River Basin Management Plan One plan for each river basin in Europe; River Basin Management Plan as main instrument for planning, reporting and evaluation of success; Publication 2009, updates every 6 years; Contents: characteristics of river basin [2005]; environmental and economic analysis [2005]; monitoring network [2006]; results of public participation [2009]; programme of measures [2012]; established environmental objectives [2015]; review of technical specifications [2015]

Information utilisation Assessment and reporting Water Management cycle Water management Information needs Information utilisation Assessment strategy Assessment and reporting Monitoring programme Data analysis Sample collection Data handling Laboratory analysis

Environmental issues Risks of pollution from diffuse/point sources (incl. landfills, wastes, contaminated soils, agriculture) Compliance to quality standards / thresholds Interactions with aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Links with SW status and EQS Prevention / Limitation Run-off Construction Products, Urban wastes Drinking water abstraction

Strong needs for coordination at EU level River basins in Europe Strong needs for coordination at EU level

Example of Pressure & Impact Assessment Approach Sensitivity map Sensitivity High Medium Low Source Pressure/ Activity map Water body risk categorisation map Exposure pressures map Pressure High Moderate Low Monitoring data (evidence of impact)

Spatial Considerations: Zone of Impact Good ecological potential Good ecological status Water body downgraded good to moderate, due to near-shore impact zone. Poor ecological Potential Zone of impact 0.5 km2. Not separately identified as water body. Moderate ecological status The above illustration shows near-shore stretches of coastal water being identified as water bodies to reflect differences in the impact of shore zone development on the status of coastal ecosystems. Further off-shore, less variation in status allows the identification of just two large coastal water bodies. The near-shore water bodies include the intertidal zone (e.g. salt-marshes, beaches, rocky-shores etc) but should not normally be exclusively intertidal. A zone of impact in the middle shore zone water body was approximately 0.5 km2 and less than 1 km long. In such cases, the impacted area should be taken into account within a larger water body to avoid the creation of unmanageably large numbers of very small water bodies. In the example, this results in the larger body being downgraded from good to moderate status. Measures to remedy the impact are therefore indicated. Two further water bodies are considered to be HMWB with one indicated at GEP and the other at <GEP. This means that all possible mitigation / remediation measures have been undertaken for the wb at GEP whereas the wb at <GEP mitigation / remediation is expected. High ecological status

WFD Article 8 – Monitoring for surface water status, groundwater status and protected areas to establish a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each river basin district Operational by 22 December 2006, and in accordance with the requirements of Annex V: surveillance, operational, investigative monitoring

Objectives - Surveillance monitoring Supplementing and validating the impact assessment procedure Designing efficient and effective future monitoring programmes Assessing long term changes Undertaken for at least a period of one year during the period of a RBMP

Objectives: Operational monitoring Establish status of those water bodies identified as being at risk of failing to meet their environmental objectives Assess any changes in the status of such water bodies resulting from the programmes of measures Results of operational monitoring used to classify status of water bodies at risk Results of surveillance monitoring used to classify status of water bodies not at risk

Objectives: Investigative monitoring To ascertain the causes of a water body or water bodies failing to achieve the environmental objectives when not known To ascertain the magnitude and impacts of accidental pollution

Monitoring information also required for: Estimating pollutants loads - transboundary and into seas Intercalibration exercise Assessing compliance with standards and objectives of Protected Areas Quantifying reference conditions where they exist

Where to monitor? Operational Number of monitoring stations needs to be sufficient to assess the magnitude and impact of significant point sources, diffuse sources and hydromorphological pressures More than one station per water body may be required Water bodies can be grouped as long as groups are similar in terms of: Type Pressures to which they are subject Sensitivity to those pressure

What to monitor? Operational Parameters indicative of those biological and hydromorphological quality elements most sensitive to the pressures to which the body(ies) are subject Only those priority substances discharged, and other significant pollutants (including nutrients) e.g. that might cause failure of Environmental objectives Surveillance Parameters indicative of all biological, hydromorphological and general physico-chemical quality elements Priority List substances if discharged in River Basin Other pollutants if discharged in significant quantities

