C I S W

C I S W
COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR
THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
KEY ISSUES AND RESEARCH NEEDS UNDER
THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
FINAL DOCUMENT, COMPRISING PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2
Note: The Phase 1 document was discussed and the policy summary endorsed at the Water Directors’ meeting on
20 June 2005 in Mondorf-les-Bains (Luxembourg). The Phase 2 document was endorsed at the Water Directors’
meeting on 28 November 2005 in London. The document should be regarded as presenting an informal
consensus agreed by all partners. However, the document does not necessarily represent the official, formal
position of any of the partners.
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
TABLE OF CONTENTS
POLICY SUMMARY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3
Driving forces and pressures .............................................................................................. 4
Other obstacles ................................................................................................................... 4
Research Needs .................................................................................................................. 5
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 5
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
1.
Introduction to the activity ................................................................................................. 6
1.1.
Objectives and main activities.................................................................................... 6
1.2.
Method ....................................................................................................................... 7
2. Results ................................................................................................................................ 8
2.1.
Important driving forces and pressures ...................................................................... 8
2.2.
Obstacles now and in the future ............................................................................... 12
2.3.
Issues meriting an international approach................................................................ 14
3. Issues demanding research ............................................................................................... 16
4. Assessment in comparison with PRB report and CIS work programme ......................... 24
5. Summary .......................................................................................................................... 28
5.1.
Driving forces and pressures with EU relevance ..................................................... 28
5.2.
Other obstacles ......................................................................................................... 29
5.3.
Research needs ......................................................................................................... 29
5.4.
Assessment in comparison with the CIS working programme 2005-2006 and other
existing initiatives .................................................................................................... 29
ANNEXES
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
Project team, Sounding Board, and participants Ghent Meeting
Questionnaire
Answers from MS in table form
Table of priority activities under the CIS 2005/2006
Information on BREFs
Overview of relevant currently running research projects
Page 2 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
WFD KEY ISSUES – POLICY SUMMARY
1.
INTRODUCTION
The year 2005 is an important milestone in the implementation of the Water Framework
Directive. In March of this year, the so-called ‘article 5 reports’ should be submitted, that
consist of a profound analysis of the condition of the European water systems and the
pressures threatening them. In 2004, during the preparation of the new working
programme of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) under the European Water
Directors (WD), it was obvious that the knowledge on key issues that deserved further
action acquired in the preparation of the article 5 reports should be part of the
considerations regarding the future activities in the CIS process. At the same time, it was
clear that waiting for the official article 5 reports and then carrying out an analysis would
take too long, and would face practical obstacles such as the different EU languages and
incomparability of report formats. Therefore, the Water Directors decided to get this
information in a light process.
Phase 1
The ‘activity on key issues and research needs’ obtained the key issues via a
questionnaire to the European countries. The main aim of the first phase of the activity
was to identify those issues that would merit action at EU level by the CIS process. The
background document “Information exchange on WFD key issues and research needs”
elaborates in more detail the methods and results of the activity.
The questionnaire had a high return of all 25 EU member states, together with Norway
and Iceland. It turned out that most of the issues mentioned in the return of the European
countries, were already covered by the different activities under the CIS process. This
leads to the conclusion that the mechanism of prioritising in the CIS structure provided a
sound overview of the WFD topics deserving a co-ordination at EU level. The activity
on key issues only adds some details to this process.
The activity focussed on issues that deserve extra attention at EU level, since it was input
for the working programme of the CIS process. One should bear in mind that issues not
included in the list, could be of severe concern in individual member states.
The questionnaire gives insight in the presence of a topic (is it a widely spread concern,
or only in a few countries?) and in the severity (is it high or low on the priority list?).
The issues were differentiated in ‘driving forces and pressures’ and ‘other obstacles’
(how easily could the article 5 report be produced?).
Phase 2
In the second phase of the activity, the role of research in the WFD implementation has
been investigated in more detail. Ideally, the second phase would lead to a list of specific
topics as input for the research community. During the discussions it turned out that
neither the demand side, nor the result side could provide lists that were specified
enough to match them easily. Therefore, the original mandate has been taken in a
broader manner. The background document describes the findings and conclusions from
the discussions, with some broader recommendations.
