Eea European Waters - Assessment of Status and Pressures 2012

7/28/2019 Eea European Waters - Assessment of Status and Pressures 2012

1/100

European waters assessment of status and pressures

EEA Report No 8/2012

ISSN 1725-9177


2/100


3/100


EEA Report No 8/2012


4/100

Cover design: EEACover photos Peter KristensenLayout: EEA/Henriette Nilsson

European Environment AgencyKongens Nytorv 61050 Copenhagen K

DenmarkTel.: +45 33 36 71 00Fax: +45 33 36 71 99Web: eea.europa.euEnquiries: eea.europa.eu/enquiries

Legal noticeThe contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commissionor other institutions of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person orcompany acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the informationcontained in this report.

All rights reservedNo part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical,including photocopying, recording or by any information storage retrieval system, without a priorpermission in writing. For permission, translation or reproduction rights please contact EEA (addressinformation below).

Information about the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europaserver (www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Union, 2012

ISBN 978-92-9213-339-9ISSN 1725-9177doi:10.2800/63266

EEA, Copenhagen, 2012

Environmental productionThis publication is printed according to high environmental standards.

Printed by Rosendahls-Schultz Grask Environmental Management Certificate: DS/EN ISO 14001: 2004 Quality Certificate: DS/EN ISO 9001: 2008 EMAS Registration. Licence no. DK 000235

Ecolabelling with the Nordic Swan, licence no. 541 176 FSC Certificate licence code FSC C0688122

PaperRePrint FSC Certied 90 gsm.CyclusOffset 250 gsm.Both paper qualities are recycled paper and have obtained the ecolabel Nordic Swan.

Printed in Denmark

REG.NO.DK-000244

DisclaimerThe report is based on data delivered by the Member States via the Water Information System for Europe(WISE) up to May 2012 and in some cases information available in digital version of RBMPs. Member Statesand Stakeholders comments to the draft technical reports on ecological and chemical status and pressuresand hydromorphology during the consultation in February and March 2012 have been included as far as

possible. Where data are available, it has been dealt with, and is presented, to the best of our knowledge.Nevertheless, inconsistencies and errors cannot be ruled out.

The report contain sentences and paragraphs that is partly copy and paste of text from the multitude ofdocuments produced on the WFD (Commission and national WFD guidance documents, RBMPs and Article 5reports, etc.). Sources have been acknowledged in these cases.
http://www.eea.europa.eu/http://www.eea.europa.eu/enquirieshttp://www.europa.eu/http://www.europa.eu/http://www.eea.europa.eu/enquirieshttp://www.eea.europa.eu/


5/1003

Contents


Contents

Acronyms and abbreviations ...................................................................................... 5

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 6

Executive summary ................................................................................................... 7

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 12

1.1 EEA 2012 'State of Europe's water' reports ..........................................................121.2 European water policies ...................................................................................15

2 Data sources, methodology and uncertainties ..................................................... 18

2.1 Data sources ...................................................................................................18

2.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................19

2.3 Improved knowledge, but ambiguous results due to data gaps andmethodology issues .........................................................................................22

3 Trends in status of and pressures affecting waters up to the first RBMPs ............ 23

3.1 Trends in water quality and pollution .................................................................23

3.2 Improved wastewater treatment ........................................................................243.3 Eutrophication and diffuse pollution ....................................................................28

3.4 Hydromorphological pressures and impacts ........................................................31

3.5 Conclusion and summary of results ....................................................................36

4 Ecological status and pressures ........................................................................... 37

4.2 Main pressures and impacts affecting ecological status for all water categories .........40

4.3 Designation of heavily modified and artificial water bodies .....................................46

4.4 Ecological status, pressures and impacts across Member States and sea regions ......48

5 Chemical status ................................................................................................... 54

5.1 Introduction and background ............................................................................545.2 European overview of chemical status ...............................................................54

5.3 Chemical status by Member State and RBD ........................................................56

5.4 Legislation continues to play an important role but challenges remain .....................61

6 Protection of Europe's aquatic ecosystems and their services ............................. 63

6.1 Joint benefits of coordinated nature conservation and water management ...............63

6.2 Relevant aquatic habitats in the Natura 2000 network ..........................................64

6.3 Conservation status of aquatic habitats and species ..............................................66

6.4 Most frequent pressures affecting aquatic habitats ...............................................68

6.5 Habitats and Water Framework Directives' measures ............................................686.6 Conclusions and summary .................................................................................72


6/100

Contents

4 European waters assessment of status and pressures

7 Challenges for achieving good status of waters ................................................... 73

7.1 Current trends and future challenges ..................................................................73

7.2 Objectives and current goals for achieving good status .........................................74

7.3 Possible solutions and measures ........................................................................77

7.4 Measures for reducing pollution .........................................................................77

7.5 Restoring altered habitats and reducing hydromorphological pressures ...................79

7.6 Further considerations for the next phase of RBM planning ....................................86

8 References........................................................................................................... 89


7/1005

Acronyms and abbreviations


Acronyms and abbreviations

AWB Artificial water body

BHDs Birds and Habitats Directives

BOD Biochemical oxygen demand

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

DDT Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane

DEHP Di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalateEEA European Environmental Agency

EFTA European Free Trade Association

Eionet European Information and Observation Network

EQS Environmental Quality Standards

ETC/ICM European Topic Centre on Inland, Coastal and Marine Waters

ETC/BD European Topic Centre on Nature and Biodiversity

EU European Union

GEP Good ecological potential

GES Good ecological status

HMWB Heavily modified water body

IAS Invasive alien species

NGO Non-governmental organisation

NIS Non-indigenous species

NREAP National renewable energy action plan

NWRM Natural water retention measure

PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

RBD River basin districtRBMP River Basin Management Plan

REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals

SCI Site of Community Importance

SPA Special Protection Area

SWMI Significant Water Management Issue

TBT Tributyltin

UWWT Urban Waste Water Treatment (Directive)

WB Water body

WFD Water Framework DirectiveWFD-CIS Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy

WISE The Water Information System for Europe


8/1006

Acknowledgements


Acknowledgements

EEA lead author: Peter Kristensen;

EEA: Beate Werner, Trine Christiansen, Rob Collins,Constana Belchior, Bo Jacobsen;

EEA's European Topic Centre on Inland, Coastal and

Marine Waters (ETC/ICM);Anne Lyche Solheim and Kari Austnes (NIVA);

Vt Kode, Silvie Semaradova, Hana Prchalov,Renata Filippi, Anita Knitzer (CENIA);

Monika Peterlin (IWRS);

Janos Feher (Vituki);

Theo Prins, Claudette Spiteri (Deltares);

EEA's European Topic Centre on Biodiversity andNature (ETC/BD);

Marita Arvela, Jrme Bailly Maitre, DominiqueRichard, Sophie Cond, Douglas Evans, LenkaJandova, Alena Dostalova, Michael Hoek (ETC/BD).

Peter Kristensen


9/1007

Executive summary


Executive summary

EEA 2012 'State of Europe's water'assessments

2012 is the European year of water in which theEuropean Commission published its 'Blueprint tosafeguard Europe's waters' (referred to hereafter

as the Blueprint) comprising reviews of the WaterFramework Directive (WFD) (2000/60/EC), waterscarcity and drought and adaptation to climatechange policies. To accompany and informthe blueprint, throughout 2012 the EuropeanEnvironment Agency (EEA) produced a set ofreports on the state of Europe's water. The reportsare developed in close cooperation and coordinationwith the assessment of the European Commission'sDirectorate-General for the Environment(Environment DG) of the River Basin ManagementPlans (RBMPs) and other Commission workpreparing the Blueprint.

The first reporting of the RBMPs under the WFDwas due at the end of 2009. Most Member States(23 of 27) have reported their RBMPs and deliveredan enormous amount of data on status, pressuresand measures to the Water Information System forEurope (WISE) WFD database. The report Europeanwaters assessment of status and pressures is basedon an assessment by the EEA of the RBMPs anddata reported by Member States. The informationin the RBMPs, together with other related sourcesof information, has been analysed to establish an

assessment of the status of and pressures affectingEurope's waters. This work by the EEA reflects thecooperation with the Commission on the assessmentof implementation of the WFD as laid out in Article18 of the WFD according to which:

'The EU Commission shall publish a report on theimplementation of this directive at the latest 12 yearsafter the date of entry into force of this directive(two years after the Member States have deliveredthe RBMPs). The report shall among others includethe following:

a review of progress in the implementation ofthe directive;

a review of the status of surface water andgroundwater in the Community undertaken incoordination with the European EnvironmentAgency.'

