwere also taken into account. Marne has organised three meetings dealing withfuture studies to identify driving forces. Studiesand forum were also conducted to determine theevolution of point source and non point sourceof pollution as well as the impacts on ecosystem.After a first general analysis related to thecharacterisation of different water uses, Tevere is

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS, PHASE 1A

Page 87: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

representativity index and status, and othertools were used e.g. by the Odense PRB(MapInfo and Excel). GwStat could be usedfor studying trends.

• Marne and Pinios PRBs consider thedescription of tools in the guidance documentis understandable even if in Marne somelanguage problems appeared.

• In Shannon PRB, the applicability of thosetools is rather limited due to specificgeophysical conditions.

SPATIAL REPRESENTATIVITY OF MONITORING SITES

• Efforts for upgrading the groundwater levelnetwork in theJúcar PRB will enable to improvethe assessment of the quantitative status ofgroundwater bodies, which represent one of thekey issues of groundwater management withinthe WFD. This involves the establishment ofnew piezometers (measurement stations) andthe full use of historical data.

• Waterworks in the Oulujoki PRB are focusingon monitoring groundwater quality especiallyin areas without any risk activities. Monitoringin the PRB will hence focus on twowaterworks and one national monitoringstation.

• The Odense PRB monitoring network willnot be able to fulfil the requirements of thetechnical report of WG 2.8 with respect tothe reprentativity index (0.56 in comparisonto 0.80 required under the WG 2.8 report).Shannon PRB points on many gaps to fulfil allthe requirements. Marne PRB focuses on thedifficulty to ensure a spatial representationfor each groundwater body.

• Pinos PRB considers they have no problemswith the guidance document proposedprocedure.

• Tevere PRB is checking if the specific criteriaused to define the networks will ensureconsistency with recommended procedure.

QUALITY DATA

• The monitoring of groundwater in theOulujoki PRB (areas with low risks ofpressures) is not adequate for a proper

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 85

the sub-basin or regional level. It is underlinedthat it would be really useful to have anassessment at the level of some water bodiesbut this is not possible on account of cost ordata confidentiality. Tevere will provide anoverall analysis for the entire basin; studies indepth will be focused on geographical areas forwhich a critical state of water resource(scarcity) will be assessed.

GD: TOOLS ON ASSESMENT AND CLASSIFICATION OF GW

General issues Guidance document related to the assessmentand classification of groundwater is focusing onthe statistical methods and procedure to beundertaken in order to assess pollution trendsand aggregate monitoring results.

This procedure was tested in the seven followingPRBs:• Denmark (Odense)• Finland (Oulujoki)• Spain (Júcar)• Marne (France)• Pinios (Greece)• Tevere (Italy)• Shannon (Ireland)

Key issues The following key issues have been identified bythe PRBs that responded to the questionnaire:

UNDERSTANDING OF THE TOOLS

• At this stage, the statistical methods proposedin the technical report of the WG 2.8 are nottested (Oulujoki PRB), being considered toocomplicated and difficult to use.

• The groundwater directive orientations areconsidered to be generally understandable(Odense PRB), although it would benefit frommore illustrative examples. The choice of thearithmetic mean rather than the median hasbeen questioned.

• The accompanying software GwStat is difficultto use with respect to converting data fromother tools (e.g. Excel95) for calculating the

Page 88: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

86 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS, PHASE 1A

assessment of groundwater chemical status.• On the basis of the status description of the

individual groundwater bodies, dataavailability and coverage are consideredappropriate in the Odense PRB for thedescription of groundwater status, which isnot the conclusion reached when using therepresentativity index for each groundwaterbody. This is due to the placement of someboreholes, which does not represent an idealmonitoring network. The removal of somewells would enable to comply with therequirement of a representativity index of 0.8at the expense, however, of a far lower datacoverage.

• The use of the quantification limit (LOQ) asstipulated in the GWD proposal may representa difficulty for historical data for which itwas not reported (instead a value of 0 wasgiven).

• Marne, Pinios and Tevere PRBs areconsidering that available data can meet theminimum requirement of the tool whereasShannon PRB is still examining data in thecontext of pressures and impact assessment.

TIME SERIES

• Monitoring by waterworks in the OulujokiPRB would allow establishing trends forparameters such as nitrates, chloride, ammoniaand conductivity but not for other parameters.

• In the Odense PRB, insufficient data collectionwould hamper a clear identification of trends.The GWD proposal does not describe how todeal with fragmented or temporally limitedtime series. The only attempt of trend studycould focus on nitrates and chloride.

• Another problem noted in the Odense PRB islinked to the use of an average for the wholegroundwater body and not to look for timeseries at individual locations. This aspect willbe further discussed in the light of thenegotiation process of the Commissionproposal of groundwater directive.

• Marne, Shannon and Tevere PRBs areconsidering it is rather difficult to clearlyassess the various trends whereas Pinios PRBis more optimistic even if this issue is stillunder consideration.

GD: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

General issues1. On the one hand PRBs that seem to judge the

PRB-exercise too early for stakeholder andpublic involvement, on the other hand PRBsthat started the active involvement at a veryearly stage in a satisfying way. No clearexplanation for the reasons to take the first orsecond position. Yet, the more hesitant attitudetowards public participation seems to bedominant (only 2 of the 9 PRBs testing the PPguidance started early in the beginning withinvolvement).

2. The little ‘real’ experiences with participationmake it difficult to draw firm conclusionsfrom the pilots. PRB exercise gives someexamples to lean on.

3. A thorough stakeholder analysis at thebeginning of the process is helpful, togetherwith an analysis of their positions (in thisprocess the stakeholders optimally areinvolved). It helps in managing theexpectations, but at the same time plans mightbe adjusted at a very early (and therefore easyto perform) stage (e.g. Ribble changed fromvirtual to ‘real’ testing after comments fromstakeholders).

4. At this stage, PRBs feel little need to involvethe ‘general public’. Stakeholders are the firstpriority.

5. Stakeholders are involved through directcontact, or via intermediates like a ‘stakeholderforum’.

6. The expectations of stakeholders towards theimplementation of the WFD can be high.Some PRBs make the formal margins in whichthey operate very clear from the beginning.

7. What’s the use of the Internet? On the onehand, PRBs see it as ‘involving the public’,on the other hand, PRBs realise that it’s a‘public place’, but no guarantee that the publicwill find or use it.

8. No PRB seems to have developed a method ofgiving access to background documents.

Page 89: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

GENERAL PUBLIC; HOW INVOLVED WITHWHAT EFFECT?

• Website • Not yet developed; only for raising awareness

of the WFD• Lack of willingness of the public to participate,

and no history in PP within the country• Too early in the process to analyse the effects• Public not involved. Our Stakeholder Forum

is happy that the public is too wide a group tobe involved in everything – yet.

MANAGEMENT OF EXPECTATIONS

• The role of stakeholders is regulated bylegislation.

• A broad public has huge expectations onimplementation of WFD. In order to preventdisappointments the participants have beeninformed of their role, of the content andmeaning of WFD and of the frame in whichchanges in practices at local level can bewaited.

• The regulation of the InternationalCommission of the Scheldt determines thatrepresentatives of NGO’s can be involved asobservers. This involves that NGO’s can makesuggestions but that they can’t vote nor makedecisions. Expectations are managed asfollows

1. The Communications Plan sets out the role ofthe directive and the project.

2. Expectations form a major risk in or project.The risk register is reviewed monthly andactions to reduce them are actively pursued.

3. Work wil be done to develop with priorityregional and local stakeholders (governmentaland NGO) a basin “vision” describing whatthey wish to see happen in the basin. Thiswill be used to align as far as possible theseaspirations with the directive and to manageexpectations of what can and cannot bedelivered.