Page 3 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
2.
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
DRIVING FORCES AND PRESSURES
-
-
-
3.
The European countries broadly judged ‘agriculture’ and ‘morphological pressures’ as
issues of the highest concern. Almost all countries mentioned these topics, and also put
them high on the priority list. Both issues already are subject of activities under the
CIS process. The Strategic Steering Group on WFD and Agriculture is dedicated to the
impacts of agriculture on the water system, and the effect of the WFD on agriculture.
The topic ‘morphological pressures’ has been explored by the EC via a letter to all
WD, in order to start a new activity on the subject.
Municipal wastewater was another issue broadly reported by the European countries,
although it didn’t get high marks on severity. The Urban Wastewater Treatment
Directive largely covers the issue (UWWTD, 91/271/EC). Nevertheless, it might be
worthwhile to investigate whether additional measures are needed in order to comply
with the objectives of the WFD, especially with respect to municipal wastewater from
smaller agglomerations and to substances that are not sufficiently retained in treatment
facilities.
The issue ‘industry’ shows a diverse picture. The input from the questionnaire leads to
the conclusion that industry is not broadly regarded as an issue of concern. At the same
time, specific industries pose great difficulties to specific countries. Generally
speaking, the “IPPC BREF-process” covers the industrial sectors mentioned.
Nevertheless, given the diverse picture, it might be worthwhile to consider the
installation of a system of information exchange between individual countries. The
issues of “mining” and “landfill and waste” might need extra attention.
Regarding other issues of pollution, ‘long range transport of air pollution’ seems to be
the main issue that is not covered under the CIS process.
Several of the issues might be very difficult to tackle with WFD instruments only.
Integration with other policy areas is considered to be worthwhile.
OTHER OBSTACLES
-
-
-
Many countries faced difficulties related to data availability, data formats and the level
of aggregation of data. Actions at the level of member states and international river
basin districts are needed to overcome the difficulties with data availability. Some are
tackled by the activities of Working Group D on reporting and the Working Group A
with regard to the topic of intercalibration.
Specific interest was given on ‘how to present the outcomes of the article 5 reports in
the WFD context’ (key elements: ‘pre-selection of problems for follow up steps’,
‘communication with stakeholders, actors and the public at large’, ‘rules of the game’).
This is not only a concern of member states, but also for the European Commission
when the results of the Article 5 analysis are synthesised and communicated, e.g.
clarification of the role of socio-economics in the implementation of the Directive.
This issue is partially covered by the group on Environmental Objectives.
At an international level, similar difficulties were encountered as at national level
regarding disunity in methods and data formats. This issue seems more profound in
cases where non-EU countries are part of the international river basin district. An
additional point in international river basins is the ‘upstream-downstream’ relation. In
a number of cases, adequate measures can only be formulated at EU level (e.g.
marketing and use, pesticide directive, etcetera). These issues deserve further
investigation in the CIS process.
Page 4 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
4.
RESEARCH NEEDS
-
-
-
5.
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
Countries had to face different knowledge gaps. Generally speaking, the issue
categories “Water resources and demand management”, “Groundwater management”,
“Knowledge on physical processes” en “Policy assessment” are relatively well covered
by research. The issue categories “Knowledge on ecological processes”, “Impact
assessment”, “Measures assessment” and “Economics” are relatively poorly covered.
The categories “Monitoring”, “Data management” and “WFD policy questions” fall in
between.
It turned out during the activity that there are some fundamental gaps in our
understanding of ecological processes and particularly of the impact of human
activities on those processes. Whilst there is ongoing research, it won't deliver all of
the answers and there are still going to be gaps in our understanding when we come to
doing river basin planning.
The relationship between research and policy is not always an easy one, but can be
improved by intensifying the face-to-face communication between the respective
groups. It would be worthwhile to organise a closer cooperation between CIS working
groups and relevant research projects. On the one hand, WG leaders can invite research
groups regularly to the meetings of working groups and discuss the demands and
possible solutions offered (starting on a broad level, and narrowing down to a very
specified level). On the other hand, WG leaders can join meetings and workshops of
research projects of interest.