Improved knowledge, but ambiguous results due todata gaps and methodology issues

The quality of the EEA's assessments relies onthe quality of the Member States' reports anddata delivery. There are examples of very good,highquality reporting. However, there are also caseswhere reporting contains gaps or contradictions.Bad or incomplete reporting can lead to wrongand/or incomplete assessments.

Due to delays in the development of nationalclassification systems in many Member States, only

a few biological quality elements could be used forassessing ecological status of water bodies for thefirst RBMPs. Many water bodies have been classifiedwithout actual monitoring of biology or chemicalpollutants, and by using expert judgement partlybased on the information compiled in the pressureand impact analyses.

The knowledge base to classify the ecological andchemical status, pressures and impacts was notoptimal for the first RBMPs. However, comparedto the situation before the WFD, there has been a

significant improvement of the knowledge baseand increased transparency by bringing togetherinformation on all characteristics, pressures andimpacts on water bodies at basin level.

In the EEA's opinion, this report's results presentgood and robust European overviews of the datareported by the first RBMPs, and of the ecologicalstatus and pressures affecting Europe's waters.Caution is advised concerning country and riverbasin district (RBD) comparisons, as results maybe affected by the methodology approach usedby the individual Member State. Likewise, it isnot advisable to draw detailed conclusions on thechemical status results: in the first RBMPs, there wasa lack of chemical monitoring and of comparability


10/100

Executive summary


of the information on chemical status of waterbodies among Member States.

Trend in status of and pressuresaffecting waters up to the first RBMPs

Europe's waters are affected by several pressures,including water pollution, water scarcity andfloods. Major modifications to water bodies alsoaffect morphology and water flow. To maintainand improve the essential functions of our waterecosystems, we need to manage them well.

Clean unpolluted water is essential for ourecosystems. Pollutants in many of Europe's surface

waters have had detrimental effects on aquaticecosystems and resulted in the loss of aquatic floraand fauna and is cause for concern for public health.These pollutants arise from a range of sourcesincluding agriculture, industry, households andthe transport sector, and they are transported towater via numerous diffuse and point pathways.Agriculture, for example, causes widespreadproblems of nutrient enrichment in inland andcoastal waters across Europe, despite some recentimprovements in some regions.

During the last 25 years, significant progress

has been made in numerous European watersin reducing the pollution This progress includesimproved wastewater treatment, reduced volumesof industrial effluents, reduced use of fertilisers,reduced or banned phosphate content in detergents,as well as reduced atmospheric emissions.Implementation of the Urban Waste WaterTreatment (UWWT) Directive (91/271/EEC), togetherwith national legislation, has led to improvements inwastewater treatment across much of the continent.This has resulted in reduced point discharges ofnutrients and organic pollution to freshwater bodies.

Water quality in Europe has therefore improvedsignificantly in recent decades, and effects ofpollutants have decreased.

For decades, sometimes centuries, humans havealtered European surface waters (straightening andcanalisation, disconnection of flood plains, landreclamations, dams, weirs, bank reinforcements, etc.)to facilitate agriculture and urbanisation, produceenergy and protect against flooding. The activitiesresult in damage to the morphology and hydrologyof the water bodies, in other words, to theirhydromorphology. Such activities result in alteredhabitats and have severe and significant impacts onthe status of the aquatic ecosystems.

There are several hundred thousand barriersand transverse structures in European rivers. Inmany river basins, the continuity of the rivers isinterrupted every second kilometre. Many water

courses have their seasonal or daily flow regimeschanged for various purposes, including dammingfor hydropower production and storage of irrigationwater. Transitional and coastal habitats have beenaltered in many ways: by dredging, land reclamationand hard infrastructure for coastal protection anderosion management.

Ecological and chemical status, pressuresand impacts

The WFD requires that all the issues mentionedabove are addressed in order to ensure that by2015 all water bodies have good status. For surfacewaters, there are two separate classifications,ecological and chemical status. Groundwater bodiesare classified according to their chemical status andquantitative status. For a water body to be in overallgood status, both chemical status and ecological orquantitative status must be at least good.

The European Union (EU) Member States have viathe RBMPs reported information from more than13 000 groundwater bodies and 127 000 surface

water bodies: 82 % of them rivers, 15 % lakes, and3 % coastal and transitional waters. The results areanalysed below.

Ecological status

More than half of the surface water bodies inEurope are reported to be in less than goodecological status or potential, and will needmitigation and/or restoration measures to meetthe WFD objective.

River water bodies and transitional watersare reported to have worse ecological statusor potential and more pressures and impactscompared to water bodies in lakes and coastalwaters.

The pressures reported to affect most surfacewater bodies are pollution from diffuse sources,in particular from agriculture, causing nutrientenrichment, and hydromorphological pressuresresulting in altered habitats.

The worst areas of Europe concerning ecologicalstatus and pressures in freshwater are in central


11/100

Executive summary

9European waters assessment of status and pressures

and north-western Europe, while for coastal andtransitional waters, the Baltic Sea and GreaterNorth Sea regions are the worst.

A large proportion of water bodies, particularlyin the regions with intensive agriculture and highpopulation density have poor ecological status andare affected by pollution pressures. The situationcalls for increased attention to achieve good waterquality and ecological status. Despite some progressin reducing agricultural inputs of pollutants, diffusepollution from agriculture is a significant pressurein more than 40 % of Europe's water bodies in riversand coastal waters, and in one third of the waterbodies in lakes and transitional waters. The RBDsand Member States with a high proportion of water

bodies affected by diffuse pollution are found innorth-western Europe in particular, and correspondto the regions with high fertiliser input and highriver nitrate concentration. Discharges fromwastewater treatment plants and industries and theoverflow of wastewater from sewage systems stillcause pollution: 22 % of water bodies still have pointsources as a significant pressure.

Hydromorphological pressures and altered habitatsare the most commonly occurring pressures inrivers, lakes and transitional water, affecting around40 % of river and transitional water bodies and 30 %of the lake water bodies. The hydromorphologicalpressures are mainly attributable to hydropower,navigation, agriculture, flood protection and urbandevelopment.

Chemical status

The information provided in the RBMPs on chemicalstatus is not sufficiently clear to establish a baselinefor 2009. The chemical quality of water bodies hasimproved significantly in the last 30 years, but

the situation as regards the priority substancesintroduced by the WFD is not clear. The assessmentof chemical status presents a large proportion ofwater bodies with unknown status. Monitoringis clearly insufficient and inadequate in manyMember States, where not all priority substances aremonitored and the number of water bodies beingmonitored is very limited. The results from the firstRBMPs showed:

Poor chemical status for groundwater, by area, isabout 25 % across Europe. A total of 16 MemberStates have more than 10 % of groundwaterbodies in poor chemical status; this figureexceeds 50 % in four Member States. Excessive

levels of nitrate are the most frequent cause ofpoor groundwater status across much of Europe.

Poor chemical status for rivers, lakes, and

transitional and coastal waters does not exceed10 %, aggregated across Europe as a whole.Notably, the chemical status of many of Europe'ssurface waters remains unknown, rangingbetween one third of lakes and more than half oftransitional waters.

A total of 10 Member States report poor chemicalstatus in more than 20 % of rivers and lakes withknown chemical status, whilst this figure rises toabove 40 % in five Member States.

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) area widespread cause of poor status in rivers.Heavy metals are also a significant contributorto poor status in rivers and lakes, with levels ofmercury in Swedish freshwater biota causing100 % failure to reach good chemical status.Industrial chemicals such as the plasticiserdi-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) andpesticides also constitute widespread causes ofpoor chemical status in rivers.

Six Member States report poor chemical status intransitional waters to be more than 50 % of thewater bodies with known chemical status. PAHs,the antifouling biocide tributyltin (TBT) andheavy metals are the most common culprits.

Six Member States report all their coastal watersas having good chemical status, although infive others, poor chemical status exceeds 90 %of those water bodies with a known chemicalstatus. A variety of pollutant groups contributeto poor status in coastal waters, reflecting adiverse range of sources.

Protection of Europe's aquaticecosystems and their services

The EU policies on water and the marineenvironment, nature and biodiversity are closelylinked, and together they form the backbone ofenvironmental protection of Europe's ecosystemsand their services. One of the main objectives of theWFD is the integrated view on and the protectionof aquatic ecosystems using a holistic approach.For this reason, the relationship between the resultsof the first round of RBMP reporting have beencompared with the current implementation of thenature legislation (Birds (2009/147/EC) and Habitats


12/100

Executive summary


(92/43/EEC)) and the future development under theBiodiversity Strategy 2020.