TIMING

Two opinions seem to be predominant:• Once the scale of the process has been finally

established (now it is only temporarily) the

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 87

Key issues

SCALE ISSUES; PP APPLIED AT WHICH SCALE?

Stakeholder analysis; how to guarantee that nostakeholders are missed? • Stakeholder analysis performed by the project

team/competent authority• District and basin level analyses were

undertaken. For this approximately 50regional and local external and Agencypartners have been put together in a groupcalled the Stakeholder Forum. They haveundertaken an exercise to put in priority orderthe stakeholders that need to be involved(stakeholders themselves determine whetherparties are missing)

What techniques were used to contact thestakeholders? (direct contact via a stakeholderboard)• Directly addressed to stakeholders, in

combination with attention in regional media(Oulujoki)

• Fyn County has established a homepage forthe Odense Pilot River Basin through whichmembers of the public can learn about theprogress and nature of the project. Thehomepage address is: http://prb.fyns-amt.dkFrom the homepage it can be seen, forexample, that two advisory boards wereestablished in spring 2003 – a NationalScientific Advisory Board and a RegionalPolitical Advisory Board. These two boardshave different aims, but among other thingsshall help ensure that public interests areincorporated in the coming management planfor the Odense River Basin.

What techniques were especially useful (at whichscale?)• Internet• Bilateral meetings, workshops of approx 12-

15 people and presentations at largergatherings

How to organise the comments between thedifferent scales?• No comments

Page 90: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

88 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

comments in information meetings, inseminars, in expert meetings, in project team,by phone etc. No systematic approach forgiving feed-back on the comments has beenestablished but responses have been takeninto account e.g. by arranging meetings whichhave been wanted

• We have set up a web site for the project andan email address. This is carefully managed.We have regular team meetings to ensure keymessages are fed back in to the project.

INFORMATION SUPPLY

- No PRB understood this as ‘access tobackground documents’.

EVALUATION

- Not developed yet

KEYS TO SUCCESS

We hope that early engagement, especially ofNGOs is very important. Many of these groupshave specific issues they want addressed. If youwait too long in the implementation beforeengaging them then you run the risk that they willobject to what you are doing. It is far easier tobuild a positive relationship with stakeholderswith time and when they understand theconstraints you are working within.

process designed will provide all the appropriateinformation on the implementation to thestakeholders with the maximum possibleanticipation.

• In order to improve social learning and createco-operation networks, every party shouldbe involved in the beginning of the process.Local actors at local level, regional actors atregional level etc. Parties that are needed in thesuccessful implementation of WFD must beinvolved in the beginning of the planningprocess.

• In general: in the beginning of the project onlythe directly involved public (administrations,NGO’s) a determined group, once the projectis developing informing a broader public.

• The visioning work with the prioritystakeholders (see above 2.9-5) is good at thisearly stage. We need to manage expectationsright from the start. Later, when we startplanning individual actions, participation willbe more focussed around what can be doneand who needs to pay.

MANAGEMENT OF COMMENTS

• Collecting comments by feedback forms, bywriting down the comments and suggestionsgiven in face-to- face meetings or by phone.Number of responses in two local meetings:over 40 feedback forms and several face-to-face comments; in addition: dozens of

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS, PHASE 1A

Page 91: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

• no clear concept of MEP and GEP for AWB isavailable at the moment.

Considering that very likely PRBs are doing areapplying extra means and resources for thisexercise than the average basin will do in thereal WFD implementation, it can be inferred thatthese unsolved or undefined issues should betackled by MS or Competent Authorities, and thesubsequent guidance should be developed atnational, regional or even local scale, to renderimplementation of the process morestraightforward and clear-cut. As a matter offact, those PRBs that advanced further on theidentification of HMWBs have tailored theprocedure set in the Guidance to their particularcharacteristics and needs.However, it must be noted that most of the PRBsanswering the questions from the ToR documentare still at the stage of HMWB identification (i.e.only the Odense PRB has proceeded further thatstep 6 in the mentioned procedure), although allof them have integrated and developed the stepsprescribed in the procedure. It is likely that manyissues that are currently uncertain will be clarifiedonce properly tackled.

Key Issues

AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURES

It is generally felt at this stage that infrastructureavailability in terms of expertise, data availability,tools and organizational structure is quiteadequate in all PRBs that have already startedtesting the HMWB GD. In-house expertise (from local WB authorities) orexpertise at national level has been recruited forthe purpose of the exercise or was already inplace as part of the local/national task-force forwater body management and protection. In thecase of the Scheldt PRB (transboundary waters)a panel of national experts from each of thecountries involved has been specifically appointed

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 89

GD: HEAVILY MODIFIED WATERBODIES

General IssuesThe Pilot River Basins network has beenestablished to test the Guidance Documents forthe implementation of the Water FrameworkDirective (FWD). There are 15 Pilot River Basins(PRBs) proposed to date, 12 of which (Cecina,Guadiana, Jucar, Marne, Moselle/Sarre, Oulujoki,Odense, Pinios, Scheldt, Shannon, Suldal andTevere) have agreed to test the GuidanceDocument on Heavily Modified Water Bodies(HMWB) and Artificial Water Bodies (AWB).This report is based on the responses submittedby the each PRB through the questionnaire Termsof Reference (ToR). Not all PRBs have yetcompleted the testing exercise (6/12 answers),thus results reported should be regarded aspreliminary.

From individual PRB replies to the ToR it can beinferred that the HMVB GD is well written butthere are few issues that need further clarification.In particular, the steps in the procedure for“Identification and designation of HMWB andAWB” are sometimes not entirely clear, or morespecifications for the carrying out of individualsteps is needed: it is felt that steps 3 and 4 should actually beregarded as one step; steps 5 and 6 do not offer clear distinctionbetween changes in hydromorphology andphysical alterations; • the criterion to establish thresholds for

hydromorphological alterations to WBs in orderto assess substantial changes in character has notalways been sharply defined, especially in thosePRBs where the same hydromorphologicalalterations are very common (e.g. dams, weirs,channeling, etc);

• some difficulties arise in the identification ofAWB, as the definition set in the GD is felt tobe limiting or insufficient in some cases;

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBSWITH GDS, PHASE 1B

Page 92: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

90 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

noted that not all PRBs have been able to test allthe steps of the procedure yet, due mainly todifficulties in identification of Good EcologicalPotential and Maximum Ecological Potentialstandards, as well as Good Ecological Status.Such delay arises from the complexity ofestablishing relationship between the alterationand the associated impact on the WBs whentaking into account hydromorphological pressuresonly, that is, the comparison between ecologicalstatus in the absence of alteration and theecological status after an alteration in the WBs dueonly to hydromorphological pressures, since WBsare also subjected to others types of pressures asa regular basis.In general, mixed opinions have been collectedabout the exhaustiveness of the lists of pressuresand impacts presented in Table 1 of the GD;some PRBs felt that the list was well compiled(Jucar PRB) but had to be somewhat adapted toindividual cases (Odense, Suldal PRBs) or givena more quantitative cut (Scheldt PRB). However,the value of the list as good starting point forsetting more precise criteria has been generallyacknowledged.A more difficult task is to separate the impacts ofindividual pressure factors and pinpointing thecause for failure to reach GES. It is clear to allPRBs that physical-chemical water characteristicsderiving from diffuse or point sources cannot betaken into account in the definition of HMWB, andonly changes due to altered hydrology/morphologycan be taken into account. However, clearlyseparating the effects of hydrological ormorphological alterations on WB physical-chemical quality, from those due to agricultural orother activities may not be possible. For example,it is difficult to separate between individual impactsof water abstraction for different purposes;determining the impacts of hydrological alterationson fish stock characteristics may also be unfeasibleif strong fishing activities are also present (OulujokiPRB). The Marne PRB notices that assessingmorphological impacts is extremely difficult,especially in those cases were little to nodata/documentation exist. Sometimesintercalibration is not possible, as no WBs withsimilar characteristics are available for definitionof GES.

