IMPRESS Guidance and Policy Summary Water Directors Copenhagen, 21-22nd November 2002 Working Group leaders: Volker Mohaupt, Umwelt Bundes Amt Isobel Austin, Environment Agency Being aware of uncertainty in decision making is going to be an important issue. The directive is explicit in this respect (Annex V sect 1.3) requiring adequate confidence and precision in the classification of the quality elements and that estimates of confidence and precision of results of monitoring programmes shall be provided in the river basin management plans. Much of this will depend on the monitoring programmes adopted, particularly the frequency at which parameters are measured (I will say more on this in a moment) Current quality is compared to a Reference condition to calculate a numeric EQR and error will be associated with both the Reference and the Observed condition. This error does not cancel, in fact it is closer to the sum of the errors and thus is is important to minimise the variability in the Reference condition. In practice it is likely that we will have to assume that the reference condition is error free, but the point re-enforces the difficulties inherent in the approach.

Develop „Guidance on the identification of pressures and impacts“ IMPRESS Aims Develop „Guidance on the identification of pressures and impacts“ Common understanding of most effective approach to the pressures and impacts risk analysis Identify tools (e.g models) to carry out the analysis Being aware of uncertainty in decision making is going to be an important issue. The directive is explicit in this respect (Annex V sect 1.3) requiring adequate confidence and precision in the classification of the quality elements and that estimates of confidence and precision of results of monitoring programmes shall be provided in the river basin management plans. Much of this will depend on the monitoring programmes adopted, particularly the frequency at which parameters are measured (I will say more on this in a moment) Current quality is compared to a Reference condition to calculate a numeric EQR and error will be associated with both the Reference and the Observed condition. This error does not cancel, in fact it is closer to the sum of the errors and thus is is important to minimise the variability in the Reference condition. In practice it is likely that we will have to assume that the reference condition is error free, but the point re-enforces the difficulties inherent in the approach.

Policy Summary (I): Need for pressures and impacts analysis Central role of regular pressures and impacts analysis in River Basin Management Planning Results used to: - Target monitoring programmes - Help to set objectives - Design targeted and proportionate measures

Different levels of existing information  variable analyses Timetable issues On-going process Different levels of existing information  variable analyses Being aware of uncertainty in decision making is going to be an important issue. The directive is explicit in this respect (Annex V sect 1.3) requiring adequate confidence and precision in the classification of the quality elements and that estimates of confidence and precision of results of monitoring programmes shall be provided in the river basin management plans. Much of this will depend on the monitoring programmes adopted, particularly the frequency at which parameters are measured (I will say more on this in a moment) Current quality is compared to a Reference condition to calculate a numeric EQR and error will be associated with both the Reference and the Observed condition. This error does not cancel, in fact it is closer to the sum of the errors and thus is is important to minimise the variability in the Reference condition. In practice it is likely that we will have to assume that the reference condition is error free, but the point re-enforces the difficulties inherent in the approach.

Policy Summary (II): Rules Include all environmental objectives in the analysis Ensuring proportionate analysis: screening; tiered; grouping of water bodies Uncertainty in 2004 - update with monitoring

Key elements of the analysis Identify pressures Conditions required to achieve the objectives Annex III economic analysis (WATECO) Identify potential relevant effects of pressures (i.e. the hazard) Characteristics of water bodies that determine their susceptibility Assess susceptibility to the effects of pressures Magnitude of pressures Identify likely effects of pressures Being aware of uncertainty in decision making is going to be an important issue. The directive is explicit in this respect (Annex V sect 1.3) requiring adequate confidence and precision in the classification of the quality elements and that estimates of confidence and precision of results of monitoring programmes shall be provided in the river basin management plans. Much of this will depend on the monitoring programmes adopted, particularly the frequency at which parameters are measured (I will say more on this in a moment) Current quality is compared to a Reference condition to calculate a numeric EQR and error will be associated with both the Reference and the Observed condition. This error does not cancel, in fact it is closer to the sum of the errors and thus is is important to minimise the variability in the Reference condition. In practice it is likely that we will have to assume that the reference condition is error free, but the point re-enforces the difficulties inherent in the approach. Decide on the likelihood of failing to achieve the Directive’s environmental objectives Environmental conditions required to achieve objectives