Both the nature directives and the WFD aim at

ensuring healthy aquatic ecosystems while atthe same time ensuring a balance between waterand nature protection and the sustainable use ofnatural resources. At the moment, the two processesdesignating aquatic habitat types under Natura 2000and the WFD water types are run in parallel, andtoday there is not enough coordination betweenthe two processes. Common WFD water types willtogether with the Natura 2000 aquatic habitat typesprovide a good basis for coordinated assessment ofstatus, pressures and impact, and will result in co-benefits for both processes.

In order to protect small water bodies (small streamsand ponds), there is now an urgent need to raiseawareness about their ongoing destruction andtheir many beneficial functions to society. This willincrease political recognition of their importancefor maintaining a healthy and diverse aquaticenvironment. Coordinated activities with theprotected habitats under the nature directives andWFD activities should help to ensure the protectionof these valuable small water bodies.

As many habitats and aquatic species are related

to WFD water bodies or water types, the measuresproposed under the Birds and Habitats Directives(BHDs) and the WFD may be partly the same.Therefore there is a need for coordination betweenthe responsible authorities for nature conservationand water management; measures may offer jointbenefits.

Restoring and preserving aquatic ecosystems hasmultiple benefits for the WFD and BHDs: thisincludes activities such as 'making room for theriver', river restoration or floodplain rehabilitation,

'coastal zone restoration projects' and integratedcoastal zone management. The forthcoming strategyfor an EU-wide 'Green Infrastructure' (EC, 2010a)will help reconnect existing nature areas andimprove ecological quality overall; both the WFDand BHDs would benefit from green infrastructureprojects.

The results and assessment from the three processeswithin the water (WFD) and marine environment(MFSD), nature and biodiversity are importantbuilding blocks for the ecosystems and ecosystemservices assessments that will be produced in thecoming years.

Challenges for achieving good status

Objectives in the WFD stipulate that good statusmust be achieved by 2015. Extending the deadline

beyond 2015 is permitted under certain conditions.

In 2009, 42 % of all surface water bodies held goodor high ecological status; in 2015, 52 % of waterbodies are expected to reach good status. This is farfrom meeting the objective and constitutes only amodest improvement in ecological status.

The information provided on the chemical status ofsurface waters was limited and not consistent. Morethan 40 % of the surface water bodies are reported ashaving 'unknown chemical status'. The assessment

of chemical status for the water bodies with knownstatus is not fully comparable.

For groundwater, 80 % of groundwater bodiesheld good chemical status and 87 % held goodquantitative status in 2009. For 2015, an increasein groundwater bodies achieving good statusis foreseen; in 2015 some 89 % and 96 % ofgroundwater bodies are predicted to be in goodchemical status and quantitative status, respectively.

To maintain and improve the essential functionsof our water ecosystems, we need to managethem well. This can only succeed if we adopt theintegrated approach introduced in the WFD andrelated water legislation. Full implementation ofthe WFD throughout all sectors is needed to resolvethe different pressures and to commit all users in ariver basin to focus on the achievement of healthywater bodies with good status. Most of the waterchallenges faced by aquatic ecosystems can beaddressed through better implementation of theextensive legislative framework on water alreadyin place, and by enhancing the integration of waterpolicy objectives into other policy areas such as the

Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), the Cohesionand Structural Funds, and the policies on renewableenergy and transport.

To achieve good status, Member States will haveto address the pressures affecting water bodies.Pollution is one pressure; morphological changesand hydrological changes affecting water flow areothers. While Member States are relatively clearabout the types of pressures their river basins areencountering, precise information is missing onhow these pressures will be addressed and to whatextent the selected measures will contribute to theachievement of the environmental objectives in 2015.


13/100

Executive summary


Although considerable success has been achieved inreducing the discharge of pollutants into Europe'swaters in recent decades, challenges remain forurban and industrial wastewater and pollution

from agricultural sources. The focus must be placedon ensuring that existing EU water legislation,including the UWWT, Nitrates (91/676/EEC) andEnvironmental Quality Standards (2008/105/EC)directives are implemented in all Member States.This will help to improve the quality of water,e.g. by reducing nutrient and chemical pollutionbefore it enters water bodies. Wastewater treatmentmust continue to play a critical role in the protectionof Europe's surface waters, and investment will berequired to upgrade wastewater treatment and tomaintain infrastructure in many European countries.

Despite improvements in some regions, diffusepollution from agriculture in particular remainsa major cause of the poor water quality currentlyobserved in parts of Europe. Measures exist totackle agricultural pollution and they need to beimplemented according to the WFD, while fullcompliance with the Nitrates Directive is alsorequired. The forthcoming reform of the CAP providesan opportunity to further strengthen water protection.

New and largely unknown groups of substances keepappearing in the aquatic environment, the effectsof which may be even more significant. Examplesinclude antibiotics, medicines and substances thatdisrupt the hormonal balance. Focus must be placedon reducing the emissions and the effects of theseemerging pollutants.

The WFD is the first piece of European environmentallegislation that addresses hydromorphologicalpressures and impacts on water bodies. It requiresaction in those cases where the hydromorphologicalpressures affect the ecological status, interferingwith the ability to achieve the WFD objectives. If

the morphology is degraded or the water flow ismarkedly changed, a water body with good waterquality will not achieve its full potential as a habitatfor wildlife.

The restoration of hydromorphological conditionssuch as river continuity concerns the basin and thefull length of the river, from the marine structuresthrough to upstream hydraulic structures, andmust involve all public and private stakeholdersconcerned. In nearly all RBMPs assessed, thereare hydromorphological measures proposed inthe programme of measures (PoM). Around twothirds of the RBMPs had measures to mitigate thenegative impact of mitigation barriers. These includethe removal of obstacles and the installation of fish

passes. Some measures focused on renaturation ofaquatic habitats, such as improving physical habitats,including by the restoration of bank structures andriverbeds. Measures related to sediment management

strategy were also relatively common. Naturalwater retention measures that restore natural waterstorage, for example by inundating flood plains andconstructing retention basins, were mentioned inless than a fifth of the RBMPs. Measures to improvethe water flow regime such as setting minimumflow requirements were found in around half of theRBMPs.

As outlined above, there are ample possibilitiesfor improving water management to achieve theobjectives of the WFD, through stringent and

wellintegrated implementation. However, the nextcycle of RBM planning needs to also take into accounta wider consideration of water resource managementand aspects of climate change.

Preparing for climate change is a major challenge forwater management in Europe. In the years to come,climate change will increase water temperatureand the likelihood of flooding, droughts andwater scarcity. There are many indications thatwater bodies already under stress from pressuresare highly susceptible to climate change impacts,and that climate change may hinder attempts torestore some water bodies to good status. Herethe establishment of good ecological and healthyecosystem conditions are extremely important. Goodecological status will also increase the resilience ofthe ecosystem, i.e. its capability to absorb additionaladverse pressures.

The 'flow regime' and water level fluctuationsare one of the major determinants of ecosystemfunction and services in aquatic ecosystems. In manylocations, water demand often exceeds availability,and in many cases exploitation of water resources

has led to significant degradation of freshwaterbiodiversity. Water resource management needsto be an integrated part of the RBMP. In more aridriver basins, such as in the Mediterranean, droughtmanagement plans are already partly integrated intoRBM planning. However, the recent assessment ofboth the water scarcity and drought policy and theclimate change adaptation and vulnerability policiesshow that there are considerable improvementsneeded in the future management of water resourcesin Europe. The European Commission 'Blueprintto safeguard Europe's waters' and EEA's report'European waters current status and futurechallenges (Synthesis)' (EEA, 2012e) kicks-off thediscussion of the future management of Europeanwater resources.


14/10012

Introduction


1 Introduction

1.1 EEA 2012 'State of Europe's water'reports

Europe's waters are affected by several pressures,including water pollution, water scarcity and floods,and by major modifications affecting morphology

and water flow. To maintain and improve theessential functions of our water ecosystems, we needto manage them well. Water management in Europeis complex, owing to the diverse geophysical,climatic, socio-economic, and political realities thatexist across Member States. It can only succeed ifwe adopt the integrated approach introduced in theWFD and related water legislation, including theNitrates Directive and the UWWT Directive. Thechallenge now is to fully implement this range oflegislation.

