MODULE 1 Water Framework Directive, Relation of WFD with Daughter Directives, River Basin Management Planning, Water Bodies, Typology, Classification Surface.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Implementing the Water Framework Directive at an Environmental and Water Directorate, Hungary László Kóthay director Trans-Tisza Region Environmental and.
Advertisements

Longitude/Latitude Prime Meridian/Equator Oceans Tropics Continents
The Danube Basin ICPDR Philip Weller Danube Leaders Conference, Novi Sad, July 9, 2010 The Ecological Foundations for Development.
REGIONAL WORKSHOP "AGRICULTURAL NUTRIENT POLLUTION CONTROL IN BLACK SEA DANUBE PARTNERSHIP COUNTRIES" Ministry of the Agriculture and Water Management.
Criteria for water quality assessment between countries: how to proceed in the next few years ? F. László Water Resources Research Centre Budapest, Hungary.
Knowledge Management LXV International Council Meeting Qawra, Malta 16 th - 23 rd of March 2014.
International Cooperation in Water Management and Pollution Control in the Danube River Basin Joachim Bendow, ICPDR Executive Secretary 1.
Europe and Me. Making our environment cleaner and safer? The European Union.
ELSA Law Schools ICM Cluj-Napoca, 21st April 2015.
Institutional Capacity in Transboundary Basins: The Danube The Experience of the ICPDR UN Water Decade Workshop 11 November, 2008, Bonn Philip Weller.
Characterization Report Module 2: Water Budget, Pressures and Impacts, Significant Water Management Issues, Monitoring, Characterization Report Characterization.
October 31 st, 2007 – “BLACK SEA CELEBRATION DAY” - CONSTANTA.
Module 4: RBM Planning regarding Blueprint document, training skills, transboundary issues, public consultations, negotiation skills Transboundary cooperation.
BLACK SEA: FROM “CLOSED SEA” TO A SEA OF REGIONAL COOPERATION by Nilufer Oral, JD Bilgi University.
Philip Weller, ICPDR Progress and current status of the Joint Statement The ICPDR point of view Joint Statement Meeting Jan. 2009, Budapest.
Make it Smart&Creative ICM Cluj-Napoca, 21st April 2015.
EUROPE.
The Danube ICPDR Philip Weller Brussels, Feb 24, 2011 Corporate Partnerships in River Basin Management.
1 Public participation in the Danube Basin: approaches, activities, challenges Jasmine Bachmann ICPDR Secretariat UN Conference on Info Management and.
EASTERN EUROPE Dominated by the USSR until 1990 Europe’s Poorest Region Influenced by Russia political and economic instability common.
ELSA as the Franchise? LXV International Council Meeting Qawra, Malta 16 th - 23 rd of March 2014.
ROUND TABLE Possibilities for Cooperation on Consular and Visa Issues in the Danube Region ROUND TABLE Possibilities for Cooperation on Consular and Visa.
Module 3: Environmental Objectives, Programme of Measures, Economic Analysis, Exemptions PoM implementation: Upper Tisza case study Alexei Iarochevitch.
EXTREME MAKEOVER Members’ Magazine LXIV International Council Meeting Opatija, Croatia October 28 th - November 3 rd 2013.
Development of WFD compliant Transnational Monitoring Network in the Danube River Basin Dr. Igor Liška ICPDR Secretariat.
Comparison of Environmental Quality Objectives, Threshold Values or Water Quality Targets set for the Demands of European Water Framework Directive Ulrich.
Map Quiz #7 Review World Geography Mr. Wofford. Map Quiz #7 Review Continents, Oceans, Seas, Deserts, Mountains U S A North America South America.
MODULE 1 Water Framework Directive, Relation of WFD with Daughter Directives, River Basin Management Planning, Water Bodies, Typology, Classification River.
