Groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems 2nd technical report prepared by WG Groundwater Balázs Horváth DG Environment

Relevance Groundwater quantitative and chemical status linked in WFD to GWDTE If groundwater body is causing significant damage to GWDTE, no good status First cycle: relatively little attention (difficult!)

History In 2010, initiative was taken to discuss Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) in Working Group C Since then, Working Group C discussed the topic on many occasions The 1st technical report (No6) on GWDTEs were prepared and endorsed at the end of 2011 April 2013 (Dublin): some countries presented their experience Other countries wanted to do the same Decision: collect responses in report

Method Questionnaire was distributed to WG GW members Response from 20 countries 18 member states (64%); some for part of the country Iceland Switzerland Questionnaire not mandatory Good response

Results and recommendations

Selection of relevant ecosystems Many countries use Natura 2000 ecosystems (90%) Some also use additional nature areas (50%) Not the biggest difficulty Recommendations: Identify which Natura 2000 ecosystems have been identified as GWDTEs How many of these present a risk to the groundwater body failing its WFD objectives Compare across countries

Determine whether a terrestrial ecosystem is ‘directly dependent’ on groundwater Expert judgement Field studies Specific assessment criteria (4 countries) Recommendations: Collate and share criteria Work towards common methodology

Determine ‘significant damage’ Development of specific damage criteria (8 countries) Difficult / subjective / no development (12 countries) Recommendations Develop common criteria Involve ecologists Involve nature conservation organisations

Monitoring Recommendations Limited integration of GWDTEs in GWB monitoring, limited data – selecting measures is difficult Often many organisations involved Some countries have developed approach for monitoring GWDTE Recommendations Better organisation of monitoring targeted to GWDTEs (correct points and depths Guidance for specific topics like - Link between pressures on the groundwater body and state of GWDTE - Hydrogeological link between GWDTE and GWB

Towards criteria values and threshold values Little achieved so far (- limited monitoring, difficulties with significant damage) - Abiotic requirements (pressures, trends) - Scaling issue Some countries set first steps Recommendations Derive EU-wide abiotic requirements, e.g. per habitat-type? Develop common framework Guidance, focussing on how to upscale from GWDTE to GWB-scale

Experience from questionnaires on state of play From the survey it is clear that countries take this issue seriously Lot of work still needs to be done (e.g. data gathering and interpretation) Most probably Member States will not be ready by 2015 However COM will check how experience in the two technical reports are being used in the 2nd RBMPs

Next steps SCG is asked to approve the technical report The report should be endorsed by Water Directors …and implementation of the report in the 2nd RBMPs In case if it is needed, exchange of experience can continue in WG GW

Thank you for the attention and thank you for the topic leads! Sarah Bonneville Matthew Craig Anna Kuczynska Hans Schutten Wilko Verweij