Article 5 Visualisation Report represents work in progress Makes recommendations for output

1. Article 5 Visualisation • Report represents work in progress • Makes recommendations for output • Provides a common specification for output • Provides a platform for discussion • Reflects outcomes of GIS Activity 1 Expert GroupMeetings

2. Article 5 Visualisation • Two key purposes of Visualisation…. • To enable a qualitative comparative analysis of implementation, aiding compliance analysis • To provide public viewing of information

3. Article 5 Visualisation • Sub-Units • Need for sub-units of comparable size • Subdivision of larger RBD’s needed (Figure 1) • Ideally range between 5,000 & 20,000 km2 • Delineation in collaboration with Member States • Alignment with subcatchments defined by CCM model; aids transfer of information from European-wide datasets • Can aggregate individual waterbody information to any appropriate scale….but…

4. Article 5 Visualisation • …..Much more (mandatory) detail is provided at RBD level including a range of pressures and risks • At individual waterbody level, total risk, identification of HMWB and AWB are the only mandatory requirements • A new schema at sub-unit scale could be produced • Submission of non-mandatory data seen as an additional burden by Member States

5. Article 5 Visualisation • Common specification derived for output • Meaningful name; method of creation; interpretation; non-mapped outputs; public viewing/comparative analysis; portrayal using optional data; use of further data beyond mandatory and optional; issues associated with each map

6. Non-Mapped Output • Possible to use e.g. bar charts. Probably best used to accompany mapped output rather than an alternative to it

7. Surface Water Bodies Density is moreinformative than absolute numbers; the common area (e.g. number per 100 km2 of RBD) aids comparative analysis. At RBD level (Map 1) density uses the number of SWB; numerous small WB results in a greater mapped density than a few large WB of similar total size.

8. Surface Water Bodies At individual waterbody level, density can be expressed using river length and lake area (Map 2), this is more informative than using the number of waterbodies. Information remains dependent upon the method each MS used to identify surface water bodies.

9. Groundwater bodies Most informative GW body data is optional or difficult to portray as mapped output Surface area (mandatory) alone is not particularly informative GW bodies often cannot be assigned to a particular RBD, sub-unit or national boundary MS have provided a mix of polygons and centroids. Agreement that this would not be suitable for public viewing or comparative analysis

10. HMWB and AWB Using RBD level information, density can be mapped, expressed as number per unit area of RBD (Map 3).

11. HMWB and AWB At individual waterbody level, density can be expressed using river length and lake area (Map 4), this is more informative than using the number of waterbodies. This information can be aggregated-up and portrayed at any appropriate scale.

12. Pressures Using RBD level data, map output by grouping into 5 sub-categories (point, diffuse, abstraction, flow regulation and morphological alteration, other). Each RBD can be classified, for each sub-category (Map 5a,b) by the highest level of importance (Very Important, Important etc) Represents a worst-case

13. Risk Using RBD level data, risk can be mapped, separately, as the % by number of WB at risk from each of; point sources, diffuse sources, abstractions and morphological alterations (Map 6)

14. Risk Using individual waterbody information, the % length of rivers (or lake area) of a particular total risk category can be portrayed (Map 7). Total risk varies between 1 and 3, hence various combinations of total risk can be shown (e.g. % = 1; % < 3 etc)

15. Protected Areas The density by number of protected areas can be mapped using mandatory information and portrayed at any appropriate scale Density based on river length and lake area can also be portrayed. Differing units associated with these would require separate mapped outputs Using optional data, it is possible to illustrate the reason for the protection

16. Conclusions Agreement of the need for comparable sub-units, involving the subdivision of larger RBD’s Information provided at the individual waterbody level can be aggregated and portrayed at an appropriate scale But mandatory information at IWL is limited and less detailed than that at RBD level A Common Specification for mapped output has been derived, and recommendations made Work in progress