CONCLUSIONS
“We, the Water Directors of the European Union1, the Accession Countries2 and the
EFTA Countries3, welcome this policy document on Key Issues under the Water
Framework Directive. It is a timely and valuable contribution to the prioritisation of
activities under the Common Implementation Strategy.
The Water Directors agree to publish the policy summary and the background document
on WFD key issues and research needs, and to disseminate them widely. The Water
Directors ask the Strategic Co-ordination Group to prepare proposals for integration of
outstanding issues in the CIS process. Furthermore, the Water Directors encourage the
continuation of the process of positive collaboration between the CIS and research
communities, by involving representatives of research projects in the CIS Working
Groups and deliver the outputs of the work on research needs as an active input for
WISE-RTD. ”
1
Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, the European Commission and the European Environment
Agency
2
Bulgaria, Romania
3
Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein
Page 5 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
WFD KEY ISSUES AND RESEARCH NEEDS
1.
INTRODUCTION TO THE ACTIVITY
1.1. Objectives and main activities
This report is a product of the project ‘Activity on Information Exchange and Research
Needs’, which is an activity under Working Group B (Integrated River Basin
Management) of the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS). This CIS serves, among
other things, to support the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD)
in the EU. See for the exact work programme: “Moving to the next stage in Common
Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive –Progress and work
programme for 2005 and 2006 – “, which was agreed to by the Water Directors during
their meeting in Amsterdam (December 2004)4.
-
-
-
The objective of the ‘Activity on Information Exchange and Research Needs’ is to
identify and prioritise issues arising from the WFD Article 5 activity, which in turn
require an EU-wide approach, and to identify blank spots in research.
In order to achieve the objective, the following activities were carried out:
The first activity was to prepare a first draft list of issues and gaps identified during
the WFD Article 5 activity in a ‘light process’, prior to the finalisation of the actual
Article 5 reports. The results of this first step are presented in the annexes.
Secondly, this first draft list was checked for EU level relevance and prioritised, once
the Article 5 reports were published (resulting in a final draft list of problems issues).
This step was taken during the Ghent meeting on April 4 and 5. Following on from this
“check”, the research needs arising from the problem issues were made more explicit
(taking into account input from the research society, and resulting in a draft list of
research topics). The discussion with the research society started during the HarmoniCA
Forum and Conference, also in Ghent on April 5-7.
Finally, the objective is to have both lists endorsed by the WD via the SCG.
In practice, this means that during the process three lists will be provided:
An initial list detailing all issues raised by the Member States, secondly an advanced list
containing issues relevant at EU level, and thirdly a list identifying the research needs
emerging from the EU relevant issues. See also Figure 1 below.
4
http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/implementation_documents&vm=detailed&sb
=Title
Page 6 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
Figure 1: Overview of the activity
1.2. Method
The two key points of the activity are ‘quick’ and ‘transparent’, since it aims at future
steps to take in the CIS process. Hence the key issues were obtained from the EU
Member States, Accession Countries and EFTA Countries with the help of a
questionnaire in the first months of 2005. The questionnaire was drafted on the basis of
the IMPRESS guidance document, and commented on by the Sounding Board5 and the
WGB members before sending it out to the Water Directors and SCG delegates.
During the Ghent meeting, the draft report that followed the questionnaire was
presented by the project team (Spain and The Netherlands). All countries were asked to
check the analysis presented, and to give feedback on whether or not the issues were
presented correctly. In the first half of the meeting, a higher degree of consolidation was
obtained. During the latter half of the meeting, key issues were checked on EUrelevance and were prioritised. The analysis, enriched by the outcomes of the workshop,
will be placed on the agenda of the Water Directors seminar in Luxembourg.
The concluding session was at the same time the opening session of the 2nd HarmoniCA
Forum and Conference, in which European researchers discussed their contribution to
the WFD process. During this event, the first steps were taken to identify the list of
research requirements, which was to be developed further in the second phase of the
activity, during the second half of 2005.
