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

2. 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!)

3. 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

4. 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

5. Results and recommendations

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

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