Use existing monitoring data Identify pressures Use existing monitoring information to help identify pressures Identify potential relevant effects of pressures (i.e. the hazard) Assess susceptibility to the effects of pressures Use existing monitoring information to help validate and refine the assessments of the effects of identified pressures Identify likely effects of pressures Where existing monitoring information shows significant effects (even if pressures responsible have not been identified) use to help identify bodies at risk Being aware of uncertainty in decision making is going to be an important issue. The directive is explicit in this respect (Annex V sect 1.3) requiring adequate confidence and precision in the classification of the quality elements and that estimates of confidence and precision of results of monitoring programmes shall be provided in the river basin management plans. Much of this will depend on the monitoring programmes adopted, particularly the frequency at which parameters are measured (I will say more on this in a moment) Current quality is compared to a Reference condition to calculate a numeric EQR and error will be associated with both the Reference and the Observed condition. This error does not cancel, in fact it is closer to the sum of the errors and thus is is important to minimise the variability in the Reference condition. In practice it is likely that we will have to assume that the reference condition is error free, but the point re-enforces the difficulties inherent in the approach. Identify water bodies at risk of failing to achieve the Directive‘s objectives

Proportionate Analyses Risk screening Water bodies not at risk Water bodies at risk Water bodies needing further assessment to determine risk (e.g. because its true condition is close to the good – moderate status boundary Increasing difficulty in deciding if body is at risk More specific assessments Water bodies not at risk Water bodies at risk Water bodies needing further assessment to determine risk Water bodies at risk Water bodies not at risk Detailed assessments Being aware of uncertainty in decision making is going to be an important issue. The directive is explicit in this respect (Annex V sect 1.3) requiring adequate confidence and precision in the classification of the quality elements and that estimates of confidence and precision of results of monitoring programmes shall be provided in the river basin management plans. Much of this will depend on the monitoring programmes adopted, particularly the frequency at which parameters are measured (I will say more on this in a moment) Current quality is compared to a Reference condition to calculate a numeric EQR and error will be associated with both the Reference and the Observed condition. This error does not cancel, in fact it is closer to the sum of the errors and thus is is important to minimise the variability in the Reference condition. In practice it is likely that we will have to assume that the reference condition is error free, but the point re-enforces the difficulties inherent in the approach.

Grouping of waterbodies Being aware of uncertainty in decision making is going to be an important issue. The directive is explicit in this respect (Annex V sect 1.3) requiring adequate confidence and precision in the classification of the quality elements and that estimates of confidence and precision of results of monitoring programmes shall be provided in the river basin management plans. Much of this will depend on the monitoring programmes adopted, particularly the frequency at which parameters are measured (I will say more on this in a moment) Current quality is compared to a Reference condition to calculate a numeric EQR and error will be associated with both the Reference and the Observed condition. This error does not cancel, in fact it is closer to the sum of the errors and thus is is important to minimise the variability in the Reference condition. In practice it is likely that we will have to assume that the reference condition is error free, but the point re-enforces the difficulties inherent in the approach.

Uncertainties within the analysis Iterative process update with monitoring data more uncertainty in first risk assessment than in subsequent rounds 1st IMPRESS Report 2 1 2005 Intercalibration completed 2006 Area of greatest uncertainty should be a focus for the monitoring programmes 2007 Monitoring started Good status Less than or better good status Uncertainty in values for boundary between good and moderate status 1 Being aware of uncertainty in decision making is going to be an important issue. The directive is explicit in this respect (Annex V sect 1.3) requiring adequate confidence and precision in the classification of the quality elements and that estimates of confidence and precision of results of monitoring programmes shall be provided in the river basin management plans. Much of this will depend on the monitoring programmes adopted, particularly the frequency at which parameters are measured (I will say more on this in a moment) Current quality is compared to a Reference condition to calculate a numeric EQR and error will be associated with both the Reference and the Observed condition. This error does not cancel, in fact it is closer to the sum of the errors and thus is is important to minimise the variability in the Reference condition. In practice it is likely that we will have to assume that the reference condition is error free, but the point re-enforces the difficulties inherent in the approach. 2 Greatest uncertainty in assessment of which side of good-moderate boundary a water body really lies