for the purpose of the exercise. Such expertpanels have been formed in all PRBs,independently of the status of information basisand the infrastructure, or the WB characteristics.However, the concern arises that such panelsmay not be available after completion of theexercise and will not be of direct assistance forordinary basins in the real implementation, whichcould be a shortcoming.Meteorological and hydrological databases withadequate time series for characterization of theWB were in all cases readily available (only in thecase of Scheldt a considerable effort had to bemade to recover dataset from institutions ofdifferent countries), as all of the PRB hadmonitoring networks and gauging stationsalready in place, in particular at those pointswhere large infrastructures are present (e.g. dams,hydropower plants). GIS support is available atall PRBs. However, some difficulties wereencountered in the availability of data relatedto biological and ecological quality (Oulujokiand Scheldt PRBs), morphological changes(Oulujoki PRB had to recover information siftingin some cases through huge amount ofdocumentary material), economical data (OdensePRB, for further development of the exercise tostep 7, were evaluation of consequences on thewider environment is required).Some PRBs have modelling tools available, as aresult of routine activities on the PRB or especiallyset up for the exercise. Organizational structures were already in place(local watershed authorities, International ScheldtCommission) or especially set up for the exercise(Jucar PRB).

PRACTICAL QUALITATIVE “PRESSURE CRITERIA”

The questions posed in this section relate mainlyto Step 6 of the procedure for “Identificationand designation of HMWB and AWB”. However,some of the PRB have commented on all the stepscarried out insofar (Marne, Scheldt PRBs), as theprocedure outlined in the GD on provisionalidentification of HMWB has been tailored toindividual needs (not all PRB have simultaneouslysurface WBs, transitional WBs and coastal waters)and existing procedures in each PRB. It must be

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS, PHASE 1B

Page 93: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

will be difficult, as steps 7 through 11 will be theresult of technical as much as political evaluations(Odense PRB and Suldal PRB). GES, MEP andGEP are not yet clearly and precisely assessedfor all PRBs; in particular the Oulujoki PRBcommented that magnitude of restorationmeasures is not clearly defined in the GD and toomuch room is left for subjective judgment.Moreover, MEP and GEP are felt to be not toodifferent from each other in those WB that havea very high degree of alteration and where mostattenuation measures have already been applied.The Oulujoki PRB gives the example of fishspecies for which the effort of restoring rivercontinuity for migration is useless if most of thespawning areas have irreparably compromised. The assessment of disproportionate costs, asrequired by step 8, is also influenced by politicalinclinations. The Odense PRB suggests that morespecifications about the technical and economicalevaluations be provided in the GD, to avoid theinfluence of political subjectivity on the outcomeof the exercise. No derogations have been taken into accountso far in any of the participating PRBs.

ARTIFICIAL WATER BODIES

It is generally felt that the biggest challenge is todistinguish between natural water bodies, wereand if those are present, and other types of waterbodies. The criterion for distinction betweenHMWB and AWB is clearly stated although notagreed upon by some PRBs (e.g. Odense,Oulujoki PRBs). All the same, some doubts fordistinguishing between HMWB and AWB arosewithin the exercise when establishing thresholdsto the size of a pre-existing water body that waslocated on where now a water body exists as aresult of human action.

INTERCALIBRATION OF HMWB AND AWB

All PRBs are still not enough advanced in theprocedure to comment effectively on this point.Nevertheless, answers indicate that this exercisewill depend on the final percentage betweenHMWB and natural WB present and which is thedominant type of water, after conducting thedesignation process within PRBs.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 91

STEPS OF THE HMWB AND AWBIDENTIFICATION AND DESIGNATIONPROCESS

It is generally felt that there is sufficient coherencebetween the HMWB and other GDs. However,it has been duly noticed that all GDs should havea common glossary of terms (Scheldt), andterminology should be more precise: e.g.,hydromorphological changes are not defined soas to be clearly distinguished from physicalalterations, and a more accurate definition ofsignificant versus substantial change would behelpful (Odense). Provisional designation (step 6) is almost completefor all responding PRBs. Although changes inhydromorphology on WB have been identified,the decision on setting limits has not been taken(either for a single or a combination ofhydromorphological variables) to establish whena change in character of the WB is taking place. TheSuldal PRB has developed several indirect criteriae.g. lake water level raised more than 10 meters,winter temperature always above + 1 deg C as a firstscreening to identify candidates to HMWB. Lowor slight thresholds on hydromorphologicalpressures may lead to designating a great percentageof surface water network as heavily modified (e.g.Jucar PRB), which is an outstanding decision fullof consequence. In particular, some PRBs (e.g.Oulujoki and Suldal) have tailored a provisionaldesignation procedure taking also into accountindications given in the GD. However, it has beennoted that steps 4 and 5 could be easily combinedinto one step (as the Suldal PRB has done).Furthermore, it has been noted that all watercoursesin Europe have been subject to substantialhydromorphological modifications since remotetimes, so that it is difficult to set the ground forassessment of GES or MEP and to identify naturalwater bodies for all cases, to help in suchassessment. The Odense PRB noted that upperpart of water reaches would be difficult to treat ifculverted/piped or strongly channelized/deepened.Implementation of step 5 is deemed to be difficultbecause the identification procedure is not entirelycompleted and databases have not been completedfor all PRBs.It is also foreseen at this stage that advancementbeyond provisional identification of HMWBs

Page 94: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

92 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

2. TYPOLOGY INCOMPATIBILITY

QUESTION : How was dealt with the fact thatMS do not use comparable typology systems?

Both Jucar and Scheld PRB recognise that MS usedifferent typology systems, but stated that thisissue was not relevant at the river basin scale. It can be noted that in the intercalibration processthis issue has been addressed in 2003-4 byidentifying common intercalibration types sharedby different member states within ‘geographicalintercalibration groups’.

3. DATA AVAILABILITY

QUESTION : Is it possible to carry out an IC-exercise based on limited data (e.g. some qualityelements only or focussing on specific pressuresonly)?

The Scheldt PRB states that at this moment it isimpossible to work out a common view onreference conditions and class boundaries as abasis for the selection of sites, and that sites canonly be selected at a national level at this stage.The Jucar PRB states that it should be possible todevelop a common European view, but that thisdepends on the development of the IC exercise.Nevertheless, MS must do the selection of sitesincluded in the IC network and that may meandifferent interpretations of the normative classboundary definitions. Hopefully, the outcome ofthe IC exercise will make consistent and agreeablethe class boundary system finally adopted. It can be noted that WG2A Ecological Statusreached similar conclusions, and that it isexpected that in the autumn of 2004 a newguidance document will be agreed setting outthe further intercalibration procedure.

GD: MONITORING

General issuesThe Pilot River Basins network has beenestablished to test the Guidance Documents forthe implementation of the Water FrameworkDirective (FWD). There are 15 Pilot River Basins

GD: INTERCALIBRATION.

General issuesThe Pilot River Basins network has beenestablished to test the Guidance Documents forthe implementation of the Water FrameworkDirective (FWD). There are 15 Pilot River Basins(PRB) proposed to date and 6 PRBs, i.e.Guadiana, Jucar, Odense, Pinios, Scheldt, andTevere, have agreed to test the GuidanceDocument “Towards a guidance on establishmentof the Intercalibration network and on the processof the Intercalibration exercise“(INTERCALIBRATION).The report is based on the responses from thePRBs submitted through the questionnaire Termsof Reference (ToR).This is a preliminary report as not all PRBs havecompleted this exercise (2/6 answers).

