Comparison of Environmental Quality Objectives, Threshold Values or Water Quality Targets set for the Demands of European Water Framework Directive Ulrich.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Wednesday, 14 November 2012 European water: Assessment of status and pressures Prof. Jacqueline McGlade Executive Director, EEA.
Advertisements

Peer Reviews and new Compendium on CSR Presentation to HLG meeting 20 December 2013, Brussels.
Intercalibration of assessment systems for the WFD: Aims, achievements and further challenges Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute.
EEA 2012 State of water assessments Ecological and chemical status and pressures Peter Kristensen Project manager – Integrated Water Assessments, EEA Based.
Date/ event: Author: WISE-SoE / WFD station matching for SW and GW Miroslav Fanta ETC Water Freshwater EIONET Workshop – Copenhagen, October 2009 Miroslav.
South Eastern River Basin District - Environmental Quality Standard Development-
Ecologic.eu 12/3/2009 – HMWB Workshop, Brussels Summary of Member State Questionnaires on HMWB Eleftheria Kampa Ecologic Institute.
International Office for Water B. Fribourg-Blanc, WG-E (4), Brussels, 14/10/2008 slide 1 Agenda Item 6.2 : (a) New data collection. Overview of the new.
National typologies - reports Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Water.europa.eu Assessment River Basin Management Plans CIS Strategic Coordination Group meeting Brussels, May 2011 Marieke van Nood WFD Team DG.
Seite Foto Pulkau Foto Gebirgsbach General chemical and physico- chemical elements – Type-specific assessment of rivers in Austria Karin Deutsch.
Management of the coastal and marine environment: The legal framework of the European Union from the first EEC Directives to the Water Framework Directive.
DETERMINATION AND MANAGEMENT OF SENSITIVE AREAS ON THE BASIS OF WATERSHED IN TURKEY MINISTRY OF FORESTRY AND WATER AFFAIRS.
CIS-Workshop on „WFD and Hydropower“ June 2007 Berlin, Germany - First Workshop under Phase II ( ) of the EU activity „Water Framework Directive.
Water.europa.eu Update on legal issues Strategic Coordination Group Update as of Marco Gasparinetti, DG ENV.D.1, European Commission.
Environmental Progress in the EU Indicators: a communication tool.
Marcel van den Berg / Centre for Water Management The Netherlands
Eurojust cases involving crimes against children
EU Water Framework Directive
Comparison of Environmental Quality Objectives, Threshold Values or Water Quality Targets under the WFD Jens Arle, Ulrich Claussen & Patrick Müller Federal.
Dave Jowett, Chair UK Marine Task Team
The development of WISE and the status of WfD Art.8 submission
Dr Mario Oetheimer Civil Society Days 2018 Brussels, May 2018
State of legal transposition (1)
3C. Update of Summary of WISE electronic delivery
Update on the status of RBMP reporting
EU Water Framework Directive
Report on WISE Art.8 and GIS issues
Habides update (May 2011).
State of play Article 5 reports
1. Implementation of the Water Framework Directive: notifications & infringements, RBMP assessments for the agricultural sector Expert Group on WFD & agriculture.
1.
on Priority Substances Strategic Coordination Group
MSFD Article 12 assessment Follow-up on geographic issues
Representative sampling questionnaire
REFCOND Workshop Uppsala, May 2001
Rural Urban classification based on Grids following OECD Definition
Meeting of the WFD CIS Working Group on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT)
Update on legal issues Strategic Coordination Group
Reporting – Art 17 of HD and Art 12 of BD
2b. Status of WFD reporting
Programme adoptions Cohesion Policy:
Ag.no. 15 Lessons from the 2016 A65 exercise
Nutrient Standards: Proposals for further work
Contribution for the updating of the WFD reporting sheets and schemas
ETS Working Group meeting 24-25/9/2007 Agenda point 7 CVTS3 brief update /09/ 2007 ETS working group.
Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Status of reporting Art. 8/9/10
Comparison of Limits of River Basin District Specific Pollutants set for the Demands of European Water Framework Directive Ulrich Claussen & Jens Arle.
Background CRiteria for the IDentification of Groundwater thrEsholds BRIDGE Summary of BRIDGE achievements Contract N° (SSPI) Co-ordinator:
Steering Committee, Eurostat, Luxembourg, 4 February 2011
Update on legal issues Strategic Coordination Group
Summary of WISE electronic delivery
Meeting of the WFD CIS Working Group on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT)
2015 Update of Union Lists of Sites of Community Interest
Comparison of methodologies for defining Good Ecological Potential
Update on legal issues Strategic Co-ordination Group 7-8 May 2009
Meeting of Water Directors State of transposition and implementation
Water Directors meeting Warsaw, 8-9 December 2011
State of Play RBMPs and WISE reporting (9/07/10)
Update on implementation WG F 27 April 2010 Maria Brättemark
European Statistical Training Programme (ESTP)
Update on legal issues Strategic Coordination Group 23 February 2010
Update on legal issues Strategic Coordination Group
Update on status of reporting and validation process
The 1997 UN Watercourses Convention
Intercalibration of very large rivers in Europe
European waters - assessment of status and pressures 2018
Mismatches between nutrients and BQEs: what does it tell us?
Questionnaire on Elaboration of the MSFD Initial Assessment
DG Environment, Unit C.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Presentation transcript:

Comparison of Environmental Quality Objectives, Threshold Values or Water Quality Targets set for the Demands of European Water Framework Directive Ulrich Claussen & Jens Arle (Federal Environment Agency, Section of the Marine Environment, Germany)

Introduction Background: European Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000) ▫Fundamental change from pollution control to ensuring ecosystem integrity Physico-chemical quality elements are used as supporting quality elements in the assessment of ecological status ( compare WFD, Annex V, 1.2. Normative definitions of ecological status classifications)

Introduction Aim: Evaluation and comparison of limit values of supporting physical and chemical quality elements for the G/M boundary set by EU MS

Data & Methods Use of data from HTML Factsheets of 18Member States ▫Provided during official WISE reporting (March 2010) ▫ Analysis and visual comparison using MS Excel

Supportive physical and chemical elements for different surface water types Supportive physical and chemical variables Rivers and Streams (20 MS) Lakes (16 MS) Transitional Waters (11 MS) Coastal Waters (12 MS) Sum Total Phosphorus or Total Dissolved Phosphorous or Soluble Reactive Phosphorous (mg l -1 ) Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg l -1 ) Total Nitrogen (mg l -1 ) Total Ammonium (mg l -1 ) pH or delta pH Secchi Depth (m) & Transparency (m) Nitrate (mg l -1 ) Orthophosphate (mg l -1 ) Oxygen Saturation Percentage (%) BOD5 (mg l -1 ) Water temperature (°C) or delta temperature Nitrite (mg l -1 ) Chloride (mg l -1 )8412

Supportive physical and chemical elements for different surface water types Result: Total Phosphorus, Dissolved Oxygen and Total Nitrogen were the most common parameters used by MS

Number of supportive physical and chemical elements used in streams and rivers

Total Phosphorus in Streams and Rivers (mg l -1 ) FI EE LV IT UK LT CZ CYP NL LU FR DE SK PL BE RO ES BG SE

Total Ammonium in Streams and Rivers (mg l -1 ) CYP IT LT CZ LV DE EE FR LU UK BG ES BE SK RO PL others

Number of supportive physical and chemical Elements in Lakes

Total Phosphorus in Lakes (mg l -1 ) IT FR FI CYP LV EE LT UK DE AT ES BG PL CZ NL RO SE

Total Nitrogen in Lakes (mg l -1 ) FI LV LT EE PL BG NL ES CZ

Number of supportive physical and chemical Elements in Transitional Waters

Orthophosphate in Transitional Waters (mg l -1 ) DE IT RO BG PL SE ES

Dissolved Oxygen in Transitional Waters (mg l -1 ) FR PL BG RO IT SE ES

Number of supportive physical and chemical Elements in Coastal Waters

Secchi Depth in Coastal Waters (m) SE DE EE LV FI PL RO NL ES

Orthophosphate in Coastal Waters (mg l -1 ) DE IT PL RO FR SE ES

Summary Significant numbers of variables were used for the description of good/moderate boundaries of ecological status of water bodies For some supporting physical and chemical elements it can be included that: ▫without additional information (e.g. typology) the available data are not sufficient to achieve a good comparison

Resulting Questions What are the reasons for large differences of Good-Moderate Boundaries for supporting quality elements between MS? What methodologies have been used by MS to derive respective standards, thresholds or limits?

Conclusions The analysis emphasises the need for a comparison of typologies across the EU which is essential for any comparative analysis of Good- Moderate Boundaries of supporting physical and chemical elements among MS

Water Directors are invited to: take note of the progress of this ad hoc activity on nutrient standards and standards of physical and chemical factors in the Working Group A ECOSTAT ask MS to take the result of this analysis and report into account when reviewing values and ranges of general physico-chemical elements

Thank you for your attention!