At the European level, a multitude of state of waterassessments have been undertaken (EEA, 2011a).These assessments have primarily focused on thestates and pressures of European waters, but recentassessment has showed their scope to be too narrow,requiring a shift in focus towards management andmeasures.

2012 is the European year of water in which theEuropean Commission published its 'Blueprint tosafeguard European waters', comprising reviews ofthe WFD, water scarcity and drought and adaptationto climate change policies. To accompany and

inform the Blueprint, the EEA has produced a set ofreports, the 'State of Europe's water', to be publishedthroughout 2012. The reports are developed in closecooperation and coordination with the EuropeanCommission's assessment of the WFD RBMPs andother work preparing the 'Blueprint to safeguardEurope's water resources'.

The Commission has published its third WFDimplementation report as required by Article 18of the WFD. This third implementation reportis formed by the Communication from theCommission to the European Parliament and tothe Council on the Water Framework Directiveimplementation report (EC, 2012b), plus theCommission Staff Working Document on the

European Overview of the implementation (EC,2012a) and another Commission Staff WorkingDocument with a set of annexes describing theresults of the assessment by the Commission of theRBMPs relating to each Member State (EC, 2012c).

The EEA 2012 'State of Europe's water' assessmentsconsist of an overarching synthesis and integratedreport (EEA, 2012e) and three thematic assessments:

Towards efficient use of water resources in Europe(EEA, 2012a);

Water resources in Europe in the context ofvulnerability (EEA, 2012d);

European waters assessment of status andpressures (the current report).

In addition, a number of EEA technical backgroundreports and documents are being published bythe European Topic Centre on Inland, Coastaland Marine waters (ETC/ICM) and by the ETCon Climate Change impacts, vulnerability andAdaptation (ETC/CCA). These reports will containmore detailed information and results on theassessment of information from RBMPs on statusand pressures and assessment of water scarcity,droughts and floods. These reports are:

'Ecological and chemical status and pressures'

(EEA ETC/ICM, 2012a);

'Hydromorphology' (EEA ETC/ICM, 2012b);

'Water scarcity and drought' (EEA ETC/ICM,2012c),

'Floods', (EEA ETC/CCA, 2012),

The report European waters assessment of status andpressures is based on an assessment by the EEA ofthe RBMPs adopted and reported from 2009 to 2012by Member States. The information in the RBMPs,together with other related sources of information,has been analysed to establish an assessment of thestatus of and pressures affecting Europe's waters.


15/100

Introduction


The report provides a baseline for assessing trendsin status and pressures in the following RBMplanning cycles.

The structure of the report is presented in Figure 1.1.

Executive summary: presents the key results andconclusions.

Chapter 1: presents information on the EEA2012 state of water reports and the geographicalsettings, including an overview of Europeanriver basin and sea regions. The chapter alsocontains a description of European waterpolicies with particular focus on the differentelements of the WFD.

Chapter 2 summarises data sources and

methodology used for data handling, andexplains the various assumptions made inrelation to the analysis.

Chapter 3 provides a baseline for assessingtrends in pollution and water quality as wellas hydromorphology pressures up to the firstRBMPs; it illustrates how we can learn from pastactions and measures.

Chapter 4 presents an overview of the results onecological status, pressures and impacts for each

Figure 1.1 Report structure

Ecological status and pressuresEuropean overview

Member State and River Basin District

Chemical status

Protection of Europe's aquatic ecosystems and their services

Challenges for achieving good status of waters Less pollution and improved water quality Restoring altered habitats and reducing hydromorphological pressures

Europen waters assessment of status and pressures

Introduction 2012 state of water reports Geographical settings European water policies and WFD

Data sources, methodologies and uncertainties

Trends in status of and pressures affecting waters up to the first RBMPs

European overviewMember State and River Basin District

surface water category: rivers, lakes, transitionalwaters, and coastal waters. Results on ecologicalstatus and pressures for EU Member States arealso presented.

Chapter 5 presents European, Member State and

RBD overviews of the results on chemical status.

Chapter 6 discusses the protection of Europe'saquatic ecosystems and their services. Itconsiders the joint benefits of coordinated natureconservation and water management.

Chapter 7 reviews the expected progress inachieving the WFD objectives, the possiblechallenges, and the measures for reducingpressures from pollution and hydromorphology.

1.1.1 Geographical settings

Europe has an extensive network of rivers andstreams making up several million kilometres offlowing waters. More than a million lakes cover theEuropean continent. The EU has a long coastline (1)and several hundreds of transitional waters in theform of fjords, estuaries, lagoons and deltas. Eachbody of water has individual characteristics.

(1) Coastal waters represent the interface between land and ocean, and in the context of the WFD, coastal waters include water thathas not been designated as transitional water, extending 1 nautical mile from a baseline defined by the land points where territorialwaters are measured.


16/100

Introduction


River basin districts

The implementation of the WFD has resulted in thedesignation of 111 RBDs across the EU (Map 1.1).

There are 40 international RBDs consisting of

RU

RU

RU

RU

RU

BY

BY

BY

SI

RSBA

HR

FY

Dniestr

FY

MEXK

MD

MD

UA

UA

UA

UA

Gauja

Minho

Shan

non

Hordaland

WestA

egean

Solway

Tweed

Western

Weste

rnWale

s

Thames

SouthWestern

Catalo

nia

Galicia

BlackSea

Lielupe

RU

Celtic Seas

B l a c k S e a

M e d i t e r r a n e a n

S e a

BalticSea

Bay of Biscay and

the Iberian Coast

Greater

North Sea

D a n u b e

E l b e

R h i n e

L o i r e

Po

O d r a

V i s t u l a

Rhne

Ebro

S e i n e

Douro

Tagus

Scotland

BothnianBay

V u o k s i

Jucar

Weser

Guadiana

Sicily

Guadalquivir

BothnianSea

Adour-Garonne

Nordl

and

Kemijoki

Trom

s

Kokemen

joki

Glomma

Nemunas

Meuse

Scheldt

Oulujoki-Iijoki

Ems

Troendela

g

WestBay

Venta

Anglian

Norte

East Aegean

Tornionjoki

Agder Skagerrakand

Kattegat

Southern

Appenines

Daugava

EasternAlps

Humb

er

West-Estonian

Severn

Sardinia

Segura

North BalticSea

Ky

mijo

ki-

GulfofFinland

Andalusia

CentralAppenines

Tenojoki/Finmark

South West

East-E

sto

nian

Warnow/

Peene

Moere and

Romsdal

Sogn and

Fjordane

Ju

tla

nd

and

F

unen

South

Baltic

Sea

North

ern

Appe

nines

AD

LIRO

PL

PL

FRIT

DE

DE

AT

FI

HU

FI

ES

LT

ES

IT

ES

DE

CZ

SK

BG

NOFI

IT

NL

BG

LV

PT

CH

FR

SI

FI

CZ

PT

FR

LV

ES

EL

BE

BG

LT

FR

IE

EL

EL

Cyp

rus

EL

LT

SE

EE

DE

BE

PT

EL

LV

DE

NL

PL

FR

CH

CZ

UKUK

NLDE

PT

NL

IE

CH

IE

LU

AT

PT

LT

PL

SK

EE

AT

CZ

Malta

PL

PL PL

PL

706050

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0

0-10-20-30

60

50

50

40

40

300 500 1 000250 Km

International and national river basin districts and sea regionsInternational river basin district

National river basin district

International river basin district outside EU-27

National river basin district outside EU-27

International river basin district boundary

Country boundary

EU-27 boundary

Regional sea coastline

Black Sea

Mediterranean Sea

Celtic Sea, Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast

Greather North Sea

Baltic Sea

Outside EU-27

national parts of RBDs in Member States. Theinternational RBDs cover more than 60 % of theterritory of the EU. An important feature of theWFD is a planning mechanism, referred to as the

international River Basin Management Plans. The

Map 1.1 Map of RBDs and sea regions used in the report

Source: Administrative boundaries: European Commission Eurostat/GISCO and WISE River basin districts (RBDs) processed by theETC/ICM.


17/100

Introduction


aim of these plans is for Member States to cooperateto ensure that environmental objectives targets aremet.

Europe's seas include the Baltic, north-east Atlantic,Black, and Mediterranean Seas. The northeastAtlantic includes the North Sea, but also the Arcticand Barents Seas, the Irish Sea, the Celtic Sea, theBay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast.

1.2 European water policies

The main aim of EU water policy is to ensurethat throughout the EU, a sufficient quantity ofgood-quality water is available for people's needs

and for the environment. Since the 1970s, through avariety of measures, the EU has worked to create aneffective and coherent water policy.