The Intercalibration guidance focuses on theestablishment of the intercalibration register in2003-4. This process is carried out by theMember States simultaneously with the work inthe pilot river basins. The guidance documentcontains few issues that are suitable for testing inthe pilot river basins. This is also reflected in thelow response of the pilot river basins to the issuesraised. From the six PRB’s that wanted to addressintercalibration, only two (Jucar and Scheldt)answered the questions related to intercalibration.

Key Issues

1. SELECTION OF SITES FOR THEINTERCALBRATION NETWORKJ

QUESTION : Is it possible to develop agreement/ a common view on reference conditions andclass boundaries, as a basis for the selection ofsites for the IC-network?

The Jucar and Scheldt PRB both stated that at thisstage such agreement does not exist. Because ofthis, the site selection can initially only be doneat a national leve, while the common view shouldbe the outcome of the intercalibration process.These conclusions are in line with the progress ofthe intercalibration process to date.

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS, PHASE 1B

Page 95: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 93

(PRB) proposed to date and 11 PRBs, i.e. Cecina,Guadiana, Jucar, Neisse, Oulujoki, Odense,Pinios, Scheldt, Somes/Szamos, Suldalsvassdragetand Tevere, had agreed to test the GuidanceDocument on Monitoring under the WaterFramework Directive (MONITORING).The report is based on the responses from thePRBs submitted through the questionnaire Termsof Reference (ToR).This is a preliminary report as not all PRBs havecompleted this exercise (7/11 answers).

According to the PRBs answers, the GD is wellwritten but there are several important aspectsthat are missed:• The issue of monitoring in HMWB for whose

the environmental goal is to achieve “goodecological potential” is not addressed in theGD.

• A link between the knowledge of the impactsand the conditions to be monitored in thesurveillance-monitoring chapter could havebeen done.

The need for integrating several monitoringnetworks to achieve a cost-effective use ofresources is a current issue in all PRBs. Thisincludes not only protected areas, bathing anddrinking waters but also the need to integratethe monitoring programs for surface andgroundwater bodies.

Key Issues

DEFINE WATER BODIES ANDSURVEILLANCE MONITORING

In general the PRBs consider that Art. 5 hasallowed the identification of surveillancemonitoring needs. In some cases, for examplethe Jucar river an improvement in the monitoringnetwork for surface as well as groundwater seemsnecessary whereas in other cases, for examplethe Odense, the existing monitoring networkseems adequate to meet the WFD requirementswith the exception of hazardous substances wherethe existing network is inadequate to calculateloading into the water bodies. In the Oulujoki anew WFD compliant surveillance monitoringprocedure has been defined based on Art. 5analyses. Suldal PRB consider that for

groundwater bodies the size of the drainage areaconnected to them should be considered in thecharacterization work, since this is an importantparameter for assessing the magnitude and effectsof the pollution sources. Member states shouldalso adequate the monitoring in case ofparameters not included in the WFD whenrelevant as in the case of Norway that hasintroduced bacterial pollution and cooper (Cu) inmining areas. Furthermore, in some caseshistorical data is available and this has to beused as starting point for defining/improving thecompliant WFD monitoring network.Concerning the relationships between monitoringand reference conditions, still there is not acomplete set for all water bodies defined in thePRBs but a considerable improvement hasoccurred since Phase 1a. The main problem beingthe absence of biological information. This hasbeen deal with several approaches. For exampleOulujoki and Suldal use reference sites in thesame ecoregion, whereas in the Jucar a twophased analysis has allowed the definition of 12reference conditions from the 15 ecotypesestablished. In Somes/Szamos, REFCON wasnot tested during Phase 1a (Art. 5 report) and,hence, the development of a monitoring networkis still not delineated.In Tevere River Basin the surveillance networkseem to fulfill WFD requirements but they face asingular problem with lakes. The typologyvolcanic lakes in this basin seem not match withother similar water bodies of another MS in theMediterranean Ecoregion. This means that thoselakes will be not included in the intercalibrationexercise but they must reach the environmentalobjective. In other words there are nationaltypologies that cannot be compared within MS.

WATER BODIES AT RISK

The Surveillance Guidelines do not specify thekind of monitoring necessary for HMWBs whichis important for several PRBs, e.g. in the Suldalthere are 54 potential HMWBs identified and inall Norway around 2000 HMWBs at risk. Basedon the high number of HMWBs probably at riskand the fact that these have many commoncharacteristics, the following generalization hasbeen suggested

Page 96: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

94 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

compliant monitoring programme. On the otherside, it has not sense to dismantle the existingnetworks to build a new one from scratch.Therefore, a compromise between the existingnetworks and WFD network is the optimalsolution. Concerning the initiation of the WFDmonitoring programme, Odense PRB considerthat surveillance should be initiated as soon aswater bodies at risk have been identified, i.e.2004, whereas Oulujoki consider that budgetaryconstraints are the main factor in determiningwhen to start. and Suldal PRB will until 2006 givepriority to make available existing monitoringbefore supplementing the monitoringprogrammes.Jucar has prepared a phased approach with thedevelopment of new surface and groundwater

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS, PHASE 1B

Group Need for monitoring

Dried-out tributaries below tunnel inlets (hydropower) Normally not

Rivers with reduced water discharge all year/parts of the year. Normally yes. Some river reaches have instructions of minimum flow with

additional requirements for operating hydrological measuring stations. This

existing operational monitoring will be used together with the principle of

representative locations and dose-response relations.

Reservoirs (hydropower) Water level is already being monitored in the majority of Norwegian reservoirs.

Information and data on the Additional information and data NEED FOR SURVEILLANCE MONITORING?

impacts exist (+) or not (-) on water body exist (+) or not (-)

- + Only if existing data show an actual need

+ - Only if there is a sound reason to suspect a problem

- - Yes – but lacking data may also mean that there are no problems e.g.

no environmental pressures present.

+ + No. In this case there is a need for operational surveillance.

INITIATION OF MONITORING PROGRAMMES

Most of the existing monitoring programmes inPRBs does not meet the WFD requirements,however they are useful for obtaining thenecessary relevant information to design a WFD

monitoring stations to arrive to 2006 with a fullyoperational network. Similar approach isfollowed in Somes/Szamos. All PRBs agreed thatin terms of biological parameters the existingmonitoring programmes are insufficient.

Tevere has proposed that rivers, that for naturalreasons, have not water flow during more that120 days every year should not be monitored.This is a typical situation in the Mediterranean arcthat should be considered.On the question relating the lack of informationand the need of a more extensive surveillancethere are several opinions. Jucar PRBs considersthat this will be the case, at least during the initialstages if the implementation and in the years2006 and 2004. On the other side the SuldalPRB considers that if the existing documentationdoes not show appreciable impacts thensurveillance monitoring is not necessary (providedtrend analysis and reference conditions have beenidentified). A self-explanatory table summarizingtheir suggested approach is shown bellow:

Page 97: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Jucar, Tevere, Cecina, Suldalsvassdraget andRibble. 6 PRB submitted responses based on thequestionnaire Terms of References.It emerges from the answers that PRB are atvarious states of progress in public participation.It is also obvious that the active involvement ofstakeholders is in general more developed than theconsultation of the broad public. This is mainlydue to the different steps of the WFDimplementation process specified in Article 14 ofthe WFD and the CIS “Public Participation”Guidance document. Indeed, an activeinvolvement of the interested parties is requiredfrom the beginning of the implementationprocess, while the broad public is to be consultedon clearly specified documents, which are stillbeing performed (definition of the timetable andthe work programme, definition of the key issues,project of management plan).However, even if responses are quite mixed, itappears that PRB are making efforts to enhancethe participation of stakeholders and aredeveloping actual communication toolsspecifically dedicated to the broad public.It is obvious that this issue will have to be furtheraccounted for during the next WFD stages. RBDwill have to take advantage of the successfulexperiences and tools developed by some PRB inorder to carry on improving stakeholderinvolvement and going on initiating consultationof the broad public.