Policy Summary (III): Reporting Summary Reports: - clear and simple - state risks to objectives and causes - include assumptions and uncertainties Reporting Proposal: - Basis/Criteria used - GIS maps of water bodies at risk (for main pressure types within Annex II, 1.4)

Detailed sections within the Guidance Common understanding Tools to assist the analysis of pressures and impacts - pressure checklist; screening approaches; models; gap analysis for tools Sources of data and information - general, pressures, impacts Examples of current practices Being aware of uncertainty in decision making is going to be an important issue. The directive is explicit in this respect (Annex V sect 1.3) requiring adequate confidence and precision in the classification of the quality elements and that estimates of confidence and precision of results of monitoring programmes shall be provided in the river basin management plans. Much of this will depend on the monitoring programmes adopted, particularly the frequency at which parameters are measured (I will say more on this in a moment) Current quality is compared to a Reference condition to calculate a numeric EQR and error will be associated with both the Reference and the Observed condition. This error does not cancel, in fact it is closer to the sum of the errors and thus is is important to minimise the variability in the Reference condition. In practice it is likely that we will have to assume that the reference condition is error free, but the point re-enforces the difficulties inherent in the approach.

Examples of tools or current practice of some Member States Flow regulation and hydromorphological pressures in the River Maana in Norway Finnish classification system of water quality Morphological alterations reporting in Netherlands England and Wales River Ecosystem Classification scheme Groundwater abstraction in Denmark Belgium pollution pressure quantification tool France pressure screening and quantification methods Germany using the LAWA pressure screening criteria for pilot project „Middle Rhine“ Being aware of uncertainty in decision making is going to be an important issue. The directive is explicit in this respect (Annex V sect 1.3) requiring adequate confidence and precision in the classification of the quality elements and that estimates of confidence and precision of results of monitoring programmes shall be provided in the river basin management plans. Much of this will depend on the monitoring programmes adopted, particularly the frequency at which parameters are measured (I will say more on this in a moment) Current quality is compared to a Reference condition to calculate a numeric EQR and error will be associated with both the Reference and the Observed condition. This error does not cancel, in fact it is closer to the sum of the errors and thus is is important to minimise the variability in the Reference condition. In practice it is likely that we will have to assume that the reference condition is error free, but the point re-enforces the difficulties inherent in the approach. Quantification of pollution pressures in Portugal Spain water abstraction and water flow regulation modelling

IMPRESS FUTURE WORK (2002-3) Better integration with other Guidance documents (e.g. WATECO - baseline scenario; Monitoring - development of surveillance monitoring programmes) Template for reporting pressure and impact analyses Workshops for practitioners Being aware of uncertainty in decision making is going to be an important issue. The directive is explicit in this respect (Annex V sect 1.3) requiring adequate confidence and precision in the classification of the quality elements and that estimates of confidence and precision of results of monitoring programmes shall be provided in the river basin management plans. Much of this will depend on the monitoring programmes adopted, particularly the frequency at which parameters are measured (I will say more on this in a moment) Current quality is compared to a Reference condition to calculate a numeric EQR and error will be associated with both the Reference and the Observed condition. This error does not cancel, in fact it is closer to the sum of the errors and thus is is important to minimise the variability in the Reference condition. In practice it is likely that we will have to assume that the reference condition is error free, but the point re-enforces the difficulties inherent in the approach.

IMPRESS FUTURE WORK (2004-5) IMPRESS current practice information system Identification of additional tools for analyses Links to monitoring requirements, reference conditions, POMs Being aware of uncertainty in decision making is going to be an important issue. The directive is explicit in this respect (Annex V sect 1.3) requiring adequate confidence and precision in the classification of the quality elements and that estimates of confidence and precision of results of monitoring programmes shall be provided in the river basin management plans. Much of this will depend on the monitoring programmes adopted, particularly the frequency at which parameters are measured (I will say more on this in a moment) Current quality is compared to a Reference condition to calculate a numeric EQR and error will be associated with both the Reference and the Observed condition. This error does not cancel, in fact it is closer to the sum of the errors and thus is is important to minimise the variability in the Reference condition. In practice it is likely that we will have to assume that the reference condition is error free, but the point re-enforces the difficulties inherent in the approach.