Ideally, the second phase would lead to a list of specific topics as input for the research
community. This specified list would neatly fit into the process of the coming about of
the next EU research programme, FP 7. Nevertheless, such a list requires a very
specified ‘wish list’ (‘what do we exactly want to know?’) and a thorough insight in the
5
Members of the Sounding Board and the participants to the Ghent meeting are listed in Annex I.
Page 7 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
results of already performed research. During the discussions it turned out that neither
the demand side, nor the result side could provide lists this specified that matching
could be easily done. Therefore, the original mandate has been taken in a broader
manner
The way of working aimed at guaranteeing that no issues would be overlooked, and that
the input from the different countries would be correctly represented. Among the
discussions arising at the Ghent and WGB meetings, the issue of long-range air
pollution seemed to be underestimated in the analysis (based on the questionnaire).
Another topic under discussion was whether or not the persons completing the
questionnaires had a sound overview of the issues in their respective country. However,
no country has since made any amendments to their original input.
2.
RESULTS
The questionnaire had a remarkably high return of all the EU member states, together
with Iceland and Norway. The following two exceptions were noted from the
submissions:
In the case of Belgium, a region completed the form instead of the state.
France completed the questionnaire in such a way that only qualitative data could
be derived from it.
The questionnaire was aimed at finding answers to the following questions:
1.
What are the most important driving forces and pressures that prevent a good
status?
2.
Which obstacles did countries face in the process of producing an article 5
report, and which obstacles do they expect to face in the future?
3.
Which issues (both driving forces, pressures and other obstacles) would merit
an international approach?
4.
Which issues would need extra research?
The results of the questionnaire will be reported following these questions.
2.1. Important driving forces and pressures
The list of possible driving forces and pressures was based upon the guidance document
on pressures and impacts (IMPRESS). Driving forces and pressures were divided into
general categories (the lines in grey) and had a possibility to specify (the lines in white).
Page 8 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
POLLUTION
Households
ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE
Groundwater recharge
Households - municipal waste water
Households - storm water overflows
Households - domestic waste water (not connected to a
sewer system)
MORPHOLOGY
Flow management
Hydropower works (including dams)
Industry
Reservoirs
Oil and gas (including refineries and petrochemical
industries)
Flood defence works
Chemicals (organic and inorganic)
Water transfer (including pumping stations)
Pulp, paper & boards
Weirs, dams, locks, and sluices for navigational
purposes
River management
Textile industry (including wool)
Tanning of hides and leather manufacture
Physical alteration of channel (including banks and
dikes)
Iron and steel
Shipping
Non-ferrous metals
Modification for agricultural purposes
Power generation (not hydropower)
Shipyards
Modification for fishery purposes
Land transport infrastructure (road/bridge
construction)
Other manufacturing processes, namely: …
Dredging
Agriculture
Transitional and coastal management
Arable land, grassland, mixed farming
Estuarine/coastal dredging
Crops with intensive nutrient or pesticide usage or long
bare soil periods (e.g. corn, potato, sugar beet,
grapevine, hop, fruit, vegetable)
Maritime engineering works (shipyards, harbours)
Over grazing and cropping practice – resulting in
erosion
Land reclamation and polders
Horticulture, including greenhouses
Coastal sand supply (safety)
Other sources of pollution
OTHER ANTHROPOGENIC
PRESSURES AND IMPACTS
Aquaculture / fish farming
Recreation
Forestry
Fishing/angling
Impervious areas
Introduced / alien species
Mining (including quarries)
Climate change
Landfill and waste sites
Others, namely …
Transport
ABSTRACTION
Reduction in flow
Abstractions for agriculture
Abstractions for drinking water supply
Abstractions for industrial purposes
Abstractions for fish farming
Abstractions for mining
Abstractions for navigation (e.g. canals)
Page 9 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
The questionnaire required an indication as to whether the issues were of concern to the
country, and if so, to add an indication of the weighting of an item. This was done by a
figure between 1-5:
1 highlighting the issue as a problem, or potential problem, but with little impact
and not a high priority at this moment.