SCALE ISSUES

Most of the PRB have built up a stakeholderanalysis at the RBD level (Scheldt) or PRB level(Ribble, Jucar, Marne). This analysis often involvedthe competent authority (Oulujoki, Scheldt), jointlywith some stakeholders (Ribble, Jucar).Brainstorming, questionnaire surveys, notificationsby email were mainly used in order to conduct thisanalysis. Several PRB have gathered theinformation in databases, to be updated during theimplementation process. Some PRB admit theycannot totally be assured that no stakeholders aremissed. However, they develop ways of improvingtheir database continuously.

Emails, organisation of and invitations topresentations, newsletters have been the more

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 95

CHOICE OF LOCATION FOR MONITORING STATIONS

Is generally agreed between PRB that the numberof monitoring locations should depend on thecomplexity of the impacts and on the amount ofavailable information. Transboundary riverbasins, e.g. Somes/Szamos, have emphasized theneed for monitoring bordering WBs and bilateralagreements for sharing the monitoring data.Tevere remarks that in any case, at national level,monitoring programmes will include catchmentslower than 2500 km2 and that this aspect willhave an impact on the results of the Reportingworking group. The guidance dimension proposedin the WFD will suggest to MS to report only forwater bodies with a catchment over 2500 km2!Another point about the reporting obligationmade by Tevere is how to integrate the WFDReporting with the EIONET reporting?

MONITORING IN PROTECTED AREAS

There is a general need to achieve integrationbetween the different monitoring programmeswhich are carried out at different levels. Forexample, in Oulujoki PRB, the Ministry of theEnvironment is in charge of monitoring in protectedareas. In Norway, drinking and bathing watersare already monitored according to the relevantdirectives. Good links between various directives areimportant, especially in terms of monitoring. InJucar PRB there is a monitoring programme fordrinking water abstraction in the principalmetropolitan areas. With the implementation of theWFD it would be auspicious if a further integrationof monitoring programmes is developed for usingthe resources as cost-effectively as possible. In Italythe Ministry of Environment is in charge for WFDand also Protected areas issues but monitoring ofdrinking and bathing watesr is a matter for theMinistry of Health.

GD: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INPHASE 1B OF THE PRB EXERCISE

The guidance document on public participationwas supposed to be tested on the following 10PRB: Odense, Oulujoki, Marne, Scheldt, Pinios,

Page 98: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

96 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

In almost all cases, web pages have beendeveloped in order to involve the general public(Jucar, Scheldt, Odense). Further actions areforeseen during the next stages of WFDimplementation. Jucar is preparing summariesof Article 5 analysis, articles, leaflets and abooklet, dedicated to the general public.Scheldt also focuses its communication actions onthe press, considered as an intermediate betweenthe PRB and the public, the press being able totransfer the information to the public at a largerscale.However, effects of involving the general publicare still difficult to estimate, due, for instance, tothe limited actions dedicated to the broad public.Marne notes that the characterisation is carriedout at the level of the RBD. This level makes itdifficult to involve the broad public at a verylocal scale for this first stage of the WFDimplementation. Nevertheless, public consultationis foreseen for the next steps, and will also involveNGOs and local authorities. For PRB that already developed specific actions,effects have been encouraging. Ribble has beenable to evaluate the level of interest of the broadpublic and to point out the logistic supportrequired by local environmental NGOs. Oulujokinoted an increasing awareness of WFD issues,thanks to seminars provided.

MANAGEMENT OF EXPECTATIONS

It emerges from the answers that expectations canbe managed during appropriate meetingsespecially dedicated to stakeholders.PRB have dealt with these expectations byassuring adequate information on the roles ofthe different parties, the content and the meaningof the WFD as well as on the frame in whichchanges can be expected. The main challengehas been to keep a high level of stakeholderinvolvement, making clear from the beginning therules of participation and consultation. SomePRB want to avoid disappointments andmisunderstandings on the WFD implementationprocess and consequently try to providestakeholders with regular and updatedinformation on the state of play.

general communication tools being used tocontact the interested parties. They have beenconsidered as the most effective tools at the ‘used’level. Telephone and personal contacts have alsobeen reported by some PRB. Oulujoki pointed out the usefulness of localmeetings. Scheldt has organised periodicalmeetings in order to build up a common andcoordinated strategy and make sure that thetransmission of reactions from the local scale tothe international scale takes place. Marne hasinvolved the interested parties through theexisting sub basin committee, taking place onceor twice a year. However, the limited number ofreactions showed that documents had to besimplified in order to be more understandable andworkable.Ribble has worked in close link with astakeholder forum (comprising approximately50 individuals coming from key partnerorganisations), helding regular meetings toconsult and explain how the process relates tonational and international implementation.Odense has involved NGOs in the testing exercisethrough several meetings and workshops,enabling a good collaboration with the county ofFyn.

BROAD PUBLIC

At this stage, most PRB have not directly includedthe general public yet. However, some actionshave been carried out by some PRB. Thanks to aperception survey, Ribble identified the viewsand opinions of a sample of the general publicliving in the basin and assessed the level of interestin water management, in parallel with ‘VisionBuilding Events’, gathering members of the publicinterested in WFD implementation. Oulujokialso opened two local seminars and one regionalseminar to the broad public. Focus groups wereorganised in Marne (and in other 14 French subbasins) during the second half of 2003, in orderto specify views of the broad public on watermanagement. Results of this first consultationare expected to help improve and adapt theinformation dedicated to the public, consideringneeds and current misunderstandings expressedduring the discussions. In particular, the necessityto release legible documents has been underlined.

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS, PHASE 1B

Page 99: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

INFORMATION SUPPLY

- Seminars, meetings (local meetings, expertmeetings, working groups, …)

- Presentations- Webpages, websites- Newsletters- Technical reports (to specialists and small

audiences)- Telephone- Access to background documents- Information center- Intended by Jucar PRB: announcements in

Town Halls, televisions, news and featureprogrammes, press

- Informal chats

The investment in time and money variesconsiderably from one PRB to another. PRB havespent 1 to 15 months for information supply.Financial expenditures related to this supply havebeen estimated from 100 000 _ to 210 000 _. In order to improve this information supply,Ribble has offered the opportunity forstakeholders to form additional discussion forumand technical groups. Indeed, presentations andchats have often been considered as the mosteffective means in providing information.Combining this organisation with request forwritten comments is also recommended.Marne highlights the necessity of disseminatinginformation on water management and aquaticenvironments, due to the significant lack ofknowledge emerging from the focus groups andopinions pools. This communication is to becarried out at different levels: the national level,the RBD level and the sub basin or local levelthrough actions supported by local organisations.

EVALUATION

It seems that tools for evaluating the process arestill under development. However, some PRB(Scheldt) have already asked an evaluation oftheir workshops and seminars to participants inthese meetings. Ribble also asked to HarmoniCAan independent evaluation of the efficiency ofits work on public participation.