Europe. Albania AL Austria Belarus Belgium.
1 Communication in the Danube River Basin Jasmine Bachmann International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River 1.
1 Intercalibration in the Eastern Continental Region 1 Dr. Ursula Schmedtje International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River.
Austrian Approach for Identification of Water Bodies Workshop on Identification of Surface Water Bodies Brussels, 25/26 September 2003 Birgit Vogel Austrian.
EUROPE. Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland European Russia, Estonia, Latvia.
The countries highlighted in red are the ones you have to label on your map. Note that the borders for Montenegro and Kosovo are not drawn on your map.
Regional workshop on SoE water quantity reporting of ETC/ICM with West Balkan countries Skopje, 10. – 11. January HRVATSKE VODE Marina Barbalić,
Geography Review On Map 1, please identify: -Spain -France -England -Russia -Ottoman empire -Persia -China -Mughal India -Songhai Empire.
JOINT STATEMENT FOLLOW UP MEETING `09 Horst Schindler, Ivana Tomic Budapest, January 29, 2009 Danube Commission, Budapest.
The European Law Students’ Association Albania ˙ Austria ˙ Azerbaijan ˙ Belgium ˙ Bosnia and Herzegovina ˙ Bulgaria ˙ Croatia ˙ Cyprus ˙ Czech Republic.
Umweltbüro essen UBA Research Project FKZ „Testing Innovative Approaches in the River Basin Management Plan of the Case Study Catchment Lausitzer.
Chp 7 Eastern Europe. What is one of Poland’s most important industries?  Coal Mining 204.
Regional Policy State of play of EUSDR and Danube Transnational Programme Steering Group Meeting PA 2 13 June 2013, Budapest, Hungary Ann-Jasmin Krabatsch,
1 PARTICIPATION OF UKRAINE IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EUROPEAN UNION STRATEGY FOR THE DANUBE REGION.
1 M O N T E N E G R O Negotiating Team for the Accession of Montenegro to the European Union Working Group for Chapter 29 – Customs union Bilateral screening:
PROJECT HYDROCARE SLOVAK HYDROMETEOROLOGICAL INSTITUTE (Partner No.9) February 2006, Potsdam, Germany.
Future possibilities. TTGWB Mura-Zala and T-JAM recommendations to be accepted at national decision-making levels (ministries, water management authorities)
South East Europe Transnational Cooperation Programme Beyond the South East Europe Programme.
France Ireland Norway Sweden Finland Estonia Latvia Spain Portugal Belgium Netherlands Germany Switzerland Italy Czech Rep Slovakia Austria Poland Ukraine.
Hungary (Magyarország)
In complete sentences answer the following questions:
in transboundary basins:
General approach to project proposals
SAVA COMMISSION Navigation in the Sava River Basin -
Marine Strategy Framework Directive: an introduction
Dr. Ursula Schmedtje Secretariat of the ICPDR
Synthesis of the intercalibration process Working group 2.5.
Dr. Ursula Schmedtje ICPDR Secretariat
PAGE 288 Political Map Albania Austria Belarus Belgium
Eastern Europe map test
Horizontal Guidance on Wetlands Rome, 12nd June
REFCOND Workshop Uppsala, May 2001
EU Water Framework Directive
Update on WFD feature coding
on a protocol for Intercalibration of Surface Water
Preparation of the second RBMP in Romania
WFD CIS 4th Intercalibration Workshop
Claire Vincent - EHS United Kingdom
ASSIGNING WATER BODY TYPES IN THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION Wouter van de Bund EC Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and sustainability,
Typology for fully saline waters
Pilot River Basin Project for the Szamos/Somes River Basin
Horizontal Guidance on Wetlands Brussels, 5th May
Presentation transcript:

MODULE 1 Water Framework Directive, Relation of WFD with Daughter Directives, River Basin Management Planning, Water Bodies, Typology, Classification Surface water bodies’ typology, Danube river basin countries and Ukraine experience Danube river basin countries and Ukraine experience Alexei Iarochevitch Antalya December 5, 2014

Content  Purpose of typology  Rivers typology (system A and system B, Danube, Turkey)  Lakes typology (system A and system B, Danube, Turkey)  Transitional WBs’ typology (system A and system B, Danube, Turkey)  Costal WB’s typology (system A and system B, Danube, Turkey)  Ukraine typology

Purpose of typology  The WFD requires to differentiate the relevant surface water bodies with respect to type and that Member States establish reference conditions for these types  The main purpose of typology is consequently to enable type specific reference conditions to be defined which in turn is used as the anchor of the classification system

Rivers All rivers are different by:  Catchment  Length  Hydrological regime  Morphological parameters

creek, Matra mountains, Hungary

Prut river, Carpathians, Ukraine

Fiumara d’Agro, Sicilia, Italy

Ikva river, north- west of Ukraine

Rivers have a different water quality depending on:  Geology (organic, siliceous, calcareous)  Pollution

Фотки Pripyat river, north of Ukraine

Pripyat river, north of Ukraine

 photo Sava river, Slovenia

 photo Confluence of Bodrog and Tisza rivers, Tokaj, Hungary

Rivers All rivers are different by:  Aquatic flora  Benthic invertebrate  Fish

 photo

Common Implementation Strategy

System A & system B  For each surface water category, the relevant surface water bodies within the river basin district shall be differentiated according to type. These types are those defined using either "system A" or "system B" identified in Section 1.2.  If System B is used, Member States must achieve at least the same degree of differentiation as would be achieved using System A. Accordingly, the surface water bodies within the river basin district shall be differentiated into types using the values for the obligatory descriptors and such optional descriptors, or combinations of descriptors, as are required to ensure that type specific biological reference conditions can be reliably derived

Rivers Dnipro river, Kyiv, Ukraine

Rivers typology (System A)

Rivers typology (System B)

River typology in the Danube river basin district  The typologies of the Danube tributaries were developed by the countries individually.  Stream types relevant on transboundary water courses were bilaterally harmonized with the neighbors.  Most countries in the Danube River Basin (Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina) have applied System B. The Slovak Republic and Ukraine have used System A.  The common factors used mostly in DRB typologies are ecoregion, altitude, catchment area and geology. In the Czech typology the ecoregions are not included, instead of ecoregion, sea drainage area (= river basin) is used. In Slovenia no altitude classes were used in river typology.

Rivers typology

Optional factors ParameterCountries Mean water slopeGermany, Slovakia, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Romania, Moldova Mean substratum composition Germany, Hungary, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Ukraine River dischargeSlovakia, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Moldova Valley shapeGermany, Czech Republic, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Moldova Channel formGermany, Slovakia, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Moldova Hydrology / water flowGermany, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Moldova Saprobiological Basic ConditionGermany, Austria Precipitation [mm p.a.]Romania Temperature [°C]Romania Fish ZonationRomania

Turkish river typology ( Turkish river typology (EU Twinning project “Capacity Building on water quality monitoring”)

Lakes Modre (Blue) lake, Imotski, Croatia

Lakes typology (System A)

Lakes typology (System B Lakes typology (System B)

Lakes typology in the Danube river basin district

Turkish lakes typology ( Turkish lakes typology (EU Twinning project “Capacity Building on water quality monitoring”)

Transitional waters Danube river delta, Romania-Ukraine

Transitional waters typology (system A)

Transitional waters typology (System B)

Transitional WB typology in the Danube river basin district

Turkish transitional WB typology ( Turkish transitional WB typology (EU Twinning project “Capacity Building on water quality monitoring”)

Coastal waters South coast, Seven Sisters, England

Coastal waters typology (System A)

Coastal waters typology (System B)

Coastal WB typology in the Danube river basin district

Turkish coastal WB typology ( Turkish coastal WB typology (EU Twinning project “Capacity Building on water quality monitoring”)

Conclusions & recommendations (1)  Water body types may be differentiated using ”System A” or ”System B”;  The two systems are similar in that they contain the same obligatory factors: geographic position, altitude, geology, size and (for lakes) depth;  Optional factors of System B can be used as desired by Member States and can be complemented with factors other than those mentioned in the Directive

Conclusions & recommendations (2)  The Directiveґs descriptors of geology (in System A) refer to the dominating character (calcareous, siliceous, etc.), expected to have the strongest influence on ecological quality of the water body;  The Directiveґs requirement that MS must achieve the same degree of differentiation with System B as with System A is interpreted to mean that if System B is used, it should result in no greater degree of variability in type specific reference conditions than if System A had been used. Hence, if a lower number of types, using System B, results in equally low or lower variability of reference conditions values as would be given by System A, this would be acceptable;

Ukraine, Tisza river basin (Danube sub-basin)

Ukraine, Buh river basin (Black sea)

Reference and useful links  Guidance document n.o 2 Identification of of Water Bodies. Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm  Guidance document n.o 10. River and lakes – Typology, reference conditions and classification systems framework/facts_figures/guidance_docs_en.htm  Chapter 4. Characterization of surface water bodies // Danube Basin Analysis (WRD roof report 2004)  Chapter 4. Characterization of surface water bodies //Tisza River Basin Analysis report

Thank you for attention!