1 / 21

Session 1: Article V Reports and Member State Implementation Preliminary feedback on analysis

Session 1: Article V Reports and Member State Implementation Preliminary feedback on analysis of Article V reports Lauriane Gréaud-Hoveman (INERIS), Benoît Fribourg-Blanc (IOW). Workshop, CCAB, Brussels, 03/10/2006. Content. I. Context II. Approach used III. The analysis

costaless
Download Presentation

Session 1: Article V Reports and Member State Implementation Preliminary feedback on analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Session 1: Article V Reports and Member State Implementation Preliminary feedback on analysis of Article V reports Lauriane Gréaud-Hoveman (INERIS), Benoît Fribourg-Blanc (IOW) Workshop, CCAB, Brussels, 03/10/2006

  2. Content • I. Context • II. Approach used • III. The analysis • III.1. Relevant pollutants in MS and IRDB • III.2. Monitoring • III.3. Current sources and associated pressures • III.4. Risk assessment • III.5. Reduction measures of significant point and diffuse pressures • III.6. Data gaps • III.7. Transition towards WFD • IV. Main conclusions • V. Open questions

  3. WFD, substances and guidances (1/2) • “Article 5: Characteristics of the River Basin District,Review of the environmental impact of human activityand Economic Analysis of water use” (WFD)  a summary report (March 2005, Dec.2013, every 6 years) • Supporting tools • Guidance Document No. 3: Analysis of Pressures and Impacts • Reporting Sheets for 2005 Reporting (SWPI1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9) • Guidance Document No. 7: Monitoring under the WFD + • Guidance Document on elements for pollution reduction programmes under article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC

  4. [...] covers all sources and pathways into the aquatic environment • SWPI1 : Summary of all significant pressures on surface waters in the River Basin District • SWPI3 : A list of the significant pollutants [...] from point sources, [...] estimates of load [...] • Priority Substances • Other significant pollutants (WFD Annex VIII) • [...] summary of the methodology Source : Impress guidance • SWPI4 : A list of the pollutants from diffuse sources [...] estimates of load [...] • - Priority Substances • - Other significant pollutants (WFD Annex VIII) • [...] summary of the methodology WFD, substances and guidances (2/2)

  5. Data / information mining, not compliance checking! Context (1/2) : objectives • Need of data and metadata on chemical substances of concern for prioritisation • implement new data collection • make best use of available data sources • DSD (76/464/EEC) Article 7 reports • WFD (2000/60/EC) Article 5 reports with 4 types of reports : • roof report part A (7) • roof report part B (19) • national summary (18) • RBD summary (33) • Synergies with EEA activities on emissions

  6. WFD RBDs • area analysed Source : GIS layer : Nilsson et al: International River Basin Districts under the EU Water Framework Directive, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), IOW treatment Source : http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/transposition.html Context (2/2) : existing RBDs and reports assessed Currently 23 MS: 134 RBDs Norway: 14 RBDs RO, BG, HR: 9 RBDs No double counting: 96 RBDs (for 23 MS) 69 national 27 international (area 70%) 7 IRBD roof reports, part A 11 National summary reports 1 RDB report from UK 18 MS, 2 AC (RO, BG), 1 CC (CS), 7 others

  7. Source : Impress guidance Approach used : setting the scene • Dangerous substances in summary Article 5 reports

  8. Approach used : the assessment • Detailed analysis : • each report: pressure and impact 1. Substances of concern 2. Data collection 3. Current sources and associated pressures 4. Risk assessment: national EQS derived? SWB at risk? 5. Reduction measures: ELV settled? 6. Gaps mentioned 7. General conclusion; Specific remarks • SWB • Summary of all reports : • summary tables, • identification of common elements and gaps.

  9. Summary table (countries) *EQS from DSD daughter directives. No national EQS derived. ** ELV were used for the risk assessment. *** no national ELV. ELV set site by site.

  10. Summary table (IRBD) * in one MS

  11. Analysis: relevant pollutants in MS and IRBD • List of relevant substances rarely provided, • Groups of substances (HM, pesticides, PCBs) mentioned, • Variable number of substances (from <10 to >100) • Different number from Art 7: why? • Identification: use of existing datasets on emission and discharge or monitoring and EQS (national programmes)

  12. Analysis: Monitoring • National and IRBD monitoring are mentioned: • DE, AT, FR, UK national networks • Ireland: National Monitoring Screening Programme (200 sub.) • Danube: TNMN, Joint Danube survey • ... • Widely used for the assessment, • Information on data type (surveillance, screening, research, discharge) is often unclear, • Details not given (number of stations, parameters, temporal coverage, ...) • Analysis used to identify gaps/recommendations

  13. Analysis: Current sources and associated pressures • Significant pressures identified (point and diffuse pollution) • Link with sources often unclear • Main sources identified (urban, industry, agriculture), but extension not clear (thresholds...) • Rare reference to other reportings (EPER, national inventory)

  14. Analysis: Risk assessment (1/2) • Cornerstone of the report • Impact based, pressure based or both • Criteria used: • hydromorphology, • trophic status, nutrients pressure • pollution by priority substances or other specific pollutants • High number of WB “at risk” A number of which at risk from chemical substances • e.g. 75% for BE (Flanders) or 85% for NL • A majority “possibly” at risk due to a lack of data

  15. Source: IMPACT ASSESSMENT : Proposal for a Directive on EQS, IOW treatment Water bodies at risk of failing good chemical status

  16. Analysis: Risk assessment (2/2) • National EQS already defined in some MS (AT, DE, FR) • Sometimes different number from DSD Art 7: why? • But number of substances or value unclear • And the type of quality objective sometimes unclear (BG, RO)

  17. Analysis: Reduction measures of significant point and diffuse pressures • More a national question than (I)RBD one • Issue for new MS (EU10) and AC • Mainly setting ELV and permit systems

  18. Analysis: Data gaps • Issue merged with “Recommendation for monitoring” • Main gaps • data on PHS, PS • availability of measured data on point and diffuse pressures • at IRBD level: lack of comparable data from each bordering countries • Examples of recommendations • increase and development of surveillance monitoring • creation of a common data and information system (FR, LT) • development of methodologies to estimate pressures from diffuse sources

  19. Main conclusions • Data on dangerous substances available but • Article 5 is more focussed on risk assessment for WB • Good gaps identification • Next step for MS: improvement of monitoring network • A lot of guidance on WFD and implementation •  A need to consolidate existing guidance or develop a dedicated (to DS) guidance?

  20. list of guidances WFD implementation - dangerous substances • Preliminary review of WFD Art. 5 reports • information reported by MS is variable • often incomplete as regards dangerous substances • Pollution reduction programmes under Art. 7 Dir 76/464/EEC • Dir 76/464 will be fully repealed by 2013: during this transitional period, MS are invited to apply the principles of the WFD for implementation of Art. 7 • Guidances WS-PS, Dulio, Brussels, 03/10/2006

  21. Proposal: development of a Cookbook • consolidate existing guidance • build on experience gained by MS in the first round of Art. 5 reporting (problems encountered and best practice) • Do MS feel a specific guidance as regards dangerous substances would be useful? • What this guidance doc should look like? Input from participants in the workshop of today WS-PS, Dulio, Brussels, 03/10/2006

More Related