The first directives, adopted in the mid-1970s,established a series of quality standards aimedat protecting human health and the livingenvironment. The standards covered surface waterused for drinking water, bathing water, fish waters,shellfish waters, groundwater and water for humanconsumption. In the same 'generation' of legislation,a directive that set standards for the discharge ofdangerous substances into the aquatic environment

was for many years the main instrument to controlemissions from industry (see also EC, 2008a).

However, the quality standard approach provedinsufficient for protecting Europe's pollutedwaters. When eutrophication became a majorproblem in the North and Baltic seas and parts ofthe Mediterranean in the late 1980s, the EU startedto focus on the sources of pollutants. This led tothe UWWT Directive, which requires MemberStates to invest in infrastructure for collecting andtreating sewage in urban areas, while the Nitrates

Directive requires farmers to control the amountsof nitrogen fertilisers applied to fields. And theIntegrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC)Directive (2008/1/EC), adopted a few years later,aims to minimise pollutants discharged from largeindustrial installations.

The WFD, which came into force on 22 December2000, establishes a new framework for themanagement, protection and improvement ofthe quality of water resources across the EU. TheWFD calls for the creation of River Basin Districts(RBDs). In case of international districts that coverthe territory of more than one EU Member State,the WFD requires coordination of work in thesedistricts.

EU Member States should aim to achievegood status in all bodies of surface water andgroundwater by 2015 unless there are grounds forderogation. Only in this case may achievement of

good status be extended to 2021 or by 2027 at thelatest. Achieving good status involves meetingcertain standards for the ecology, chemistry,morphology and quantity of waters. In generalterms, 'good status' means that water shows onlya slight change from what would normally beexpected under undisturbed conditions. There isalso a general 'no deterioration' provision to preventdeterioration in status.

The WFD establishes a legal framework to protectand restore clean water in sufficient quantity across

Europe. It introduces a number of generally agreedprinciples and concepts in a binding regulatoryinstrument. In particular, it provides for thefollowing:

A sustainable approach to managing an essentialresource: not only does the WFD consider waterto be a valuable ecosystem, it also recognises theeconomy and human health dependent on it.

Holistic ecosystem protection: the WFD ensuresthat the fresh and coastal water environment isto be protected in its entirety.

Ambitious objectives, flexible means: theachievement of 'good status' by 2015 isambitious and will ensure the fulfilment ofhuman needs, ecosystem functioning andbiodiversity protection. At the same time, theWFD provides flexibility for achieving this inthe most cost-effective way and introduces apossibility for priority setting in the planning.

The right geographical scale: the WFD statesthat the natural administrative unit for water

management is the river basin.

The 'polluter pays' principle: the WFD'sintroduction of water pricing policieswith the element of cost recovery and thecost-effectiveness provisions are milestones inthe application of economic instruments for thebenefit of the environment.

Participatory processes: the WFD ensures theactive participation of all businesses, farmersand other stakeholders, environmentalnon-governmental organisations (NGOs), andlocal communities in river basin managementactivities.


18/100

Introduction


Better regulation and streamlining: the WFD andits related directives (the Groundwater DaughterDirective (2006/118/EC) and the Floods Directive(COM(2007)15)) repeal 12 directives from the

1970s and 1980s which created a well-intendedbut fragmented and burdensome regulatorysystem. The WFD creates synergies, increasesprotection and streamlines efforts.

Implementation of the WFD is to be achievedthrough the river basin management planningprocess, which requires the preparation,implementation and review of a RBMP every sixyears for each RBD identified. This calls for anapproach to river basin planning and managementthat takes all relevant factors into account and

considers them together. There are five mainelements of the process:

governance and public participation;

characterisation of the RBD and the pressuresand impacts on the water environment;

environmental monitoring based on river basincharacterisation;

setting of environmental objectives;

design and implementation of a programmeof measures (PoM) to achieve environmentalobjectives. An important aspect of the measuresis full implementation of the UWWT Directiveand Nitrates Directive on reducing pollutantsthat lower pollution and will improve waterquality and aid the achievement of good statusunder the WFD.

RBMPs are plans for protecting and improving thewater environment; they have been developed inconsultation with organisations and individuals.River basin planning is a gradual cyclical process

that involves public participation throughout.RBMPs follow a series of steps shown in Figure 1.2.The river basin planning process started more than10 years ago with the implementation of the WFDin national legislation and establishment of theadministrative structures. The next steps in 2004were analyses of the pressures and impacts affectingthe water environment in the RBD. The findingswere published in 2005 in the characterisation reportrequired by Article 5 of the WFD.

In 2006, monitoring programmes within the

RBDs had to be established. The WFD monitoringnetwork enables the identification and resolutionof problems, thereby improving the waterenvironment. The reports and consultation onSignificant Water Management Issues (SWMIs) in2007 and 2008 were important steps leading towardsthe production of the first RBMPs.

The RBMPs describe the measures that must betaken to improve the ecological quality of waterbodies and help reach the objectives of the WFD.The WFD requires, via the RBMPs, a programmeof measures to be established for each RBD. The

measures implemented as part of the programmeshould enable water bodies to achieve theenvironmental objectives of the WFD. The PoMmust be established by December 2009 and be madeoperational by December 2012.

The Commission's Water information notes(EC, 2008c) available online, give an introduction

Figure 1.2 The WFD river basin planning process

Source: Based on EC, 2003.

Achieve objectivesUpdate RBMP

Characterisation

Plan of action

Monitoring programme

Significant water issues

Environmental objectives

Programme of measures

Draft RBMP

Final RBMP

Implementprogrammeof measures

Publicparticipation


19/100

Introduction


and overview of key aspects of the implementationof the WFD.

Over the last few years, European countries that are

not EU Member States have developed similar riverbasin activities to those introduced by the WFD inthe EU Member States:

In Turkey, Basin Protection Action Plans havebeen prepared by the General Directorate of WaterManagement with the same vision as WFD RBMPs(Cicek, 2012). The 25 Basin Protection Action Plansaim at: protection of the water resources, best useof water resources, prevention of pollution, andimprovement of the quality of polluted waterresources. A new EUsupported project, 'River

Basin Management Plans for five basins', with aEUR 6.6 million budget, is due to kick off in 2013.

In 2007, the Icelandic parliament voted foradaptation of the WFD with the objective to fulfillits requirements before 2017. Iceland has identifiedone RBD, four sub-basins, and several coastal waters(Gumundsdttir, 2010).

As a non-EU member, Switzerland is not boundto implement the WFD. However, the Swiss legalsystem sets comparable targets regarding waterprotection and management (EEA, 2010a). In

contrast to the WFD, which is based on planningperiods with specified targets, the Swiss legislationformulates binding requirements, including a setof national limits which must be met at all times.As a member of the international commissionsof the Rhine River Basin and of the Lakes ofConstance, Geneva, Lugano and the Lago Maggiore,

Switzerland collaborates with its neighboring statesto achieve water protection goals and to implementendorsed programmes, and thus indirectly adoptscertain principles of the WFD.

Norway is connected to the EU as a EuropeanFree Trade Association (EFTA) country, throughthe Agreement on the European Economic Area(EEA). The WFD was formally taken into the EEAagreement in 2009, granting the EFTA countriesextended deadlines for implementation. The WFDwas transposed into the Norwegian Regulationon a Framework for Water Management in 2007(Vannportalen, Norway, 2012). Norway performeda voluntary implementation of the WFD in selectedsub-districts across the country from 2007 until

2009, thus gaining the experience of river basinmanagement planning. RBMPs for the selectedsub-districts were adopted by the county councilsin 2009, and approved by the national governmentin June of 2010. RBMPs covering the entire countrywill be prepared from 2010 until 2015, synchronisedwith the time schedule of the second cycle of RBMplanning in the EU.

The Sava River is the third longest tributary ofthe Danube and the largest Danube tributary bydischarge. It runs through four countries (Slovenia,Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia), and

part of its catchment is also in Montenegro andAlbania.The International Sava River Commission(ISRBC) is working together with countries on thedevelopment of the Sava RBMP, in line with theEU WFD (Sava Commission, 2012). A consultation ofthe draft Sava RBMP has run from December 2011 toApril 2012.

