One-out-all-out and other indicators Diederik van der Molen Barry van de Glind The Netherlands 9 October 2013

Examples of effect one-out-all-out in the Netherlands Chemical status O-o-a-o for 33 + 8 priority substances 99% of individual measurements on priority substances: good About 20% of the surface water bodies: failing to achieve GCS We welcome new presentation in Directive 2013/39/EU ubiquitous substances Ecological status O-o-a-o for 4 biological groups O-o-a-o for 6 general physico-chemical elements O-o-a-o for about 100 river basin specific pollutants in 0.4% of the surface water bodies 100+ parameters are good 9 October 2013

NL: 0.4% of water bodies in GES/GEP, but 2/3 of the water bodies quality element Nutrients was good 25% of the water bodies quality element Fish was good 34% of the water bodies quality element Phytoplankton was good 19% of the water bodies all river basin specific pollutants were good Outcomes are depending on the monitoring effort and completeness of the assessment system Results of member states are not comparable yet ES and other member states indicated that GES-status will downgrade now they include ‘fish’ 9 October 2013

EC discussion-paper in SCG (30 Sep): One-out-all-out method is….. … “one of the key pillars of the WFD” … “It ensures that all impacts are taken into account in the status assessment” The value of o-o-a-o is not at stake! However: … “the progress achieved in some elements/parameters may be hidden by the lack of progress in others” … “This may result in an overly pessimistic view on the progress” In addition we think that one-out-all-out ... … does not inform on the relevant pressures … does not give a good illustration of the water status <> perception of public and stake holders 9 October 2013

SCG: Additional indicators are indispensible for: Informing the public Public & political support for funding EU-wide “common indicators” necessary for comparability between member states, uniformity to the public, Status for national political debate. Common indicators should be available for endorsement by WD in December for use in RBMP-2. “Free indicators” helpful for national use. Task working group DIS together with WG A and E. 9 October 2013

Dutch proposals for additional common indicators Better illustration of the water status Better indication of the progress of the status Based on data already available in WISE Some suggestions for “free indicators” May be based on additional data, not in WISE Addressing re-delineation of water bodies (EC) Addressing weight-factors as length of water bodies (AT, DE) 9 October 2013

Common indicator ecological status (1) Diagram with all 4 biological quality elements and total (o-o-a-o) % of all surface water bodies (= main WFD reporting unit) Including ‘not applicable’ (e.g. phytoplakton in rivers) Including ‘unknown’ (missing values) (light green = biology good, but problem with phys-chem or rbsp) Better illustration of the ecological status of swb 9 October 2013

Common indicator ecological status (2) Better illustration of the ecological status of swb Better indicator for the progress in status As a number: average % high/good for all biological quality elements (of the assessed water bodies) = 24% in 2009 and 37% in 2015 (hypothetical….) (And/or as a number: average % unknown for all relevant water bodies) 9 October 2013

Additional common indicator: river basin specific pollutants Diagram with threshold-exceeding river basin specific pollutants In % of all surface water bodies (including ‘unknown’) Better indicator for the illustration of the status and the pressure 2nd column and/or % indicator Progress in status Different rbsp and standards within river basins and between member states 9 October 2013

Additional common indicator: physico-chemical elements Diagram with threshold exceeding physico-chemical elements In % of all surface water bodies (including ‘unknown’) Better indicator for the illustration of the status and pressures 2nd column and/or % indicator Progress in status 9 October 2013

Free indicator swb: pressures ecological status Specific diagrams for the illustration of pressures: Eutrophication: combination of phytoplankton in lakes/coastal, phytobenthos in rivers Connectivity (only rivers): metrics on migrating fish Hydromorphology: macro-invertebrates 2nd column and % indicator for Progress in status Use of partial biological indices requires additional information compared to current reporting sheets 9 October 2013

Free indicator gwb: use of individual tests 2009: o-o-a-o 2015: o-o-a-o Groundwater dependent ecosystems Water abstraction Alternative: Alternative: 9 October 2013 Use of partial biological indices requires additional information compared to current reporting sheets 9 October 2013

Free indicators: weight factors and re-delineation Use of length (volume, etc) of water bodies instead of % Re-delineation of water bodies Comparison 2009 – 2015 based on monitoring stations ? Use of indicators based on % (not) failing of all assessments ? Difficult not to loose information ... 9 October 2013

Conclusions and recommendations One-out-all-out necessary as indication for remaining significant water management issues Additional indicators needed for Presentation of the status Indication of the progress Visualisation of pressures Need for common indicators (in Dec) based on available data 1 diagram & 1 %-indicator for biology and total ecology (o-o-a-o) 1 supporting diagram & 1 %-indicator for rbsp 1 supporting diagram & 1 %-indicator for physico-chemistry Way forward Agreement in WG DIS, A and E in Oct Proposal to SCG 4-5 Nov 2013 Endorsement Water Directors in Dec 2013 Further elaboration on (harmonised) free indicators in 2014 9 October 2013