AUSTRIAN EXPERIENCES ON SHOWING PROGRESS OF WFD IMPLEMENTATION ERNST ÜBERREITER

WFD, Annex VII B.2 The first update of the river basin management plan and all subsequent updates shall also include an assessment of the progress made towards the achievement of the environmental objectives […] EEA Homepage The European Environment Agency (EEA) is an agency of the European Union. Our task is to provide sound, independent information on the environment. We are a major information source for those involved in developing, adopting, implementing and evaluating environmental policy, and also the general public WHY TALKING ABOUT SHOWING PROGRESS ON EU LEVEL? Copenhagen,

---Justification for high investment costs in WFD implementation measures -public -politics e.g. estimated costs for hydromorphological measures in AT: 3 Billion Euro - Restoration of river continuity (~1000) in larger catchments: 500 Mio. Euro - Morphological measures in larger catchments : 1 Billion Euro --- Decision basis for subsequent management cycle ---Support EC compliance check with WFD requirements WHY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR AUSTRIA TO SHOW PROGRESS? Copenhagen,

Percentage of surface water bodies HOW PROGRESS USUALLY IS SHOWN AT EXAMPLEEC EXAMPLE Copenhagen, Improvement of % river length in good status or better + 3% Source: Austrian RBMP 2009 QUESTIONS THAT STILL ARISE: WHERE HAS ALL THE INVESTED MONEY GONE? LOW AMBITION? Source: EC presentation 2012, Impl. Report █ Good Ecological Status █ Unknown Ecological Status ▌ Exemptions 4%

TAKEN EFFORTS HAVE TO BE MADE TRANSPARENT Copenhagen, Bregenzerach, Abbr. Sohlschwelle Mellau Source: Alpenrhein/Bodensee, WFD Status Report 2013 FAH-Schlitzpass KW Braz Bolabach, Renaturierung Lutz, Renaturierung Spirsbach, Renaturierung Mündung Dorfbach Hard

---Changes in reference conditions: Example: significant changes in number of river waterbodies between 1. RBMP and 2. RBMP mainly due to splitting of existing waterbodies (+ 7%, main intention to protect high status areas), while length of river network almost constant (ca. 31,600 km)  Water bodies of 1. RBMP and 2. RBMP are not fully comparable ---Changes of valuation standards: Example: new EQS Directive 2008/105/EC tightens standards for existing substances and enshrines quite high new standards for ubiquitous substances  virtual deterioration of all WB status when considering the one-out-all-out-principle ---Multiple pressures in water bodies: Example: cost intensive restoration of river continuity is pre-condition for further measures; but reduction of only one pressure (dam or barrier) without further measures may not lead to direct improvement in status;  no improvement in status is visible when considering the one-out-all-out-principle CHALLENGES FOR SHOWING PROGRESS Copenhagen,

---Slow reaction of ecosystems: Example: atrazine still detectable in some groundwaterbodies although it is banned since many years (decades).  no improvement visible although all measures taken ---Apparent „increase“ of pressures due to better data: Example: awareness of disruptions of continuity increased from 28,000 (2009) to 33,000 (2013), while about 1,000 major ones where in fact removed;  pretended increase of pressure on paper  hiding of achievements CHALLENGES FOR SHOWING PROGRESS Copenhagen,

SHOWING PROGRESS BY DIFFERENTIATED RISK/STATUS INFORMATION Copenhagen, Source: Austrian WFD Status analysis 2013 National chemical subst. Chemical substances Hydromorphology General chem.-phys. Total risk % river water body length no risk possible riskrisk Hydromorphology Impoundment Flow fluctuation Disruption of continuity Reduced flow River regulation Continuity Morphology Hydrology

SHOWING PROGRESS BY IMPROVED LENGTH/AREA OF WATERBODIES Copenhagen, Pressure 3 Pressure removed * Pressure 1 3 PROGRESS: PROTECTION OF HIGH STATUS AREAS PROGRESS: IMPROVEMENTS DUE TO REDUCED PRESSURES Pressure 2015 Pressure All-out-one-out ubiquitous substances *Remark: if ubiquitous substances are considered in total status visualisation, all status would be bad. Pressure removed Status of Water bodies 2009/2015 is not comparable due to re-delineation

Example: Disruption of continuity in rivers (1/km) - Number of reduced pressures : ~1,000 main disruptions removed Beware: efforts may be hidden by „new“ disruptions only on paper: 2009: ~28,000, 2013: ~33,000  +4,000 on paper - Km river length improved by reduced pressure : 3,800 km (12%) improved due to removed disruptions SHOWING PROGRESS BY REDUCED PRESSURES Copenhagen, COMPARABLE RESULTS ALSO FOR DIFFERENT WB SIZES ON EU LEVEL

--- Wrong aggregation of provided data: Example: summing up areas of surface GWB (83,708km²) and deep GWB (12,229km²);  total area of groundwater bodies is larger than Austrian territory (ca. 84,000km²) ---Wrong interpretation of focus on problems: Example: quite high number of monitoring stations in porous GW bodies with problems due to agricultural pressure (~11% due to nitrates) and low number of monitoring stations in carstic GW bodies with almost no pressure;  disproportionate high number of „bad“ monitoring stations (~11% „bad“ monitoring stations due to nitrates representing ~5% of GWB area) FURTHER ISSUES DETECTED IN EC/EEA IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS Copenhagen,

Grassland and forests Arable land Land cover and land useNitrates Monitoring Stations FURTHER ISSUES DETECTED IN EC/EEA IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS MONITORING FOCUS IN AREAS WITH PROBLEMS IS WELL REPRESENTED BY MONITORING STATIONS PER KM² GWB

---Showing progress is important (public, politics, management decisions) and required (WFD). ---Differentiated approach (e.g. by reduced pressures) to make main water management issues and taken efforts transparent. Difficulties to show progress considering one-out-all-out principle (e.g. ubiquitous substances). ---Preferably show progress by improved length/area of water bodies, which delivers comparable results also for different WB sizes on EU level CONCLUSION Copenhagen,

THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND ATTENTION! Copenhagen,

2009: km, 7910 river WB 2013: km, 7910 river WB AT SUGGESTION: SHOWING PROGRESS BY DIFFERENTIATED STATUS INFORMATION Copenhagen, Source: Austrian WFD Status analysis 2013