EEAs assessments of the status of Europe’s waters

Peter Kristensen European Environment Agency (EEA)

Skype-presentation PESFOR-W meeting 12th-15th March 13. March 2018

The European Environment Agency

The EEA is an EU agency that

operates at the interface of

knowledge and policy.

With a network of more than 400

institutions in 39 European

countries, the EEA provides timely,

reliable and relevant information

to support sustainable

development.

EEA work is targeted at EU

institutions, EEA member countries,

civil society and the general public.

EEA State of Water assessment 2018

Why, what, for who and when

• 2018 is the year in which the European Commission published its report on “Implementation of WFD and the review of the 2nd River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs)” and start the process of evaluating the Water Framework Directive. To accompany and inform this process, the EEA has long planned a report of ”State of European waters”

The report aims to present results on:

• What is the status of European waters?

• Which pressures is causing less than good status;

• What progress has been achieved in the 1st River Basin Management cycle (2009-2015)?

The target audience is EU institutions (EP, COM, JRC); countries (national, River Basin District administrations working with WFD and other water policy implementation); International River Basin and Regional Sea Conventions; water experts and scientists; and general public.

WFD Article 18:The EU Commission shall publish a report on the implementation of the directive two years after the Member States have delivered the RBMPs. •The report shall include a review of the status of surface water and groundwater in the Community undertaken in coordination with the European Environment Agency (EEA)

EEA’s 2018 State of Water Assessment (report/portal)

• The first EEA report was published in 2012, the

second is planned for June 2018.

• Overview of status (quantitative, chemical and

ecological), pressures and impacts

• Change in status and pressures from 1st to 2nd

RBMPs

• Relationship between pressure and status (what is

causing less than good status) –pressures-driving

force relationship.

• Effect of measures (implemented during the 1st

RBMP period from 2010-2015).

• WISE State of Water visualisation tool

• Consultation draft report 15/1-28/2 2018 https://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-eionet-freshwater/library/2018-state-

water-consultation-1/

European waters – status and pressures

2018 State of water

assessment

EEA State of Water assessment 2018

Data sources and methodology used Reporting 2017– 25 EU Member States – 160 RBDs (data not yet available from Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Norway)

• 89 000 river water bodies 1.2 million km – average length 13 km

• 18 165 lake water bodies – 2/3 from Sweden and Finland - avg area 4.9 km2

• 782 transitional water bodies (avg area 19 km2)

• 2835 coastal water bodies (avg area 102 km2)

• 46 territorial waters

• 13 400 Groundwater bodies (4.3 million km2)

Preliminary results – 25 Member States

9500 WBs 6500 WBs

General storyline

• What is the status? – Details on status.

• Comparison between results from 1st and 2nd RBMP periods

• What is causing not achieving good status (e.g. significant pressures, pollutants causing failure etc.)

What is the status of

water bodies?

Good

Less than good

?

Which significant pressures are

causing failure?

Which pollutants or quality

elements are failing?

Change in status or pressures

1st and 2nd RBMP period

All status (ecological, chemical and quantitative) and details (Quality Elements, Priority substances etc.)

Ecological status/potential and chemical status of rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters. - 2nd RBMPs

High

Good

Good

Unknown

Poor

Moderate

Unknown

Poor

Bad

Surface water bodies

River Lake Transitional Coastal

Source: Preliminary data 25 Member States Surface water bodies: Ecological status or potential and chemical status, by category

Ecological status and potential - 2nd RBMPs (2010-2015)

Number of water bodies in parenthesis -

Source Preliminary results from WFD second River Basin Management Plans (2010-2015). Surface water bodies:

Ecological status or potential and chemical status, by category & Surface water bodies: QE status, by quality element

and category

Low percentage surface water

bodies are meeting the objective of

WFD of having good or high

ecological status

Proportion of surface water bodies failing to achieve good status due to

main significant pressures 2nd RBMPs (2010-2015)

Point sources: Urban wastewater,

stormwater overflows, industry

discharges, minewater and

contaminated sites

Diffuse sources: Agricultural,

forestry, urban run-off, households

not connected to sewers,

aquaculture

Hydromorphology: Dams, barriers

and locks; physical alteration of

channel/bed/riparian area/shore;

hydrological alteration (flow).

Source Preliminary results from WFD second River Basin Management Plans (2010-2015).

Surface water bodies: Significant pressures

Status river biological quality elements – 25 Member states

With unknowns

Benthic invertebrates

Phyto-benthos

Fish Macrophytes Benthic

invertebrates

Phyto-benthos

Fish Macrophytes

Source: WISE SoW Surface water bodies: QE status, by category – 25 Member States Symbols: http://www.freshwaterplatform.eu/index.php/

Without unknowns

Comparison of status in 1st and 2nd RBMP period

Preliminary results – 25 Member States

The diagram illustrate • A marked reduction

in unknowns from 1st to 2nd RBMPs

• There are an increase in the proportion of water bodies in Good and Less than Good status.

General storyline for the status chapters

• What is the status? – Details on status.

• Comparison between results from 1st and 2nd RBMP period

• What is causing not achieving good status (e.g. significant pressures, pollutants causing failure etc.)

What is the status of

water bodies?

Good

Less than good

?

Which significant pressures are

causing failure?

Which pollutants or quality

elements are failing?

Change in status or pressures

1st and 2nd RBMP period

Priority substances where failure to achieve good chemical status occurs in over 100 water bodies (out of 111062 surface water bodies) 25 MS, July 2017

Priority substance Number

waterbodies not

achieving good

chemical status

Number Member States having

waterbodies not achieving good

chemical status for substance

Mercury * 45973 24

Brominated diphenylethers * 23331 8

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene +

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene * 3091 15

Benzo(a)pyrene * 1630 12

Fluoranthene 1390 14

Cadmium 1014 20

Tributyltin * 663 15

Nickel 654 20

Lead 462 19

Benzo(b)fluor-anthene+

Benzo(k)fluor-anthene * 460 10

Isoproturon 199 8

4-nonylphenol 188 10

Anthracene 123 11

Hexachlorocyclohexane 120 11

DEHP 102 11

* shows where substance is a uPBT;

Surface water bodies, chemical status with and without uPBT

uPBTs (ubiquitous, Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic)

Preliminary results – 25 Member States

Surface water bodies: Chemical status with and without uPBT, by category

Pressures – relevant for ecological status - proportion of all surface WBs affected by pressure

Preliminary results – 25 Member States

Atmospheric deposition

Proportion of surface water bodies failing to achieve good status due to significant pressures from diffuse sources 2nd RBMPs (2010-2015)

Preliminary key messages I

• Compared to the first RBMPs, all four statuses (ecological, chemical and quantitative status) have a higher proportion of water bodies in good status in the second RBMP period. However, there are also a higher proportion of water bodies in less than good status. Both the changes in proportion good and less than good status are due to improved knowledge of the water environment (i.e. fewer water bodies have unknown status).

• It is positive that the ecological status for single quality elements is markedly better than the overall ecological status, and there are improvements in some of the quality elements from the first to the second RBMP period.

• It is also positive that without ubiquitous substances, in particular mercury, only 3 % of surface water bodies failed to achieve good chemical status and only few priority substances are causing poor chemical status. Improvements in status for a priority substance shows that Member States are making progress in tackling sources of contamination.

Preliminary key messages II

• There was a slight improvement in groundwater chemical status and quantitative status from first to second RBMP period.

• The results from the second RBMPs show that European waters remain under multiple pressures from water pollution, over-abstraction and structural change from human activities. These pressures affect the good functioning of water-related ecosystems, contribute to biodiversity loss, and threaten the long-term delivery of previous ecosystem services and benefits to society and the economy.

• With the second RBMPs the quantity and quality of available evidence has grown significantly, providing a better understanding of the status, the pressures causing failure to achieve good status, and the needed measures.

SoW assessment team EEA consultant

WFD2016

[ DG ENV ] (Bilbomatica & Guadaltel) XLS

WISE-5

[ EEA ] (ETC - ICM)

WISE_SOE

[ EEA ] (ETC - ICM)

WFD2010

[ DG ENV ] (Bilbomatica & Guadaltel)

WISE_SOW

[ EEA ]

periodic export or

export-on-demand

#1

interface

mockup

WISE visualisation…

Visualisation tool – in development •Tabular Link

•Visualisation link

Tabular Link

Tabular results

Developing online views – ecological and chemical status

Thank you

eea.europa.eu

Your comments and inputs are highly appreciated.