1. IMPRESS Guidance and Policy Summary Water Directors Copenhagen, 21-22nd November 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.

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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.

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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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.