Peter Kristensen


20/10018

Data sources, methodology and uncertainties


This report is compiled from information on thestatus of European ground and surface waterbodies as reported from EU Member States in thefirst round of RBMPs under the WFD. This workby the EEA reflects cooperation with the EuropeanCommission on the assessment of implementation

of the WFD as laid out in Article 18 of the WFD,according to which:

'The Commission shall publish a report on theimplementation of this directive at the latest 12 yearsafter the date of entry into force of this directive (twoyears after the Member States have delivered theRBMPs). The report shall among others include thefollowing:

a review of progress in the implementation ofthe directive;

a review of the status of surface water andgroundwater in the Community undertaken incoordination with the European EnvironmentAgency.'

The RBMPs are comprehensive documentsconsisting of hundreds to thousands of pages ofinformation, which cover many aspects of watermanagement. They are published in the nationallanguages. The assessment of the plans is thereforean extremely challenging and complex task thatinvolves handling extensive information in more

than 20 languages.

The information from the RBMPs is accompanied byinformation on the status of European waters, whichthe EEA has collected since the mid-1990s within itsEuropean Information and Observation Network(Eionet). This information on water quality trendshelps to provide a baseline for future evaluationof the achievements of the WFD and underlyingdirectives.

2 Data sources, methodology anduncertainties

2.1 Data sources

2.1.1 Data reported via WFD RBMPs to theWISEWFD database

According to the WFD, from 22 December 2009, the

RBMPs should be available for all RBDs across theEU. There are, however, serious delays in some partsof the EU, and in some countries consultations arestill ongoing. In May 2012, 23 EU Member Stateshad their RBMPs adopted. Four countries (Portugal,Spain, Greece, and the Walloon and Brussels partsof Belgium) had not yet finalised the consultation ofthe RBMPs, and therefore had not adopted RBMPs.

In addition to the RBMPs, Member States havereported a comprehensive set of data related to theresults of the RBMPs (such as ecological status foreach individual water body or significant pressures

affecting a water body) to the Water InformationSystem for Europe (WISE). The EEA has a centralrole in the management of WISE due to the Agency'srole as the EU data centre for water. The reporting ofRBMP data is described in the WFD-CIS GuidanceNo 21 (EC, 2009c).

In May 2012, data from 161 RBDs was uploadedby Member States and incorporated into theWISEWFD database. The WISEWFD database alsoincluded data from Member States (Portugal, Spain,and Greece) that have not yet adopted RBMPs.

There is still missing reporting from some MemberStates and RBDs, and reporting is incompleteon some issues. The EEA and its ETC/ICM haveanalysed the detailed information and data reportedin the WISEWFD database up to May 2012. Theanalysis focuses on data and information on status,pressures and impacts on European waters.

Data from the WISE-WFD database are available atcountry and RBD level at the EEA water data centrehomepage: http://www.eea.europa.eu//themes/
http://www.eea.europa.eu//themes/water/dchttp://www.eea.europa.eu//themes/water/dc


21/100



water/dc (WISE). For the diagrams, maps and tablesincluded in this report, the source information belowthe diagrams provide links to the underlying data inthe WISEWFD database.

2.1.2 EEA WISESoE data collection

In addition to the data reported from RBMPs to theWISE-WFD database, the EEA holds water qualitydata, reported voluntarily by EEA member countrieseach year. These data reflect a representativesubsample of national monitoring results. In thecontext of the implementation of the WFD, the annualdata flow for water quality has been transferred intothe WISE 'State of the Environment' (SoE) voluntary

data flow (WISESoE). It thereby remains one of theEionet Priority Data Flows, but gains full integrationinto the reporting under WISE and complementaritywith data collected under the WFD.

Data are transferred on an annual basis from thecountries to the EEA, and are stored in the Agency's'Waterbase'. By May 2012, EEA Waterbase containeda vast amount of water quality informationcovering more than 10 000 river stations in37 countries, 3 500 lake stations in 35 countries,5 000 coastal stations in 28 countries, and around1 500 groundwater bodies.

The data reported in the WISE-WFD and theWISE-SoE databases makes it possible to evaluatetrends in water quality and to assess the waterquality data in conjunction with the WISE-WFDRBMP data on ecological and chemical status and

pressure information for the individual waterbodies, where the Member State identification codematches for the two datasets.

2.2 Methodology

2.2.1 WFD water bodies

In the context of the WFD, the 'water environment'includes rivers, lakes, estuaries, groundwater andcoastal waters out to one nautical mile (12 nauticalmiles for chemical status). These waters are dividedinto units called water bodies.

EU Member States have reported

13 300 groundwater bodies and more than127 000 surface water bodies. 82 % of these arerivers, 15 % are lakes and 3 % are coastal andtransitional waters (Table 2.1). All Member Stateshave reported groundwater bodies, and allEU Member States except Malta have reported riverwater bodies. 24 Member States have reported lakewater bodies, and 16 and 22 Member States havereported transitional and coastal water bodies,respectively.

Information has been reported for more than1.1 million km of European rivers. These rivers

have been divided into 104 000 water bodies,with an average length of 11 km. Member Stateshave reported more than 19 000 lake water bodiescovering an area of 88 000 km2. Nearly 4 000 coastaland transitional water bodies have been reported,covering approximately 370 000 km2.

Table 2.1 Number of Member States, RBDs, water bodies, and length or area, per watercategory

Category MemberStates

RBDs Number of water bodies

Total lengthor area

Average length/area

Rivers 26 157 104 311 1.17 million km 11.3 km

Lakes 24 144 19 053 88 000 km2 4.6 km2

Transitional 16 87 1 010 19 600 km2 19 km2

Coastal waters 22 114 3 033 358 000 km2 118 km2

Groundwater 27 148 13 261 3.8 million km2 309 km2 (*)

Note: (*) Based on 127 RBDs with reported areas of groundwater bodies.

Source: WISE-WFD database, May 2012. Detailed data are available at http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/report/wfd/SWB_SIZE_AVERAGE and http://discomap.eea.europa.eu/report/wfd/GWB_DENSITY_ECOSYS_TRB.
http://www.eea.europa.eu//themes/water/dchttp://discomap.eea.europa.eu/report/wfd/SWB_SIZE_AVERAGEhttp://discomap.eea.europa.eu/report/wfd/SWB_SIZE_AVERAGEhttp://discomap.eea.europa.eu/report/wfd/GWB_DENSITY_ECOSYS_TRBhttp://discomap.eea.europa.eu/report/wfd/GWB_DENSITY_ECOSYS_TRBhttp://discomap.eea.europa.eu/report/wfd/SWB_SIZE_AVERAGEhttp://discomap.eea.europa.eu/report/wfd/SWB_SIZE_AVERAGEhttp://www.eea.europa.eu//themes/water/dc


22/100



2.2.2 Ecological status classification

The WFD defines 'good ecological status' in termsof a healthy ecosystem based upon classification

of the biological quality elements (phytoplankton,phytobenthos, benthic fauna, macrophytesand fish) and supporting hydromorphological,physico-chemical quality elements and non-prioritypollutants. Water bodies are classified by assessmentsystems developed for the different water categories(river, lake, transitional and coastal waters) and thedifferent natural type characteristics within eachwater category.

The process of ecological classification is describedin Figure 2.1. Ecological status/potential is recorded

on the scale of high, good, moderate, poor or bad.'High' denotes largely undisturbed conditions, andthe other classes represent increasing deviationfrom this natural condition. The ecological statusclassification for the water body is determined usingthe worst scoring quality element (also known as the'one out, all out' principle).

The WFD requires that standardised methodsare used for the monitoring of quality elements,and that the good status class boundaries for eachbiological quality element are intercalibrated across

Figure 2.1 Classification of ecological status

Source: EC, 2005.

Member States sharing similar types of waterbodies. The aim of the intercalibration has been toensure that the good status class boundaries givenby each country's biological methods are consistent

and WFDcompliant. Further information on theclassification and intercalibration process can befound in the ETC/ICM technical reports (EEA ETC/ICM, 2012a) and the Commission's homepage on'Ecological status and intercalibration' (EC, 2012g).

In the case of water bodies that have undergonehydromorphological alteration, the WFD allowsMember States to designate some of their surfacewaters as heavily modified water bodies (HMWBs)and artificial water bodies (AWBs). In these cases,Member States will need to meet a 'good ecological

potential' criterion for ecosystems of HMWBs andAWBs, rather than fulfil good ecological status as isthe case for natural type water bodies. The objectiveof good ecological potential is similar to that ofgood status, but it takes into account the constraintsimposed by social and/or economic uses.

Ecological potential for HMWBs or AWBs is basedon one of two things: either on the same biological,chemical and hydromorphological quality elementsas for ecological status after adjusting for theimpacts of the hydromorphological pressures

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Do the estimatedvalues for thebiological qualityelements meetreference conditions?

