WISE Main River and Main Lakes Water Information System for Europe Walter Simonazzi – ETCLUSI/UAB WISE TG meeting 2009 – Copenhagen (DK), 3-4 Sept 2009

Contents General: Summary of actions WISE Main Rivers Feedback from countries Different ways of providing feedback: The case of Belgium and Italy. Parallel tasks: Anticipating to MS feedback. Looking for differences between ECRINS and reported data. Naming ECRINS Main Rivers Road-Map and timeline for Main Rivers WISE Main Lakes Summary of actions Example of Trans-Boundary Lakes in Art3 vs ECRINS Lakes. Improvements in Article 3 Lakes. Italy and Bulgaria. Road-Map and Timeline for Main lakes

Summary of actions The strategy to follow for Main Rivers and Lakes was agreed as follows: To produce a layer of Main Rivers/Lakes using ECRINS database in order to have a point of reference against to compare Main Rivers/Lakes reported by Member States (MS). Produce a comparison assessment with MS reported data and inform MS about the outcomes. Ask them for feedback. Improve WISE Main Rivers and Lakes taking into account MS comments. ECRINS has been used to produce the Main Rivers layer and is being used for Main Lakes Comparative assessment between ECRINS Main Rivers and data reported was done and results were packaged by country and uploaded to CIRCA. Data uploaded to CIRCA: Data was sent to MS representatives and they were asked to send feedback about the results, basically to be used for: Explain the differences between ECRINS and reported data, allows to: –Identify points to improve in ECRINS –Identify and explain differences with reported data –Improve ECRINS and/or improve the reporting process. (Dual benefit)

Country Feedback Four countries have sent their comments: Two countries (Belgium and Portugal ) have sent an assessment between ECRINS MainRivers vs national data, as was proposed. –Belgium: MS Word document with the two screenshots of both comparisons (Article 3 vs ECRINS and viceversa) and their explanation about their outcomes. They also said that a new shapefile for Main rivers will be upload for Art13. –Portugal: Same as belgium. One country (Italy) has sent new shapefiles as outcome of the assessment. –Italy: Three shapefiles: ITrivers_add: rivers that have to be added to the IT main rivers dataset Route_ECRINSno ART3 remove: rivers from ECRINS that has to be removed because of wrong path of the river, different headwater, or no river. ART3noECRINS_IT: rivers from ART3 dataset that has to be removed from IT_art3 dataset One country (Bulgaria) has reported data. –Bulgaria: New River and Lakes layer, no previous data reported. Spain has been contacted. The responsible person would contact SJ with an official answer.

A relevant example:Belgium Belgium: they sent an assessment of the differences. Data will be provided in Art13 reporting Map a : Art 3 Main Rivers In green, Article 3 coincident with ECRINS Main Rivers. In red, Article 3 reported not present in the ECRINS Main Rivers database

Summary of feedback Belgium: Flemish (1-7) Brussels(8), Walloon(9-22) regions; This river course is part of the transitional waters and has been corrected and reported as such in the later resubmission. 2,4 There are several secondary courses around isles in the main rivers. Sometimes the secondary course can be identified as artificial and be removed. Need a EU guidelines to include them. 3. The Scheldt has been replaced by a canal some km in the south. Art3 is better 5. The Gete is formed at the confluence of the Grote Gete and the Kleine Gete which are similar in size (both around 250 km²). To choose one of them is arbitrary since there is no more detailed specification on how to select the main river at such point. Better specification needed on how to deal with source trajects. It is better to represent both rivers than to choose one in particular 6. ECRINS shows an incorrect source point for the Demer, whereas the Belgian submission holds the correct source. 7. The basin of Waluwe is in the range of 500km2. ECRINS is better that Art3. 8. This is indeed the course of the river Seene, Art3 is better than ECRINS. 9 French river, it is not from Belgium. 10. This case concerns the river Dendre. This river has two sources, the Dendre orientale and the Dendre occidentale. In ECRINS, the second river is missing. It is better to represent both rivers than to choose one in particular. 11,12,13,14,16,20,21,22, ECRINS does not show the exact location of the river source This case concerns the river Petite Gette. The river basin of both rivers together (the Petite Gette and the Grande Gette) is greater than 500 km². It is better to represent both rivers than to choose one in particular. Chiers river. The small transboundary part in missing in Art This case concerns the river Mehaigne. This looks like a small artefact. The river basin of the river Mehaigne is smaller than 500 km². ECRINS is correct. 18. This case concerns the river Meuse. Two river segments are missing in ECRINS. 19. This case concerns the river Vesdre. One river segment is missing in ECRINS. 23,24. River Ourte: River segment missed in ECRINS. 25. This case concerns the river Ourthe. This river as two sources, the Ourthe orientale and the Ourthe occidentale, The first one is missing in ECRINS. 30. This case concerns the river Semois. Three river segments are missing in ECRINS.