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 97

TIMING (WHEN TO INVOLVE THEINTERESTED PARTIES)

It appears that the way of targeting interestedparties in each implementation step of the WFDmainly depends on the nature of the issue and thetype of stakeholder (local, regional, national,degree of involvement of each stakeholder foreach issue addressed). In general, PRB reportthat the nature of the issues defines the interestedparties to be involved. Jucar has also decided to assign, in a flexibleway, specific subjects to stakeholders listed in adatabase. Marne is focusing on the next steps, asregards the identification of the key issues and thedefinition of the work programme. Consultationof general councils, regional councils, regionaleconomic and social councils, and councilassemblies will take place on these matters duringthe second half of 2004. The broad public will beconsulted on the same issues from April toOctober 2005.

MANAGEMENT OF COMMENTS

For the time being, comments of the public havegenerally been collected through websites butmany PRB also value conclusions and results ofmeetings taking place at local, regional and/ornational levels. Written comments are also takeninto account. Ribble has required consultees tosubmit comments in limited ways, either byannoting a hard copy of the document or bycompleting a standard Quality Review form. The number of responses directly depends onthe nature and the scale of the events beingorganised. In general, the responding public have not beenprovided with individual feed back. All PRB havefound it more appropriate to provide the publicwith information on how their contributionshave influenced the project. The output releasedcan be an outcome of the consultation, adescription of what is to happen next, newslettersand updated site, new meetings provided.Odense also intends to turn its website into adebate forum at certain periods especially duringthe preparation of the programmes of measures.

Page 100: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

98 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

be delivered with each GIS layer and thestandards to be followed when preparing themetadata. The format for transferring layers tothe Commission in the short-term is defined andthe way forward for the development of adistributed reporting system in the long-termdiscussed. The Guidance document also discussesthe harmonization of data at borders andmethods for co-coordinating the reportingprocess. Finally the introduction of a Europeanfeature coding system is outlined.

According to the PRBs answers, the GD is wellwritten. The first point to be verified was dealingwith the fact that the specifications of the GIS-datasets and the data model are a translation ofthe reporting obligations mentioned in the WFDinto technical requirements. PRBs was asked tocomment if using the technical specifications willresults in datasets be adequate for reportingobligations and to make the desired maps?

Key Issues

IS THE SPECIFICATION OF THE REQUIREDGIS-DATASETS AND THE RELATED DATAMODEL ADEQUATE FOR THE REPORTINGOBLIGATIONS?

PRBs reported that the technical specifications setout in the guidance document are seen assatisfactory and sufficiently detailed for deliveringthe WFD requirements. The Júcar PRB isdeveloping a software application forautomatically generating maps to be use toreporting to the Commission. Marne highlightedthat data corresponding to monitoringmeasurements from national and local network("Réseau National de Bassin" andcomplementary network respectively) and todata concerning protected areas were structuredfollowing a relational model according to"Merise" principles and the compatibility withUML modelling (recommended by GIS workinggroup) was successfully tested. Oulujoki underlinethat in some cases the reporting obligations seemsnot to be clear yet even for 2004 reporting. Ifdatabases are gathered only map makingpurposes in some cases too detailed informationhas been asked and some important information

KEYS TO SUCCESS

One of the main keys to success is to assure theinvolvement of stakeholders at the early stageof the process, as capacity building is essential andstakeholders need time to learn and understandthe WFD implementation process. Clear, accurateand updated documents and messages are neededin that purpose. Oulujoki also noted the needto increase the participation of NGOs particularlyin sparsely populated areas.Access to sufficient economic and humanresources also seems to be an essential conditionin order to guarantee the success of the process,as public participation is considered time andeffort consuming.In any case, actions already carried out on publicparticipation have been considered very enrichingby PRB, for the WFD implementation process.PRB often obtained new information that wasinteresting for management, even if they havenot undertaken RBMP yet.Many PRB have also underlined the opportunitygiven by public participation to learn from oneanother, leading to an actual “social learning”.From now on, PRB will have to focus their nextactions on the consultation of the broad public,whilst enhancing their efforts on stakeholderinvolvement.

GD: IMPLEMENTING THE GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)

Implementing the Geographic InformationSystem (GIS) elements of the Water FrameworkDirective presents the common understandingon terms and on the role of GIS in the WFD. Italso specifies the maps that must be reported tothe European Commission and when, thedifferent GIS layers those make up these maps, thelevel of detail and spatial accuracy expected fromthe data and the reference system to use forreporting the data. The document goes on todiscuss the validation procedures that should beemployed in the validation step and the standardsthat should be followed when validating data.Guidance is given on the documentation of GISlayers including the metadata fields that should

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS, PHASE 1B

Page 101: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

ARE ALREADY EXISTING DATASETS USED,OR WAS PROCESSING NECESSARY TO MEETTHE SPECIFICATIONS?

The spatial detail and accuracy used in thepractise of water management can be different forlocal, regional, national or international purposes.PRBs deal with the translation of alreadyoperational datasets to the (probably moregeneral) level specified in the guideline in adifferent way. As already mention, Jucar did notneed to process maps to improve the accuracy ofthe datasets since the already existing data wereat the same scale. Oulujoki reports the samesituation, their national data is gathered usingdatabases, which correspond to the scale 1:250,000. In general in Scheldt Basin datasetswere elaborated, starting from existing data,which were priory treated, selected and/orgeneralized. On the contrary Marne reports thatto full fit the 1: 250:00 scale as specified by thecommission specific treatments will be necessaryto aggregate all our data.

The third general issues on which PRBs reportedin relation with GIS GD, is dealing withMetadata. A specific selection (profile) of meta-data elements of the ISO 19115 standard is madefor the WFD datasets. Does this profilecorrespond to the national implementation ofmetadata standard, and what choices are madeto fulfil the requirements? How is the meta-datagenerated and maintained?

WHAT EFFORT WAS NEEDED TO FULFILTHE REQUIREMENTS ON META-DATA?

Shannon Basin highlights that EPA is developinga specific meta-data system centrally. This systemwill be used in all RBDs in Ireland for thepurposes of WFD implementation. This meta-data system will allow users to create, edit andview meta-data about datasets they have createdand/or improved. In the Hungarian part ofSomes/Szamos national competent authority forcoordinating the national meta data managing iscurrently under development, therefore, theproject used only basic ISO 19115 meta datainformation for its purposes. These informationwere readily available, while in the Romanian

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 99

missing (i.e. in water bodies maps, the relevantinformation is the type of water body not theparameters used to define the type). Oulujokihighlighted that also some other technicalrequirements are too tight (for instance therequirements of river networks in GIS is tooambitious expectation).

General Issues.The second general issues treated was dealingwith spatial detail and accuracy of the GIS dataused within the PRBs. More specifically thefollowing questions were made to PRBs:

HOW WAS DEALT WITH THESPECIFICATIONS ON SPATIAL DETAIL ANDACCURACY?

All the PRBs met specification on spatial detailand accuracy as specified by the Directive.Shannon produced maps used for theconstruction of the river and lake network were1:50,000 scales. This level of detail is sufficientto view first order streams. The GIS guidancedocument recommends a reporting scale of1:250,000. This reduction in scale will result inthe loss of many smaller features, which wouldotherwise prevent clear visualization of maps.A clear distinction is required between reportingobjectives for the Commission at 1:250,000 scaleand reporting objectives for each River BasinDistrict at larger scales (e.g. 1:50,000). TheRomanian part of the Somes/Szamos initiallyused map with a scale of 1:200,000, then in asecond step, the accuracy position were scaled to1:100 000 to better define detail of the basin.Marne shared the same position as the Shannon.1: 250,00 scale is suitable to be used, but whenit was possible, 1:50,00 scale maps were used.Scheldt has the problem to homogenize the datacoming form different countries. In the first step,partners generate the operational data for themaps per party on a 1:250 000 scale. For theelaboration of maps of the entire RBD, we keepthe same level of accuracy but we adapt thethresholds of representation. The choice of thethreshold representation value of one of the layerdepends on technical constraints and on politicalchoices.