5 indicating that the issue is the main reason for not achieving the objectives, and is
the top-priority.
In addition, the water category had to be noted (rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional
waters, or groundwater). Annex III presents the return of the questionnaire in the form
of a table. Forty issues were ranked at least once at the level 4 or 5 (5 indicating that
“the issue is our top priority”).
In order to bring the important issues in perspective, the percentage of countries
reporting an issue was calculated, as well as the average weighting when an issue was
reported. The percentage gives an idea whether an issue is broadly regarded as a
problem, while the weighting marks the severity of a problem.
The table in Annex III highlights issues with a frequency of 70% or higher in orange.
Weightings of 3.0 and higher are marked green. The issues ranked 4 or 5 are marked in
yellow, giving an overview of the issues regarded as important by individual countries.
Pollution from agriculture
Many countries reported agriculture as being an issue of concern. Agriculture in general
was reported for rivers (77% of the countries) and groundwater (73%). The average
weighting of agriculture was high, from 3.7 in groundwater to 3.4 in rivers. These
results signify agriculture is a severe problem for a large majority of the countries. This
is confirmed by the question on the programme of measures (PoM), where 24 of the 266
countries reported agriculture to be a topic in their PoM.
Morphology
Another area of broad concern relates to morphology. The general categories, ‘flow
management’ and ‘river management’, include issues like ‘hydropower works’, ‘flood
defence works’, and ‘physical alteration of the channel’. The two general terms ‘flow
management’ and ‘river management’ were reported in 65% and 62% of the cases as
being a problem. This figure was higher in the specified issues, up to 88% for ‘physical
alteration of the channel’. The weighting of the issues was also high, with several issues
scoring a 3.0 and 3.2. The high score on morphology is endorsed by the question on
PoM, where 21 countries noted measures to mitigate hydromorphological impacts
caused by bank alterations, navigation, hydropower and the presence of dikes.
Pollution from municipal wastewater
An extensively reported issue category is pollution from municipal wastewater. The
general category was acknowledged in 77% of the cases for rivers. The more specified
terms where reported even more often, with the highest percentage for ‘municipal
wastewater’ in the category rivers: 92% (the most frequently reported issue in the
questionnaire!). However, in the overall scenario of weighting issues, pollution from
households is of less concern; none of the issues exceeds a weighting of 2.9. The topic
also often was mentioned for the PoM by 22 countries (out of 26).
The difficulties faced with wastewater emissions from households depend on: the
percentage connected to a sewer system (e.g. due to scattered dwellings);
6
France did not complete this section
Page 10 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
agglomerations under 2000 inhabitants; and storm water overflow in the case of
combined sewers (sewage and rainwater). Other difficulties mentioned are the discharge
of wastewater treatment systems on small water bodies and the presence of substances
in the sewage that pass through the treatment facilities (e.g. metals, health products and
endocrine disruptors). Finally, various countries made reference to the financial burdens
that accompany sewage collection and treatment (e.g. maintenance costs).
Pollution from industry
None of the issues under the heading ‘industry’ exceeds the 70% in frequency. The three
industrial sectors with the highest frequency are ‘chemicals (organic and inorganic)’
(58%), ‘pulp, paper & boards’ (58%), textile industry (54%), and ‘non-ferrous metals’
(54%), all with respect to rivers. The weighting of the issues stays under 2.9, except for
the issue ‘food processing industry’, that was added by 5 countries and reached 3.0 for
groundwater. Nevertheless, the frequency of this specific item was only 8%.
Although industry doesn’t seem to be a major issue in general, individual countries did
report high weightings for industry (4 and 5). This is confirmed by the question on PoM.
17 countries reported measures to be taken for industries, without prevalence for
specific sectors though.
At the Ghent meeting, some countries expressed their concerns about industries, though
the topic clearly was of less concern to others. When checking the list of BAT reference
documents (BREF’s, see also Annex V), all industrial sectors mentioned have been
covered.
Other sources of pollution
Remarkable in this category is the issues ‘landfill and waste’, being reported by 77% of
the countries. Yet, the average weightings in the category ‘other sources of pollution’
are relatively low, though in individual cases countries do weigh issues high (e.g. the
issue ‘mining’).