Is the deviation of theestimated values forthe biological qualitymoderate or less?

Is the deviationmajor?

Is the deviationsevere?

Do the physico-chemical conditionsmeet high status?

Do the hydro-morphologicalconditions meethigh status?

Classify ashigh status?

Do the physico-chemical conditions(a) ensure ecosystemfunctioning and(b) meet the EQSs

for specific pollutants?

Classify asgood status?

Classify asmoderatestatus?

Classify aspoor status?

Classify asbad status?

Do the estimatedvalues for thebiological qualityelements deviate onlyslightly fromreference conditions?

No


23/100



underlying the designation of the water body asbeing HMWB or AWB; or at the level of measurestaken to mitigate the impacts of all other pressureson those water bodies.

Member States have to report the ecological statusor potential status of each surface water body in theRBD. Where no status has been assigned to a waterbody, it is reported 'unknown' (unclassified). Ingeneral, this report only presents results from waterbodies with a known (classified) ecological status.

Most Member States have classified the ecologicalstatus or potential of all their water bodies, althoughsome countries have a substantial proportion ofwater bodies that are identified, but not classified.

At the EU level, 86 % of a total of 123 000 riverand lake water bodies are classified, while 77 %of a total of 4 000 transitional and coastal waterbodies are classified. For rivers and lakes, Poland(79 %), Finland (54 %), Italy (48 %), Hungary (39 %)and Greece (38 %) have a substantial proportionof unclassified water bodies. For transitional andcoastal waters, Italy (90 %), Poland (60 %), Slovenia(50 %), Denmark (49 %) and Ireland (39 %) have asubstantial proportion of unclassified water bodies.

In the analyses in this report, no distinction hasbeen made between ecological status and potential.

The criteria for classification of natural water bodies(ecological status) and HMWBs or AWBs (ecologicalpotential) vary, but the ecological conditions theyreflect are assumed to be comparable, having thesame deviation from reference conditions or frommaximum ecological potential. The main aim of thisreport is to provide a holistic picture for Europe,not to focus on the differences between the naturalwater bodies and the HMWBs and AWBs. Moreover,presenting the natural water bodies and the HMWBsand AWBs in separate diagrams would increase thenumber of diagrams in the report.

2.2.3 Classification of chemical status

Chemical status is assessed by compliance withenvironmental standards for chemicals that arelisted in the WFD (Annex X) and the EnvironmentalQuality Standards (EQS) Directive (2008/105/EC).These priority substances include metals, pesticidesand various industrial chemicals. The GroundwaterDirective establishes a regime to assess groundwaterchemical status, providing EU-wide qualitystandards for nitrate and pesticides, and requires

standards to be set at national level for a range ofpollutants. Chemical statuses are either recorded asgood, or, if they fail to achieve good status, they arerecorded as being in poor status.

WFD reporting guidance proposed that MemberStates group the reporting of priority substancesinto four categories: heavy metals, pesticides,industrial pollutants and 'other pollutants'. Thelatter category included a mix of individual chemicaltypes including PAHs and TBT compounds.Inconsistency in reporting was apparent betweenMember States, however, with some reporting amix of pollutant groups and individual pollutants,and others reporting either individual pollutants orgroups only. Moreover, different matrices (i.e. water

column, sediment and biota) were sometimes usedto assess the risk of particular chemicals acrossdifferent Member States, meaning that the resultsare not always directly comparable.

2.2.4 Significant pressures and impacts

To achieve good ecological status, Member Stateswill have to address the pressures affecting waterbodies. Pollution is one such pressure, as aremorphological changes like dams built on rivers orchannelisation of streams, or hydrological changesaffecting water flow. The WFD requires that MemberStates collect and maintain information on the typeand magnitude of significant pressures and impactsaffecting water bodies.

The common understanding of a 'significantpressure' is that it is any pressure that on its own,or in combination with other pressures, may leadto a failure to achieve one of the WFD objectives ofgood status. In the WFD, 'impacts' means the effectsof these pressures on water bodies such as nutrientenrichment, organic enrichment, acidification,

salinisation, temperature increase, altered habitats,contamination with chemicals, and water scarcity.

A water body may have no significant pressureor impact because it holds good (or high) status.However, no reported pressures or impacts mayalso mean that pressures and impacts have not beenreported or identified. In most cases, unclassifiedwater bodies do not have information on pressureand impacts. All analyses on pressures and impactscarried out in the following chapters are based onwater bodies holding classified ecological statusonly.


24/100



2.3 Improved knowledge, butambiguous results due to data gapsand methodology issues

The quality of the EEA's assessments relies on thequality of the Member States' reports and datadelivery. It is recognised that reporting constitutesa significant effort for Member States. However, theelectronic reporting to WISE is making reportingeasier and more streamlined. There are examples ofvery good, highquality reporting. However, thereare also cases where reporting contains gaps orcontradictions. Bad or incomplete reporting can leadto wrong and/or incomplete assessments.

Due to delays in the development of national

classification systems in many Member States, onlya few biological quality elements could be used forassessing the ecological status of water bodies forthe first RBMPs. An additional drawback in thesystems used for status assessment of water bodiesis that not all monitoring schemes and assessmentmethodologies were in place for the first RBMPs.Many water bodies have been classified withoutactual monitoring of biology or chemical pollutantsand by using expert judgement partly based on theinformation compiled in the pressure and impactanalyses.

In the EEA's opinion, the results in this reportpresent good and robust European overviewsof the data reported by the first RBMPs and theecological status and pressures affecting Europe's

waters. Caution is advised for country and RBDcomparisons, as the results may be affected by themethodology approach used by the individualMember State. The European Commission's StaffWorking Document on WFD implementation(EC, 2012a), and the EEA ETC/ICM backgrounddocument analyse some of the differences and gapsin methodologies (EEA ETC/ICM, 2012a).

Caution is also advised when drawing detailedconclusions on the chemical status results. In thefirst RBMPs, there was a lack of chemical monitoring

and of comparability of information on the chemicalstatus of water bodies among Member States.

The knowledge base to classify the ecological andchemical status was not optimal for the first RBMPs,due to missing methods, status class boundariesor EQS and monitoring. However, compared tothe situation before the WFD, there has been asignificant improvement of the knowledge baseand increased transparency by bringing togetherinformation on all characteristics, pressures andimpacts on water bodies at basin level.

Peter Kristensen


25/10023



Europe's waters are affected by several pressuresincluding water pollution, water scarcity andfloods, as well as by major modifications affectingmorphology and water flow. The continuingpresence of a range of pollutants in a number ofEurope's waters threatens aquatic ecosystems and

raises concerns for public health. These pollutantsarise from a range of sources including agriculture,industry, households and the transport sector. Theyare transported to water via numerous diffuse andpoint pathways. Agriculture, for example, causeswidespread problems of nutrient enrichment ininland and coastal waters across Europe, despiterecent improvements in some regions. In additionto those pressures impacting upon water quality,structures such as dams for hydropower, navigationor supplying water for irrigation have resulted insignificant hydromorphological modifications physical changes to many of Europe's waters,with potential adverse ecological consequences.

This chapter describes in brief the status and mainpressures affecting Europe's waters up to the firstWFD RBMPs. The focus is placed on presentingtrends in water quality from the start of the 1990sto 2010 when the first RBMPs were reported. As theWFD addresses hydromorphological modifications,a description of morphological and hydrologicalpressures and impacts is provided. The chapterprovides a baseline for assessing trends in pollutionand water quality as well as hydromorphology

pressures up to the first RBMPs, and it illustrateswhat we can learn from past actions and measures.

3.1 Trends in water quality andpollution

Clean unpolluted water is essential for ourecosystems. Aquatic plants and animals reactto changes in their environment caused bychanges in water quality. Pollution takes manyforms. Faecal contamination from sewage makeswater aesthetically unpleasant and unsafe forrecreational activities such as swimming. Manyorganic pollutants, including sewage effluent aswell as farm and food-processing wastes, consume

3 Trends in status of and pressuresaffecting waters up to the first RBMPs

oxygen, suffocating fish and other aquatic life.Excess nutrients can create eutrophication, aprocess characterised by increased plant growth,problematic algal blooms, depletion of oxygen,loss of life in bottom water, and an undesirabledisturbance to the balance of organisms present in

the water. Moreover, pollution through hazardoussubstances and chemicals can threaten aquaticecosystems and human health.