Page 102: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

100 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

use since is mainly comprised of publicinformation (rivers basin district, basins, rivers,lakes, transitional and coastal waters,groundwater bodies, authorities, ecotypes,protected areas, monitoring networks, etc),though its origin may be of differentadministrations. Nevertheless, it may arise somekind of restriction on data copyright oncomplementary and not mandatory informationto be supply as Digital Elevation Models or AerialPhotos, which could be useful as backgrounddocumentation on some subjects. Marne PRBreporting that at national level rights abouthydrological data depends on the IGN (NationalGeographic Institute) and the Ministry of Ecologyand Sustainable Development. PRB Oulujoki,generally use of datasets is not free of charge.For instance the 1: 250 000 water body datasetsare owned by National Land Survey and the useof these datasets is not free. In the trasnationalScheldt Basinagreements among severalorganisations responsible for the managementand/or the diffusion of the data were made. Thesecontractual links must be taken into account.For that purpose, an agreement between the 6partners, concerning the supply and the use ofdata within the framework of the internationalcollaboration for the international river basinof the Scheldt, is in preparation.

International standards on meta-data and data-exchange/access (gml/web-mapping, Open GISstandards) are preferable. Are these standardalready used in practice?

IS THE USE OF INTERNATIONALTECHNICAL STANDARDS ON META-DATAAND DATA-EXCHANGE/ACCESS ALREADYAPPLICABLE IN PRACTICE?

Shannon is currently developing the meta-datasystem using the XML language. Marne is usingESRI shapefile standard because it correspondsto the current GIS format of the Agency. TheDIREN (Seine Normandy regional office of theministry of environment) use the MapInfo formatand data will be easily convert into shapefileformat. The GIS working group recommends touse GML in the long term. GML is still notoperationally integrated in GIS software, so we

part of the basin metadata elements regarding ISO19115 standardization are continuously updated.In the context of the Júcar PRB exercise themetadata information has been implementedonly for the inventory level or internal use.However the contains and structure establishedat that effect have followed particular criteriaand not the ISO 19115. Nevertheless, it is to beexpected in the future to carry out itsregularization according to the criteria of theGuidance. Marne will produce data according tothe ISO 19115 standards as recommended bythe GIS working group. However, it will not bepossible to fill in the whole 300 descriptors thatfully characterise each type of data. A priori,only the main 12 core elements will be filled in.Within the Oulujoki all datasets have beendescribed using national metadata-standards.The metadata-system will be modernized duringnext few years and also ISO 19115 standard willbe taken into account. Finally for the ScheldtBasin, it was decided by the Heads of Delegationsof the ISC not to put in place a GIS on the levelof the RBD. Therefore, the elaboration of GISmetadata is no longer a priority. However, a filewith basic metadata (non ISO) has been createdand is being updated on a regular basis.

A specific object of the working group GIS is tofacilitate free, non-proprietary access to thecomplete set of information that is reported by theMember States, river basin districts.Data policy differences are to be expectedconsidering the many organizations involved,and can influence the choice which datasets touse.

ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS FORFURTHER USE OF THE REPORTED DATA?

For the Shannon PRB exercise obviously, freeand readily available data sets were primarilyused even though data policy differences wereencountered, but these are or soon will beovercome through various bilateral agreements.The layers of information for the Hungarian partof the Somes/Szamos are free-to-use, but atnational level, in Hungary, the open GIS conceptis not in practice. Witin the Jucar mandatorydata to be reported has not restrictions for further

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS, PHASE 1B

Page 103: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

(additional 2-character MS-code) to datasets.Anyway all needed features have already widelyused national codes. Scheldt did not analysedyet the coding issues, because priority was givento the elaboration of maps of the entire RBD,independent from a GIS structure for the RBD.

GD: PLANNING PROCESS

Issues considered by PRBs regarding the lessonsabstracted from the guidance document

Definition of River Basin District boundaries:establishing the boundaries of a river basin districtinvolves on the one hand neighbouring districts(national or international) and on the otherimplies consistency at a national level.Nevertheless, in most cases, it should be the taskof the river basin to propose technical referencesand supportive arguments to any definitionfollowing a ‘natural’ division rather than anadministrative one. In case discrepancies mightarise in some areas, field staff walked theseparticular areas thus allowing updating riverbasin district boundaries.In Denmark, the division of river basin districtswas primarily done following the borders thatseparate the existing regional administrativeauthorities – the counties – as close as possible.However, some adjustment of the boundarieshas been made to avoid dividing of catchments.In the case of the Scheldt river basin district, thedivision was made using official topographicmaps.

Methodology used to assign and definegroundwater bodies for shared aquifers: in caseof national river basins, the criteria was definedat a national level and adapted to particularcircumstances at a river basin district level. Thiscriterion also defines how to assign portion ofground water bodies to every river basin districtdepending on particular circumstances. Criteriafor sharing ground water bodies is also definedand tailored made for any particularcircumstance. In the Shannon PRB, the decisionto assign groundwater to a particular river basindistrict was based on available hydrogeologicalinformation (bedrock geology, tracing study

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 101

don't consider using GML presently. TheHungarian team of the Somes/Szamos is noappling international technical standard on metadata. A Meta data standard is not operational atnational level in Hungary .

Feature coding is the assignment of uniqueidentification codes to each spatial feature in thedataset. The recommended coding approachshould allow European harmonization andcontinuing use of national coding structures.

HOW WAS THE RECOMMENDATIONS ONTHE EUROPEAN FEATURE CODING SYSTEMDEALT WITH?

In the Shannon, the latest Irish river codingsystem was established in 1970s and based onhydrometric areas, 40 of which are designatedclockwise around the country. Within eachhydrometric area, rivers and tributaries areidentified by one character (first letter of thename) and two numeric. A modified version ofthe pfafstetter system is being developed toidentify river segments, whilst accommodating thecurrent national system. Somes/Szamos inHungary applied the recommendations of themodified Pfaffstetter Coding system. During thePRBs exercise the coding was implemented for allGIS layers. In the Romanian part of the basin,after a try to develop the Pfafstetter river codingsystem recommended by ICPDR, which was notsuccessful because the river basin is too complex,the Pfaffstetter coding system was adapted usingthe dot for the delineation of magnitude sizes.Jucar is still using a Spanish coding due to theJúcar basin Authority. Nevertheless the CEDEXis conducting the task of the coding at a nationalscale the basins and associated Surface WaterBodies following the modified Pfafstetter method.In the Marne, the GIS working grouprecommends to keep national coding systemswhen existing and to add a national prefix, e.g."FR" for France. With regard to surface waters,the recommendation is to use a coding thatrespects a hierarchical and hydrological structure(such pfafstetter) ; the French coding system of1968 (modified in 1991) follows this principleand describes rivers, basins, lakes, humid zones.Oulujoki will add the European coding

Page 104: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

102 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

Hereafter some considerations summarised fromthe answers are presented, while more detailedissues are presented in the “Key Issues” sectionbelow:

• Tendency to include wetlands into other waterbodies and risk disregarding small butsignificant wetlands.

• PRBs support their work on wetlands usingexisting data and existing nature protectionlegislation.

• PRBs recognise the need to improve theirknowledge about wetlands functioning andwater needs in terms of quantity and quality

• PRBs identify the need to restore and maintainwetlands if they want to take advantage oftheir positive functions for the achievement ofthe WFD objectives.