In the PoM, additional issues arise, e.g. pollution from old contaminated sites and
contaminated sediments due to historic pollution, recreation and salt intrusion. Transport
causes difficulties because of new transport infrastructure as well as diffuse pollution
contributions, mainly in urban areas.
A topic mentioned only a few times, but with potentially consequences for the
international level, is pollution caused by atmospheric deposition, e.g. Iceland reports
“long range chemical transport from other countries to Iceland (POP’s and heavy
metals)” as high priority.
Reduction in flow
This category has a picture comparable to ‘other sources of pollution’; ‘abstractions for
drinking water supply’ is broadly reported (77%), but lowly weighted. The issue got a
higher priority is countries where abstraction regulatory regimes were not in place or
where major resource shortage occurs.
Distribution over the EU
Although one might assume specific issues to be occurring in specific regions in Europe
more than others, this hardly seems the case. Of course, for broadly reported issues any
preference for a region will be difficult to identify by definition, since almost every
country mentions the issue (e.g. households and agriculture). But also issues like
‘landfill and waste’, ‘mining’, and ‘old contaminated sites’ seem to occur across the
board.
Page 11 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
The only issue that reflected region-dependency was ‘reduction in flow‘, which is
geographical and climate-related. It is a problem in the Mediterranean region, because of
the abstraction of river water for agricultural purposes (Italy, Greece and Spain reporting
high weighting figures). However, the issue also concerns northern countries, but
merely as a problem in the groundwater flow due to abstractions for drinking water and
mining.
2.2.
Obstacles now and in the future
Countries were asked to list the obstacles they faced within the production of the article
5 reports. The reactions fall into 5 groups: data (19 countries), knowledge gaps (14),
resources (10), international co-ordination (8), and the WFD process (7).
Data
Firstly, countries had a lack of data, especially in the fields of hydromorphology, biology
and economics. Apparently, up to now there was no need to gather those data. A country
stated that they suffered from a “limited availability of data, particularly with regard to
pressures not currently subject to regulation”.
Secondly, there is the problem of data formats; different formats from different agencies,
and a disunity of input data (with input from official statistics, data bases of water users
and data bases of authorities), e.g.: “Information is available, but is collected on an
inappropriate scale and thus is not suitable for the intended use.”
Finally, the level of aggregation of available data was very diverse, both at national and
international level. “This was most striking for issues related to the economic analysis.”
Although the topic data is recorded as a future concern by fourteen, this is not
necessarily a common view: “Data availability at river basin scale is of course one of the
issues but does not seem to be a problem as new databases have been established
especially, for the needs of river basin management.” Stated elsewhere: “A general
problem is that we all had to work with available data, although more information should
be used in order to estimate whether the objectives of the WFD could be met in a more
precise way. This underpins the importance of the future monitoring activities in
affirming the choices made in the art 5 report, which in turn can be sanctioned (or
deselected) if specific and targeted information becomes available.”
Knowledge gaps
The different knowledge gaps fall into 5 groups:
Insights and tools to estimate the current status of the water system are lacking, e.g. in
some cases the detection limits of substances are higher than the standards set for those
substances in the environment.
In diverse wordings, countries indicate that the interactions between different water
systems are poorly documented (relations surface water – groundwater – sediment, or
coastal zone – open sea, and others).
Countries have difficulties with impact assessment and lack the models to calculate the
effects of several pressures, e.g. morphology, significance of pressures, historic pollution
of sediments, diffuse pollution, and the mixed effects of different pressures.
Insight is also lacking in how reference conditions and good status actually appear, and
thus what the objectives are.
Finally, and hardly surprising after this list, countries find it difficult to perform a sound
measures assessment.
Page 12 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
The issues on data and knowledge gaps were resumed by one country, stating that “to
find an expert with the solid opinion seems to be rather difficult, since there are other
experts who have different opinions”.
Countries reported similar knowledge gaps when asked to list future problems.