Frequency of monitoring Minimum given for all quality elements, More frequent may be necessary (e.g. to detect long term changes and/or initially before first RBMP), Less frequent if justifiable, Seasonally targeted Achievement of acceptable levels of confidence and precision in assessing status of water bodies – balanced between costs of monitoring and costs of measures

Key Principle The actual precision and confidence levels achieved should enable meaningful assessments of status in time and space to be made Member States will have to quote these levels in RBMPs and will thus be open to scrutiny and comment by others. This should serve to highlight any obvious deficiencies or inadequacies in the future

Monitoring for Protected Areas Additional monitoring required for drinking water abstraction points and habitat and species protection areas. Also includes areas designated as bathing waters, as vulnerable zones and sensitive areas. The latter are in Directives that also have monitoring requirements CIS Guidance on “Eutrophication assessment in the context of European water policies” includes a chapter on “Monitoring – guidance and integration of requirements stemming from various obligations”

Investigative monitoring – some examples To be planned at local level with input from RBMP stakeholder groups Pollution incidents Programme to investigative potential effects from e.g. sheep dip use Selected catchments to determine source apportionment between point/diffuse pollution Surface/groundwater interactions Assist with licence determinations

Summary of (chemical) WFD monitoring implications Implementation based on analytical results (e.g. compliance) Needs to ensure data comparability (quality control) Needs for transfer of scientific knowledge Harmonisation of methods (standardisation if relevant – in reference to written protocols, guides etc. describing a given procedure) NEEDS Ecotoxicity studies, pollutant behaviour etc. (establishment of “realistic” EQS) Transfer of analytical knowledge to routine laboratories Development of mutlidisciplinary synergies Better communication among scientists and policy-makers

REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS OF MEASUREMENTS MONITORING IMPLICATIONS Conclusions REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS OF MEASUREMENTS classification and reporting on water body status decision linked to this classification trend studies management planning, identification of measures follow-up of measure effectiveness NEEDS harmonisation (e.g. sampling strategies) validation of analytical methods standardisation, if necessary coordination of quality control programmes  comparability of data

Perspectives TIME TABLE design and operation of surveillance programme at the scale of 27 countries (more than 120 river basins) by the end of 2006 parallel research projects (methods, quality control) coordination through the Common Implementation Strategy river basin management plan in 2009 programmes of mesures in 2012 environmental objectives: attained in 2015 ?

Key elements to be considered in QA/QC Method validation principles Internal QC: CRMs, control charts External QC: participation in proficiency testing schemes NOT EXPLICITLY REQUESTED IN THE WFD= AIM OF THE DRAFT DECISION ON METHOD PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ARE THESE ELEMENTS WELL KNOWN AND MASTERED?

Needs and perspectives as concluding remarks (1) Analytical progress represents a key feature of the WFD monitoring programme: however, awareness about data quality is not equally shared among (policy) decision-makers, scientists and routine laboratories. Coordination at EU level is required to ensure information exchanges among the analytical community on new features (new methods, new substances) and a mechanism enabling efficient QA/QC to take place (120 river basin districts in 27 EU countries!)

Needs and perspectives as concluding remarks (2) Links with R&D is needed along with an efficient transfer mechanism of results – Examples are projects funded under the ‚Scientific Support to Policies‘ (SSP) Priority of FP6, such as SWIFT-WFD and EAQC-WISE Interfacing should be developed toward the establishment of a multidisciplinary dialogue and integration issues (other policies, public awareness, education etc.) – We cannot anymore afford to work isolated!

Needs and perspectives as concluding remarks (3) As a first step – Needs for an inventory of existing QC tools and external schemes (proficiency testing) in support of WFD monitoring. Gap analysis Secondly – develop a common strategy that could be used at EU scale, looking at existing schemes (e.g. QUASIMEME). Need to consider cost-effectiveness, technical feasibility, acceptability by WFD implementers Thirdly – implement this strategy after adoption / recognition by Member States’ authorities, with national/regional relays