Indicators to communicate progress towards good status WG DIS, April 2015

Background WD welcomed the proposals from the Netherlands and agreed that they are a useful contribution to the more detailed technical discussion that will take place in January in the context of the update of the WFD reporting guidance. WD agreed that the progress indicators are not an alternative to the overall status assessment on the basis of the one-out all-out principle, but additional useful information. In this sense, WD agreed that the debate should be about presenting progress more effectively, and should not put in question the one-out all-out principle, which is one of the cornerstones of the WFD. (Conclusions Water Directors meeting December 2013)

Purpose of the paper Make proposals on indicators of progress on the basis of the information that will be reported by Member States in the context of the WFD in 2016 Serve as a basis for consultation and discussion at the WG DIS and, as far as needed, related CIS WGs (Ecostat, Chemicals and Groundwater) At this stage it is not the intention to discuss the format of the presentation (type of chart, colours, etc.) but rather focus on the information displayed (All examples are fictional) Discussion paper, to frame the debate forward – no conclusions yet!

What is the problem?

Comparing 1 st and 2 nd RBMPs? Comparison of status between the 1st and the 2nd RBMPs will be difficult in many Member States, because e.g.: – New/updated assessment methods and/or monitoring information (lack of development of assessment methods in the first cycle, incomplete intercalibration, incomplete monitoring) – Unknown status in the 1 st RBMP – Re-delineation of water bodies (done in most dRBMPs) – Additional substances Questions for discussion: 1.Are there other difficulties that should be taken into account when developing indicators? Which ones? 2.Are there specific difficulties foreseen for HMWBs?

Scope Ecological status/potential of surface water bodies Chemical status of surface water bodies Chemical status of groundwater bodies (Not quantitative status of groundwater bodies) Indicators designed to be applied at sub-unit, RBD, Member State and EU level (Not at water body level but MS will be able to reflect these principles in their own communication at water body level) Questions for discussion: 3.Is the scope of the discussion correct, as set out in this section? 4.Is the approach correct to focus only on developing indicators of progress at Sub-unit, RBD, Member State and EU level?

Information available from reporting Overall Ecological / Chemical status values Status values at quality element level Substances causing failure For ecological status: – QEXStatusOrPotentialChange This schema element provides information on whether the status of the quality element has changed since the 1st RBMP – QEXStatusOrPotentialComparability This schema element provides information on whether the change in status since the 1st RBMP is considered "real" or is the effect of new/updated monitoring and/or assessment systems Questions for discussion: 5.Is there any other information specified by the reporting guidance that is considered important to develop the progress indicators?

Indicators’ wish list a)as simple as possible b)based on quality elements or parameters c)based on the definitions of ecological and chemical status in the WFD d)usable at various geographical scales e)adaptable to different levels of aggregation (i.e. all water categories or only rivers; natural water bodies or heavily modified; number/percentage of water bodies or percentage of length/area of water bodies) f)easy to displayed in an understandable and intuitive way g)long-lasting, i.e. applicable to future assessments of progress. Questions for discussion: 6.Is there any other important characteristic that the progress indicators should have?

Ecological status five classes

Ecological status two classes

Ecological status progress

Ecological status progress stacked How to depict deterioration in this case? Questions for discussion: 7.Please comment on the proposed approaches, their advantages and disadvantages; discuss other potential ways of displaying the information?

Ecological status quality elements Phytoplankton Other aquatic flora Benthic invertebrate fauna Fish (not relevant for coastal waters) Hydromorphology (parameters vary depending on the water category) Physico-chemical elements River Basin Specific Pollutants Questions for discussion: 8.Is this a sound presentation of quality elements? Is there a better way of grouping quality elements/parameters? 9.Is the proposed approach to combining the information from the WFD Reporting Guidance at quality element level sound?

Ecological status “unknowns” Questions for discussion: 8.Is this a sound presentation of quality elements? Is there a better way of grouping quality elements/parameters? 9.Is the proposed approach to combining the information from the WFD Reporting Guidance at quality element level sound?

Questions for discussion: 10.Is the proposed approach for building the comparison between the 1st and 2nd RBMPs clear and sound? 11.How feasible it is for Member States to report the requested information at quality element level? 12.Is it possible to simplify the development of progress indicators by introducing in the short term some limited changes to the 2016 Reporting Guidance?

Chemical status

Chemical status progress Questions for discussion: 13.Is the proposal to use "number of substances failing" a good basis for communicating progress? Any other ideas?

Chemical status: new substances Directive 2013/39/EU: – Stricter EQS for substances – New substances These new developments set new baselines for assessing progress that will need to be taken into account when assessing progress in 2021 and 2027 For the purpose of communicating progress in the 2015 RBMPs, only the EQS as set in the 2008 version of the EQS Directive need to be taken into account

Groundwater chemical status Grouping of parameters – Nitrates – Pesticides – Other pollutants Another potential option is to split "Other pollutants" into "Annex II GWD pollutants" and "other pollutants". However, in particular for Annex II pollutants, it would be important to indicate whether threshold values were established at all to avoid the situation where there are no failures because there were no threshold values established

Groundwater chemical status Questions for discussion: 14.Is the proposal to use "number of substances failing" a good basis for communicating progress? Any other ideas? 15.Is the distinction between nitrates, pesticides and other pollutants needed/helpful?

Thanks for your attention! Comments / questions Process forward?