Many human activities result in water pollutants,with the main sources being discharge from urbanwastewater treatment, and industrial effluents andlosses from farming (Figure 3.1). During the lastcentury, increased population growth and increasedwastewater production and discharge from urbanareas and industry (point sources) resulted ina marked increase in water pollution. Due toimproved purification of wastewater and changed

industrial production and processes, pollutiondischarges are today partly decoupled frompopulation growth and economic growth.

Agriculture is a key source of diffuse pollution,but urban land, forestry, atmospheric depositionand rural dwellings can also be important sources.Agricultural production is becoming increasinglyintensive, with high input of fertilisers andpesticides, in turn resulting in significant loads ofpollutants to the water environment through diffusepollution.

Sources for hazardous substances are pesticides andveterinary medicines from farmland, discharge ofheavy metals and some industrial chemicals, andwastewater from consumer products such as bodycare products, pharmaceuticals and cleaning agents.

In parts of Europe, mining including abandonedmines exerts a localised but significant pressureupon the chemical and ecological quality of water,particularly with respect to the discharge of heavymetals. Landfill sites and contaminated land fromhistorical industrial and military activities can bea source of pollution to the aquatic environment.Intensive aquaculture can be a significant localsource of discharges of nutrients and causes


26/100



eutrophication. Feed spills and excrement areusually not collected but are released directly intothe water.

Once released into freshwater, pollutants can betransported downstream and ultimately dischargedto coastal waters, together with direct dischargesfrom cities, industrial discharges and atmosphericdeposition polluting coastal waters. Shipping,harbour and port activities, offshore oil exploration

and aquaculture all emit a variety of pollutants.

3.2 Improved wastewater treatment

Over the past few decades, the treatment ofwastewater has increased, and pollutant dischargeshave consequently decreased throughout Europe.The economic recession of the 1990s in central andeastern European countries also contributed to thisdrop, as there was a decline in heavily pollutingmanufacturing industries. Clear downward trendsin water quality determinants related to urbanand industrial wastewater are evident in most ofEurope's surface waters, although these trends havelevelled off in recent years.

Figure 3.1 Overview of different pollution sources

Source: rtebjerg et al., 2003.

Organic matter, measured as biochemical oxygendemand (BOD) and total ammonium, are keyindicators of pollution by oxygen-consumingsubstances. Severe organic pollution may leadto rapid deoxygenation of river water, a highconcentration of ammonia, and the disappearanceof fish and aquatic invertebrates. Mainly due to theimplementation of secondary biological wastewatertreatment under the UWWTD Directive (91/271/EEC), concentrations of BOD and total ammonium

decreased in European rivers in the period from1992 to 2010 (Figure 3.2(a)).

Many years of investment in the sewage system andbetter wastewater treatment have led to Europe'sbathing waters being much cleaner today thanthey were 30 years ago, when large quantities ofuntreated or partially treated urban and industrialwastewater were discharged into water. The qualityof EU bathing waters has improved significantlysince 1990 in 2011, more than 90 % of bathingareas had good water quality (see Figure 3.2(c))(EEA, 2012b).

Average phosphate concentrations in Europeanrivers have decreased markedly over the last two

Atmosphericdeposition

Mariculture

Sludge

Combustion

Combustion

Combustion

Stormwateroutfall

Industry

Ammoniavolatilisation

Storage in aquifer

Groundwater

Drain

Fodder

Commercial andanimal fertiliser

Plants Algae

Town

Sparselybulit-up

area

Surface run-offFreshwaterfishfarms


27/100



0 20 40 60 80 100

Baltic Sea

Greater North Sea

Celtic Seas

Mediterranean

% of stationsDecrease

No trend

Increase

Bay of Biscay

Denmark (13)

Estonia (16)

Finland (97)

Germany (15)

Latvia (16)

Lithuania (8)

Poland (14)

Sweden (17)

Open sea (107)

Belgium (4)

Denmark (7)

France (5)

Germany (22)

Netherlands (29)

Norway (10)

Sweden (25)

Open sea (58)

Ireland (63)

United Kingdom (1)

Open sea (37)

France (3)

Croatia (18)

France (1)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010

Total ammoniumand phosphorus (g/l)

BOD and nitrate(mg O

2or N/l)

BOD5 (849)

Nitrate (1 358)

Total ammonium (952)

Orthophosphate (1 028)

Total Phosphorus Lakes (356)

Figure 3.2 Changes in water quality variables during the last two decades

Source: EEA, 2012g and 2012h.

(a) BOD5, total ammonium, nitrate, orthophosphateconcentrations in rivers and total phosphorusconcentration in lakes between 1992 and 2010

Source: EEA, 2012i.

(b) Change in winter orthophosphate concentrations incoastal and open waters of the north-east Atlantic,Baltic, Mediterranean and North seas

decades, falling by more than half between 1992and 2010 (a 54 % decrease, see Figure 3.2(a)).Also, average lake phosphorus concentrationsdecreased over the same period (by 31 %, see

Figure 3.2(a)). The major part of this decreasein phosphorus concentrations occurred in thebeginning of the period, but is still ongoing. Thedecrease in phosphorus concentrations reflectsboth improvement in wastewater treatmentand reduction in phosphorus in detergents. InSwitzerland for instance, the heavy phosphoruspollution of lakes in the 1970s has been successfullyaddressed by the improvement in wastewater

treatment from 1980, and the ban on phosphates indetergents in 1985 (FOEN, 2011a).

In transitional, coastal and marine waters, data

availability is still a problem that prevents an overallassessment of phosphate concentrations and trendsin European seas, especially for the Mediterraneanand Black Sea regions where no data for trendestimation is available. Nevertheless, between 1985and 2010, 10 % of all the stations in the Europeanseas reported to the EEA showed a decrease inorthophosphate concentrations (Figure 3.2(b)). Thisdecrease was most evident in coastal and open water


28/100



Source: EEA, 2012j.

(c) Percentage bathing waters complying with mandatoryquality requirements, EU results based on more than21 000 beaches

Source: CBS, PBL, Wageningen UR, 2011.

(d) Emission of heavy metals from Dutch wastewatertreatment plants

Figure 3.2 Changes in water quality variables during the last two decades (cont.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011

Coastal waters Inland waters

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Copper

Nickel

Zink

Lead

Cadmium

Index (1990 = 100)

1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 2009

%

stations in the Greater North Sea, and in coastalstations in the Baltic Sea. Increasing orthophosphate

trends, observed for 6 % of the reported stations,were mainly detected in Irish, Danish and Finnishcoastal waters (Gulf of Finland and Gulf of Bothnia)and in open waters of the Baltic proper.

The emission of some hazardous chemicals fromwastewater treatment has also been reduced, asevidenced, for example, by a decline in the dischargeof heavy metals from wastewater treatment plants inthe Netherlands (see Figure 3.2(d)) and to the RiverSeine (Meybeck et al., 2007).

The major improvement in water quality over thelast decades is also partly reflected in biologicalindicators related to water quality and pollution

effects. In the Czech Republic, for example,significant improvements in river water quality

have occurred since the early 1990s, based on aclassification scheme incorporating indicators forBOD, nutrients and macro-invertebrate communities(see Map 3.1).

Recovery of aquatic fauna in rivers

In some rivers, the aquatic fauna and oxygenbalance in water have been recorded since at leastthe beginning of the last century. Around 100 yearsago, the Rhine was inhabited by some 165 speciesof macrozoobenthos, while in 1930, the Elbe wasinhabited by around 120 species (Figure 3.3). Aspollution increased and oxygen levels fell, the


29/100



er

er

Surface water quality inCzech Republic,19911992 and 20102011

Classes according toCSN 75 7221

I and II Unpollutedand slightly pollutedwater

III Polluted water

Heavily pollutedwater

Very heavily pollutedwater

19911992

20102011

Map 3.1 Comparison of water quality in rivers in the Czech Republic, 19911992and 20102011

numbers of species declined dramatically. By 1971,few species remained in the two rivers.

Improved oxygen conditions associated withimproved wastewater treatment in the Rhine led toa turnaround from the mid-1970s onwards, whilein the Elbe the situation did not improve until afterGerman reunification in the early 1990s. Some of the

Source: ISSaR, 2011.

characteristic river species that had been consideredextinct or heavily decimated have now returned,but a large number of typical species remainabsent, partly due to the fact that their habitats nolonger exist because of structural impoverishment.Additionally, large numbers of alien species havenow replaced the typical indigenous species (seealso Box 7.4 (Invasion of large European rivers)).


30/100


28 Europe

Eea European Waters - Assessment of Status and Pressures 2012

Documents