1. EU Water Framework Directive
Commission report on Art. 8 Monitoring programmes
ECOSTAT Meeting
Brussels, April 2009
Jorge Rodriguez Romero / Ursula Schmedtje
European Commission, DG Environment
Unit D.2 – Water and Marine, WFD Team

2. Contents
Background and legal basis
Structure and contents of the report
Conclusions of the assessment

3. Background and legal basis
Article 18.3 of the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC):
3. The Commission shall also publish a report on progress in implementation based on the summary reports that Member States submit under Article 15(2), and submit it to the European Parliament and the Member States, at the latest 2 years after the dates referred to in Articles 5 and 8.
Article 5 implementation report published in March 2007

4. Structure of the report
Commission Report: 6 pages (all languages)
Commission Staff Working Document (ca. 50 pages, EN only)
Annexes (ca. 180 pages, EN only)
Questionnaire used for compliance checking
MS annex with factual information and the results of the assessment

5. Table of contents CSWD 1. Introduction
2. Monitoring Requirements of the WFD
3. Methodology for the Compliance Check
Results of the Assessment of Member States' Monitoring Programmes
4.1. Communication and Completeness of the Reports
4.2 Overview of Monitoring Networks in the European Union
4.3 Monitoring Programmes on Surface Waters
4.4. Monitoring Programmes on Groundwater
Results in International River Basin Districts
Conclusions
6.1 Reporting
6.2 Monitoring
Annex 1: Questionnaire for Compliance Checking of Monitoring Reports
Annex 2: Information on the Monitoring Programmes of the Member States

6. 1. Introduction Current state of implementation of WFD
The role of monitoring for the development of the river basin management plans
The role of intercalibration to ensure comparability of good ecological status
The CIS guidance documents on monitoring
The Water Information System for Europe

7. 2. Monitoring requirements of WFD
Summary of the key monitoring requirements
Surface waters
Groundwater
Protected areas

8. 3. Methodology

9. 3. Methodology – key issues
Objectives of monitoring programmes
Question: Have the objectives in Annex 5 of WFD been taken into account in the design of the monitoring programme?
Comprehensiveness
Question: Is the report on monitoring programmes comprehensive?
Status of developments of methods
Question: Are the methods available for the assessment of water status?
Selection of quality elements
Question: Which quality elements are used for the assessment of water status?
Frequency of monitoring
Question: What is the temporal intensity of monitoring?

10. 3. Methodology – templates

11. 3. Methodology – indicators
Compliance indicators:
developed from the WISE reports, e.g. percentage of water bodies monitored in surveillance monitoring
Data used:
Main report (Commission Staff Working Document)
Data reported into WISE under Art. 8 WFD in 2007/2008
Number of water bodies reported under Art. 5 WFD and consulted with the Member States in March 2007
Annex 2 to CSWD (Information on Member States monitoring programmes)
Number of water bodies and monitoring sites consulted with the Member States in January/February > these number may differ from those in the main report

12. 4.1 Communication To date, 26 Member States have reported.
24 Member States have reported through WISE.
Date of reporting of the Member States
Reporting deadline: 22 March 2007

13. 4.2 Overview of EU27 Surface waters Rivers 43.042 Lakes 7.154
Number of monitoring stations
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional waters 1.283
Coastal waters
Total

14. 4.3 Surface water monitoring – examples of indicators
Number of surveillance and operational monitoring sites for rivers and lakes per km² (some sites may be for both surveillance and operational monitoring).

15. 4.3 Surface water monitoring – examples of indicators
Percentage of water bodies in surveillance monitoring in which all relevant quality elements are monitored

16. 4.3 Surface water monitoring – examples of indicators
Percentage of water bodies at risk or possibly at risk reported under Article 5 WFD that are included in operational monitoring

17. 4.3 Surface water monitoring – examples of indicators
Overview of the development of biological assessment methods in the Member States for all water categories
PP = phytoplankton BI = benthic invertebrates
MP = macrophytes and phytobenthos FI = fish fauna
MA = macro-algae and angiosperms
Member State
rivers
lakes
transitional waters
coastal waters PP MP BI FI MA AT - BG BE CY CZ DE
DK …

18. Annex 2: MS Information Outline Information supplied Facts and figures
Surface Water Monitoring Programmes
Design of Monitoring Programmes
Development of Biological Assessment Methods
Selection of quality elements and frequency of monitoring
Groundwater Monitoring Programmes
Further information
Summary of technical assessment: strengths and weaknesses

19. Annex 2: MS Information Example INFORMATION SUPPLIED
Reporting through WISE; completeness of reporting (e.g. for all river basin districts, for all water categories); additionals reports, web links
Example

20. Annex 2: MS Information
Example

21. Annex 2: MS Information
Example

22. Annex 2: MS Information Example
Number of stations where quality elements are monitored, in
rivers
lakes
transitional waters
coastal waters
Example

23. 6. Conclusions 1 Reporting
All MS have reported with the exception of Greece (no report) and Malta (no report on surface waters)
Gaps remain in certain RBDs and in certain water categories
Reporting into WISE has proven a success (24 MS reported into WISE, only 2 paper reports)
Improvements needed on quality of reporting. Some make good use of the agreed format, others provided very general information, relied heavily on secondary information or provided inactive web links
The desired flexibility in reporting formats has lead to a complicated reporting structure. This has made the systematic assessment quite difficult
There is need to strike a better balance between flexibility and complexity in the reporting schemas

24. 6. Conclusions 2 Monitoring
Overall, there is a good monitoring effort across EU, > stations for surface water and groundwater
In general, the provisions of Art. 8 and Annex V have been applied, but there is room for improvement in some MS in particular as regards the application of the concepts of surveillance, operational and investigative monitoring
Extensive use of grouping of water bodies for monitoring. A sufficient level of confidence and precision needs to be ensured to inform decision making.
Frequency of monitoring is higher than the WFD minimum in many MS

25. 6. Conclusions 3 Monitoring (cont.)
Monitoring requirements of protected areas (e.g. Drinking Water and Habitats Directive) in many cases have not been integrated into the monitoring programmes
Only few MS have reported on using international coordination mechanisms in the development of their monitoring programmes
Gaps remain in the development of methods. This is particularly true for MS who joined in 2004 and 2007
Little information was delivered on the levels of confidence and precision of the monitoring programmes and in particular on the assessment methods for ecological status
The reporting of river basin management plans will allow the Commission to assess in a more comprehensive way the results delivered by the monitoring programmes