Summary of feedbacks Belgium: Map b : ECRINS Main Rivers In green, ECRINS Main Rivers coincident with Art3 Main Rivers. In red, ECRINS Main Rivers reported not present in Art3 Flemish (1-7) Brussels(8), Walloon(9-22) regions; Nowadays is a canal, some parts correspond to an ancient river The river doe not exist as such, canals of several rivers, and canals are not explicitly demmanded. River blocked, no longer takes part of the river. Transboundary river. Basin in Flanders is 220km2, maybe should be added – (needs input from NL) The river should have been added in Art3 – but differs from their DB -. Will be added in Art13 submission. Transboundary river, should be added in Art3 – needs input from NL -. Incorrect source point in ECRINS fro Demer river. Art3 holds better data. This is a canal, should be included? Helpe river is a french river, no reported in Art3. Viroin river. Transboundary river that should be included in Art3. Semois river. The small transboundary part in missing in Art3. Chiers river. The small transboundary part in missing in Art3. 13,14,16 ECRINS does not show the exact river source. 15,17,19,20,21 ECRINS does not show the exact river course.

Conclusions from Belgium Belgium: -Canals: The ECRINS contains some canals with a drainage surface larger than 500 km²: It seems useful to include canals in the reference dataset, at least when they drain a surface and even when they start at a splitnode on a natural river. For this reason there should be a European guideline on how to deal with such canals (which can drain a water quantity comparable to a drainage area over 500 km²) and how to deal with splits, calculation of catchments. -In the ECRINS are no parallel courses around isles. An European guideline is necessary on how to deal with isles in the river course. -ECRINS has rivers outdated or incorrectly drawn at 500km2-scale. -ECRINS helps to trace Main Rivers over the borders for neighbour countries. -New data will be uploaded with the reporting of Art13. Important for our work: -We have relevant information to improve ECRINS Main Rivers (names, correction for source point of rivers, correction in defluences, etc). Many of this information can be used to flag ECRINS rivers. -ECRINS can improve the reporting process (i.e transboundary rivers). -We know that they are not reporting canals, neither rivers around isles. -We can extract also that they need better guidelines for canals and rivers around isles to improve the reporting process.

A relevant example:Italy Italy: They sent shapefiles, rivers to be removed from Art3, to be added to ECRINS, and removed from ECRINS.

Conclusions extracted from Italy Italy: Important for our work is that: -We have the layer, so it can simplified : -For the ETC: the process of improving ECRINS -For Italy: the process of reporting. -But, we lack of an assessment (doc) explaining the reasons as was done by Belgium. Is there a need of harmonization of how they should provide feedback? In order to harmonise the way in which they should provide feedback we could: -Ask for an assessment: Prepare a template for them to fill. We can use the example of Belgium: -We can ask for the data, as it was reported by Italy, or they can include the data in the re-submission. We have material to start working with these 5 countries, but in parallel…

Parallel task Which kind of errors MS could report? Define groups of possible errors that we can face with ECRINS in relation to MS/ERM data, and propose a solution to correct each group of errors: Five groups were identified: 1.The main drain is inaccurate, seemingly because the naming is inaccurate; solution: complete naming and recomputed ECRINS main drains 2.ECRINS river seems too far from proposed / reported river, solution: check reference river accuracy (for example, we know that ERM rivers in Italy/Greece are rather inaccurate, because projection transformation, the shift in Spain has been corrected). Where the ECRINS is actually inaccurate, define a geometry correction procedure (shifting the polyline). 3.ECRINS proposes a river, but the river does not apparently exist. Solution: flag rivers as permanent, temporary, dry valley. MS feedbacks can facilitate the process. 4.A reported river does not appear in ECRINS. Secondary River Structural problem 5.Topological errors, demanding recalculating the sub-basin. No immediate solution is seen for the moment, this should come out from further discussions with EuroGeographics and JRC. ( CIRCA: Wkd_Diff_ECRINS_ERM_Art3_ABWS_ doc)

Example of each case: Case 1 Going country by country looking for examples fitting into these groups: Case 1: Belgium Source: CIRCA: Wkd_Diff_ECRINS_ERM_Art3_ABWS_ doc

Case 2 Case 2: Greece Source: CIRCA: Wkd_Diff_ECRINS_ERM_Art3_ABWS_ doc

Case 3 Case 3: Portugal Source: CIRCA: Wkd_Diff_ECRINS_ERM_Art3_ABWS_ doc

Case 4 Case 3: Czech Republic Source: CIRCA: Wkd_Diff_ECRINS_ERM_Art3_ABWS_ doc

Naming ECRINS rivers Solution proposed for solving case 1: ( CIRCA:WkD_QC_NammingRivers_WSRMAB_140809_1chk.doc) Popullate ECRINS rivers with names using ERM rivers names: Cross check or suplement with Art3 rivers names – when available – Source: CIRCA:

Roadmap and Timeline Improve the process of feedback: Prepare a template for feedbacks (ETC/LUSI) Contact with representatives in order to encourage them to provide comments. (EEA/ETC) Improve ECRINS Main Rivers for: (ETC/LUSI) Belgium (already started) Italy (already started) Bulgary ( compare Art3 with ECRINS Main rivers, prepare package and send it to BG representative for comments). Portugal Improve ECRINS Main Rivers for the rest of countries.* ECRINS development: Improve the methodology for naming ECRINS Main Rivers (consider Art3 names when available).(ETCLUSI/EEA - PC) ECRINS Main Rivers popullated with names will solve reported problems within of case 1: –Validation against the comments reported by the countries. Group comments by country/error case – apply the proposed solution for each case: Case 2 problems: Check Art3 and ECRINS against other sources – i.e GE, as was done for Greece -. Case 3 problems: Flag rivers in ECRINS Main rivers using comments reported by countries.* Case 4 problems: Add secondary rivers and check against Art3 data. Timeline: Improvements for BE, IT, BG and PT can be finalised by the end of September (supervised by EEA water expert). First version of ECRINS Main Rivers popullated with names (would solve case 1 problems) TBC * It will depends on number of problems reported and when are reported.

Main Lakes: Summary The strategy to follow for Main Lakes was agreed as follows: To produce a layer of Main Lakes using ECRINS database in order to have a point of reference against to compare Main Rivers/Lakes reported by Member States (MS). Produce a comparison assessment with MS reported data and inform MS about the outcomes. Ask them for feedback. Improve WISE Main Lakes taking into account MS comments. ECRINS (European Catchment and River System) is being used to produce the Main Lakes layer. The methodology was prepared and tested using: –Article 3 and 5 data, plus ERM lakes –Article 3 and 5 data, plus CCM2v2.1 lakes Data and statistics was produced and presented in Koblenz. New data has been produced (Ecrins lakes) and new data has been reported (IT and BG)

Summary of actions LEcrins layer: A composite layer based on CCM2 and ERM. Lakes identified by Lake ID (Lecrins ID) + name. Improvements in ECRINS Lakes for reported countries. Identification of Transboundary Lakes and No Transboundary Lakes (Administrative Lakes) Transboundary lakes identified in LEcrins, Transboundary column added to the attribute table. (by means of GISCO 1:100k country borders). Identified by: 1 (trans boundary lake) or 0 (no transboundary lake). New layer created: Transboundary lakes Improvements: Country ID added for each Transboundary Lakes. Recalculation of area: Lakes splitted by means of GISCO Country Borders (1:100k). Can give us an idea of what is the area of each Transboundary lake that should be reported by each MS. Database structure:

LEcrins Transboundary vs Art3

LEcrins TransBoundary Some problems to be fixed - possibly due to inaccurate geometries in Lakes close to country borders. MS review can help in the process of improvements: A graphical view of these errors:

Improvemnts in Art3 Lakes Italy: IT Lakes have been reported again - directly to ETC/LUSI -. IT Lakes have been updated. Short remark: Original IT Lakes: 927 lakes reported Aplying AREA>=10km2, 27 lakes are in range. Updated version: 1651 lakes reported. Aplying AREA>=10km2, 29 lakes are in range. Bulgaria: BG has reported (directly to ETC/LUSI) 3 lakes. Aplying AREA>=10km2, the 3 lakes are in range. Comparing with ECRINS lakes for BG: Aplying AREA>=10km2, 15 lakes are in range.

What next.. For Art3 and Art5 data: Extract from Art5 points polygons from Lecrins Lakes. –Merge with Art3updated. –Flag lakes comming from Art5 Identify TransBoundary and NOTransBoundary Lakes in Art3-5 layer. Split polygons based on GISCO CntryBnd (1:100k) Calculate areas Apply Area>=10km2 Create Art3-5 Main Lakes Output layer: Art3-5_Main Lakes_v1 For LEcrins (Ecrins Lakes) What consider ECRINS as Main Lakes: –Create the Main Lakes from LEcrins (Apply AREA>=10km2) Compare results, by Countries between Art3-5_MainLakesv1 and LEcrins MainLakes. Create country packages. Upload them to CIRCA, Ask MS for feedback. Timeline: Mid October. Packages will be created and uploaded to CIRCA together with the template for comments.

Muchas gracias Moltes gràcies Eskerrik Asko Muitas gracias * * * * * Dziekuje Merci beaucoup Mного Благодаря Obrigado Paldies Ευχαριστώ Tack Thank you very much Dank u Hvala Köszönöm Dekuj Multumesc Dakujem Danke Takk Aitäh Grazzi Kiitos Grazie Dêkuji Cпаси́бо شُكْرًا For further information, please contact: ETCLUSI Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Facultat de Ciències, Edifici C-5, 4ª Planta E BELLATERRA (Barcelona) Spain, EU P: F: Or visit our website at: