IMPRESS: POLICY SUMMARY & GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

1. IMPRESS: POLICY SUMMARY & GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

2. IMPRESS-Analysis: Need • Central role of IMPRESS analysis in River Basin Management Planning • Identify human activities that put the Directive’s environmental objectives at risk:  Pressures according to Annex II, WFD

3. Pressures and impacts analysis Results used to: Identification of potential reference sites (Annex II) Design of programmes of measures (Article 11) Identification of water bodies for which alternative objectives may be appropriate (Article 4) Identification of potential inter-calibration sites (Annex V) Information for use in water body identification and refinement (Annex II) Design of monitoring programmes (Article 8) Information for producing an interim overview of the significant water management issues (Article 14) Information for use in the economic analysis of water use (Article 5)

4. On-going process Different levels of existing information  variable analyses Timetable issues

5. IMPRESS-Analysis: Rules Objectives • all environmental objectives • development of pressures prior to 2015, considering programmes of measures • basis for operational monitoring and measures: actual state assessment for 2004 or any possible deterioration!

6. Identify pressures Conditions required to achieve the objectives Annex III economic analysis (WATECO) Identify potential relevant effects of pressures (i.e. the hazard) Key elements of the analysis Characteristics of water bodies that determine their susceptibility Assess susceptibility to the effects of pressures Magnitude of pressures Identify likely effects of pressures Decide on the likelihood of failing to achieve the Directive’s environmental objectives Environmental conditions required to achieve objectives

7. Identifying significant pressures: • all significant pressures • crosschecking pressures • Risk Analysis: • tiered • use screening criteria and existing classification schemes • grouping of water bodies • .......

8. Identify pressures use existing monitoring data 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 Identify water bodies at risk of failing to achieve the Directive‘s objectives

9. Risk screening Water bodies needing further assessment to determine risk Water bodies not at risk Water bodies at risk More specific assessments Increasing difficulty in deciding if body is at risk (e.g. because its true condition is close to the good – moderate status boundary Water bodies needing further assessment to determine risk Water bodies not at risk Water bodies at risk Detailed assessments Water bodies not at risk Water bodies at risk analyses should be proportionate

10. IMPRESS-Analysis: Reporting • Report analysis of risk - include assumptions and uncertainties • Proposal: - GIS maps of water bodies at risk for each major pressure (Annex ii, 1.4)

11. DETAILED SECTIONS WITHIN GUIDANCE • Tools and Examples for Practitioners, e.g.: - Data and Information OverView - Pressure Screening tools - Threshold and classification system examples - Examples of: Current practice State-of-the-Art Models

12. 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“ Quantification of pollution pressures in Portugal Spain water abstraction and water flow regulation modelling

13. IMPRESS “OPEN” ISSUE Uncertainty in pressures and impacts risk analysis The first round of pressures and impacts analysis (2004) will largely be based on existing information. These first risk assessments will contain more uncertainty than the subsequent rounds of analyses (Definition of ‘good status’; precedes surveillance and operational monitoring). Where there is ‘significant’ uncertainty around the risk assessment for a water body, should member states report on these water bodies as “at risk” and monitor them?

14. Iterative process update with monitoring data more uncertainty in first risk assessment than in subsequent rounds 2 Greatest uncertainty in assessment of which side of good-moderate boundary a water body really lies 2 Uncertainties in the analyses 1stIMPRESS Report 1 2005 Intercalibration completed 2006 Area of greatest uncertainty should be a focus for the monitoring programmes Monitoring started 2007 Good status Less than or better good status Uncertainty in values for boundary between good and moderate status 1

15. 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

16. IMPRESS FUTURE WORK (2004-5) • IMPRESS current practice information system • Identification of additional tools for analyses • Links to monitoring requirements, reference conditions, POMs