EU Water Framework Directive Commission report on Art. 8 Monitoring programmes ECOSTAT Meeting Brussels, 20-21 April 2009 Jorge Rodriguez Romero / Ursula Schmedtje European Commission, DG Environment Unit D.2 – Water and Marine, WFD Team

Contents Background and legal basis Structure and contents of the report Conclusions of the assessment

Background and legal basis Article 18.3 of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC): 3. The Commission shall also publish a report on progress in implementation based on the summary reports that Member States submit under Article 15(2), and submit it to the European Parliament and the Member States, at the latest 2 years after the dates referred to in Articles 5 and 8. Article 5 implementation report published in March 2007

Structure of the report Commission Report: 6 pages (all languages) Commission Staff Working Document (ca. 50 pages, EN only) Annexes (ca. 180 pages, EN only) Questionnaire used for compliance checking MS annex with factual information and the results of the assessment

Table of contents CSWD 1. Introduction 2. Monitoring Requirements of the WFD 3. Methodology for the Compliance Check Results of the Assessment of Member States' Monitoring Programmes 4.1. Communication and Completeness of the Reports 4.2 Overview of Monitoring Networks in the European Union 4.3 Monitoring Programmes on Surface Waters 4.4. Monitoring Programmes on Groundwater Results in International River Basin Districts Conclusions 6.1 Reporting 6.2 Monitoring Annex 1: Questionnaire for Compliance Checking of Monitoring Reports Annex 2: Information on the Monitoring Programmes of the Member States

1. Introduction Current state of implementation of WFD The role of monitoring for the development of the river basin management plans The role of intercalibration to ensure comparability of good ecological status The CIS guidance documents on monitoring The Water Information System for Europe

2. Monitoring requirements of WFD Summary of the key monitoring requirements Surface waters Groundwater Protected areas

3. Methodology

3. Methodology – key issues Objectives of monitoring programmes Question: Have the objectives in Annex 5 of WFD been taken into account in the design of the monitoring programme? Comprehensiveness Question: Is the report on monitoring programmes comprehensive? Status of developments of methods Question: Are the methods available for the assessment of water status? Selection of quality elements Question: Which quality elements are used for the assessment of water status? Frequency of monitoring Question: What is the temporal intensity of monitoring?

3. Methodology – templates

3. Methodology – indicators Compliance indicators: developed from the WISE reports, e.g. percentage of water bodies monitored in surveillance monitoring Data used: Main report (Commission Staff Working Document) Data reported into WISE under Art. 8 WFD in 2007/2008 Number of water bodies reported under Art. 5 WFD and consulted with the Member States in March 2007 Annex 2 to CSWD (Information on Member States monitoring programmes) Number of water bodies and monitoring sites consulted with the Member States in January/February 2009 -> these number may differ from those in the main report

4.1 Communication To date, 26 Member States have reported. 24 Member States have reported through WISE. Date of reporting of the Member States Reporting deadline: 22 March 2007

4.2 Overview of EU27 Surface waters Rivers 43.042 Lakes 7.154 Number of monitoring stations Rivers 43.042 Lakes 7.154 Transitional waters 1.283 Coastal waters 5.831 Total 57.310

4.3 Surface water monitoring – examples of indicators Number of surveillance and operational monitoring sites for rivers and lakes per 1.000 km² (some sites may be for both surveillance and operational monitoring).

4.3 Surface water monitoring – examples of indicators Percentage of water bodies in surveillance monitoring in which all relevant quality elements are monitored

4.3 Surface water monitoring – examples of indicators Percentage of water bodies at risk or possibly at risk reported under Article 5 WFD that are included in operational monitoring

4.3 Surface water monitoring – examples of indicators Overview of the development of biological assessment methods in the Member States for all water categories PP = phytoplankton BI = benthic invertebrates MP = macrophytes and phytobenthos FI = fish fauna MA = macro-algae and angiosperms Member State rivers lakes transitional waters coastal waters PP MP BI FI MA AT - BG BE CY CZ DE DK …

Annex 2: MS Information Outline Information supplied Facts and figures Surface Water Monitoring Programmes Design of Monitoring Programmes Development of Biological Assessment Methods Selection of quality elements and frequency of monitoring Groundwater Monitoring Programmes Further information Summary of technical assessment: strengths and weaknesses

Annex 2: MS Information Example INFORMATION SUPPLIED Reporting through WISE; completeness of reporting (e.g. for all river basin districts, for all water categories); additionals reports, web links Example

Annex 2: MS Information Example

Annex 2: MS Information Example

Annex 2: MS Information Example Number of stations where quality elements are monitored, in rivers lakes transitional waters coastal waters Example

6. Conclusions 1 Reporting All MS have reported with the exception of Greece (no report) and Malta (no report on surface waters) Gaps remain in certain RBDs and in certain water categories Reporting into WISE has proven a success (24 MS reported into WISE, only 2 paper reports) Improvements needed on quality of reporting. Some make good use of the agreed format, others provided very general information, relied heavily on secondary information or provided inactive web links The desired flexibility in reporting formats has lead to a complicated reporting structure. This has made the systematic assessment quite difficult There is need to strike a better balance between flexibility and complexity in the reporting schemas

6. Conclusions 2 Monitoring Overall, there is a good monitoring effort across EU, >107.000 stations for surface water and groundwater In general, the provisions of Art. 8 and Annex V have been applied, but there is room for improvement in some MS in particular as regards the application of the concepts of surveillance, operational and investigative monitoring Extensive use of grouping of water bodies for monitoring. A sufficient level of confidence and precision needs to be ensured to inform decision making. Frequency of monitoring is higher than the WFD minimum in many MS

6. Conclusions 3 Monitoring (cont.) Monitoring requirements of protected areas (e.g. Drinking Water and Habitats Directive) in many cases have not been integrated into the monitoring programmes Only few MS have reported on using international coordination mechanisms in the development of their monitoring programmes Gaps remain in the development of methods. This is particularly true for MS who joined in 2004 and 2007 Little information was delivered on the levels of confidence and precision of the monitoring programmes and in particular on the assessment methods for ecological status The reporting of river basin management plans will allow the Commission to assess in a more comprehensive way the results delivered by the monitoring programmes