• PRBs have not dealt in detail with the role ofwetlands in the Programme of Measuresalthough they recognise its importance.However, this will likely be addressed in moredetail during Phase 2 of PRB testing.

• PRBs have not specified how they will assessthe significance of pressures and impacts onwetlands, although they are aware of whichthese pressures and impacts are.

• PRBs consider that restoration of wetlandsmust be carefully designed to avoid adverseeffects on other parts of the catchment

Key Issues

IDENTIFICATION OF WETLANDS UNDERTHE WFD

The PRBs consider that the information providedin the Guidance Document is a good start foridentifying wetlands under the WFD. However,more examples or the definition of somethresholds on wetland parameters would beuseful to support the identification of wetlands.

The current way of identifying wetlands has therisk of ignoring smaller wetlands or wetlandsthat are currently significantly damaged.

On the other hand, the Oulujoki points out thatmore than 30% of its area should be classified aswetlands as a large percentage of the RB drainage

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS, PHASE 1B

results, groundwater flow regime and direction)and the presence of dependent ecosystems(groundwater fed lakes, rising from undergroundstreams, groundwater dependent terrestrialecosystems). It is important to underline thatcooperation between neighbouring river basindistricts results to be essential, particularly inthe development of the programme of measuresand river basin management plans, to ensurethat such interconnected water bodies andassociated ecosystems are adequately protected.

In Denmark the river basin district of Fyn countygroundwaters follow the river basin districtboundaries. Therefore, it is intended to subdividethe river basin district into four sub-basins. Eachof these sub-basins represents catchments thatdrain into more or less well-defined andhydrographically distinct coastal areas. The groundwater bodies that are shared between the sub-basins are identified and assigned to only one sub-basin according to the principle of dominance,i.e. when most of the ground water body is locatedinside one sub-basin, or if it is equally sharedbetween two or more sub-basins where most of thewater abstraction is taking place.In case of transboundary river basins, as theScheldt case, the ground water line is establishedregarding surface watershed and location ofimportant aquifers. In some cases the delineationhas been done following other criteria suchhydrogeology, groundwater deep flows andadministrative arrangements. Groundwaterbodies shared at international scale administrativediscussion have to take place (regarding upstreamand downstream). Finally, another criterionconsidered is when the ground water body wasfeeding wetlands in different river basins.

HORIZONTAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON WETLAND

General IssuesThe received answers – by four PRBs (Shannon,Júcar, Odense and Oulujoki) out of seven PRBswho tested the GD – are in some cases quitegeneral and, in most cases reflect the GuidanceDocument’s content.

Page 105: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 103

area is linked to groundwater-related wetlands.

IDENTIFICATION OF WETLANDS AMONGSURFACE WATER BODIES

In most cases wetlands are not defined as waterbodies themselves but as part of rivers, lakes,transitional or coastal waters. They are onlyconsidered as a separate water body if they arealready defined in an official inventory (Shannon)or if it is not possible to associate them to otherwater bodies (Odense).

The Júcar did not consider any of its wetlands aspart of a surface water body, but only as ecosystemsconnected to surface water bodies or terrestrialecosystems directly dependant on GWBs.

Shannon points out difficulties to delineatewetland boundaries and the need for moredetailed field survey for better delineation.

Odense underlines that different measures can benecessary to achieve objectives for the WB and forthe associated wetlands.

IDENTIFICATION OF TERRESTRIALECOSYSTEMS DIRECTLY DEPENDING ONGROUNDWATER BODIES

Júcar stresses the lack of knowledge on the waterneeds and the consequent need for hydrologicaland ecological studies to fill this gap.

Shannon also identified this knowledge gapparticularly regarding delineating the zone ofcontribution of wetlands.

Oulujoki underlines that groundwater dependentterrestrial ecosystems in its RB are dominatedby peatland (aapa-mires).

IDENTIFICATION OF WETLANDS AMONGSMALL ELEMENTS OF SURFACE WATERCONNECTED TO WATER BODIES BUT NOTIDENTIFIED AS WATER BODIES (2.5)

PRBs points out that it is not feasible to identifyall those small elements, hence they are includedinto bigger water bodies. In Shannon the

identification of a wetland as a water body isbased on thresholds; in Oulujoki only small waterbodies with a very high value was selected as aspecific water body.

IDENTIFICATION OF OTHER ECOSYSTEMSSIGNIFICANTLY INFLUENCING THE QUALITYAND QUANTITY OF WATER BODIES (2.6)

This can be done either with models (Odense) orby analysing pressures and impacts in thecatchment (Oulujoki).

WFD ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES AND WETLANDS

This aspect has not yet been dealt with inShannon.

Oulujoki and Odense consider that the currentpoor status of some several wetlands in their RBgoes against the achievement of the WFDenvironmental objectives but that the restorationmust be done carefully to make sure that it willnot cause problems in other parts of thecatchment.

WETLANDS AND HM AND ARTIFICIAL WB

Júcar has not yet defined HMWBs

Shannon may require derogation up to 2027while wetland restoration is achieved for areas ofworked peat-land.

Odense and Pulujoki consider that in some casesrestoration can cause adverse effects, but that itis a matter to design good solution or to disregardsolutions that are really damaging.

WETLANDS AND PROTECTED AREAS.

In general, PRBs plan to include in the ProtectedAreas Register the already protected wetlandsaccording to international, national or locallegislation.

In Shannon there has been a specific project to identifyand rank nature conservation designated areas, wherethe status of water is an important factor.

Page 106: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

104 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

status of the whole catchment.

Odense highlights the need to consider thecatchment as a whole and not as a mosaic ofwater bodies as the different elements of thehydrodynamics of a river valley are stronglyinterlinked.

However, PRBs have not defined in detail yethow to cope wetlands with the programme ofmeasures.

MONITORING AND WETLANDS

Wetlands belonging to water bodies will besubject to monitoring requirements set by theWFD, while those included in the Register ofProtected Areas will be subject to therequirements established by their specificprotection status ( Ramsar, Birds and HabitatsDirective etc.).

PRBs pointed about the need for further studieswetlands to understand their functioning andhow significant pressures could affect them.

In Oulujoki they will start this work in autumn2004.

WETLANDS AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACTS AND PRESSURES ANALYSIS

Significant pressures are due to water abstraction,regulation works, drainage, earth-filling, urbandevelopment, point and source pollution, airpollution, peat extraction from mires, harborconstruction. Impacts are the lowering of waterlevels and pollution.

However, PRBs have not specified how they willassess the significance of pressures and impactson wetlands.

THE PROGRAMME OF MEASURES AND WETLANDS

The PRBs recognize the positive functions ofwetlands (biodiversity enhancement nutrientattenuation and storm flow abatement), and considerthat the original wetlands need to be restored and theexisting ones maintained to contribute to the good

SUMMARIZED EXPERIENCES OF THE PRBS WITH GDS, PHASE 1B

Page 107: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

NOTES

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 105

Page 108: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

106 Pilot River Basin Outcome Report

NOTES

Page 109: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 107

Page 110: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General
Page 111: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General
Page 112: PILOT RIVER BASIN OUTCOME REPORT · 2006. 4. 18. · Pilot River Basin Outcome Report 1 This document has been jointly prepared by the Joint Research Centre and the Directorate General

The mission of the JRC is to provide customer-driven scientific and technical support for theconception, development, implementation and monitoring of EU policies. As a service of theEuropean Commission, the JRC functions as a reference centre of science and technology forthe Union. Close to the policy-making process, it serves the common interest of the MemberStates, while being independent of special interests, whether private or national.

14 LB-N

A-21518-E

N-C