Resources
Countries are hindered in their attempts to source adequate financial and human means
for the WFD implementation. A justification here fore is that the information exchange
internally has been poor, and all the relevant institutions have not been notified timely or
they did not comprehend the volume of work involved. Another, more external reason
given, is the very high workload due to international co-ordination.
The number of countries expecting the resources to be a problem in the future is
remarkably higher (16) than the countries that actually had problems with it in the
production of the article 5 report (10).
International co-ordination
The challenges in international river basin districts are twofold.
On the one hand, approaches, evaluation methods and data formats differ from country
to country (on top of differences within countries, refer to ‘data’ above) and need
harmonisation or co-ordination. In some parts of the EU, this process is even more
difficult because countries must co-ordinate with non-EU countries (eastern border of the
EU).
On the other hand, there is the upstream – downstream relation that complicates the
situation. “Pollution from upstream countries” is the most obvious hampering factor in
this relation, but of course, downstream countries blocking migration routes for biota
also may become a topic.
Countries expect the same issues to occur in the future.
A third aspect of international co-ordination concerns the need for measures taken at EU
level. “Many substances (priority, priority hazardous and “substances discharged in
significant amounts” are related to EU legislation based on prevention of distortion of
competition. For many substances it will be vital that generic measures are formulated at
EU level.”
WFD process
Some issues are related to the WFD process itself, the new ways of water management
introduced by it, and the adaptation time needed by the authorities in the EU countries.
The ‘general mindset’ of the WFD seems to leave little room for all kind of atypical
water systems. This goes for the many smaller lakes and rivers in the Nordic countries,
as well as the heavily modified water systems in the deltas of big European rivers.
In some cases, countries experience the lack of standardisation methods for defining
typologies; clear criteria for the definition of reference conditions; and assessment
criteria for the risk analysis.
The type of planning introduced with the WFD brings with it its own challenges. As
stated by a country: “The time frame of the WFD covers a period of 15 years or even
more in the case of exemptions. Widespread discussions took place at technical and
political level in order to become familiar with the stepwise approach of the WFD, the
Page 13 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
role of the article 5 analysis, of the monitoring programme and the programmes of
measures to be included in the River Basin Management Plan. Specifically, the fact that
the article 5 report was a kind of pre-selection of potential problem area’s (preventing the
achievement of WFD objectives) and that only in a later stage the set of possible
measures were to be decided, was very difficult to communicate.”
Finally, during the implementation of the WFD, the theoretically formulated objectives
took on a more operational role and it turned out that many more efforts seem to be
necessary in order to meet the objectives. “This fact was and still is a subject of a
national political debate,” or, as stated by another country: “Political approval is
necessary for many issues that are included in the report.”
These issues are not reported in the same wordings as future obstacles, but notes like
“integration of sectoral policies and stakeholders expectations”, “social costs; increase of
water prises”, “acceptance of measures”, and “the difficulty to explain the WFD method
for assessing water quality (one out all out, with substances as quality elements)”
indicate that it won’t be just a matter of time to have the WFD rational accepted, and
some action might be needed.
With respect to the future obstacles, the “lack of harmonisation of WFD with CAP” is
mentioned as an obstacle, as well as “the fragmentation of the water legislation and
powers” and “limited economic strength of major polluting sectors”. This encourages a
closer co-ordination of the WFD with other policy areas.
2.3.
Issues meriting an international approach
The countries were asked to indicate what issues would merit an international approach,
and to make a distinction between actions at EU level, at international river basin district
level (IRBD), or at both levels.
Analysis of the answers showed that they can be divided into three categories, namely:
Common understanding of main principles, objectives and methods, e.g. do we assess
the quality of water systems in such a way that we understand the same by a certain
outcome? This can be a matter approached at EU or IRBD level.
Implementation of the WFD in an effective and efficient manner, e.g. in a co-ordinated
way at the most effective level. This also can be a matter at EU, IRBD or at an even
lower level.
Development of new knowledge and new methods. Partially, this will be a matter of new
research, but information exchange could be adequate too in some areas. Most countries
address direct these demands at EU level.
Common understanding of main principles, objectives and methods
The EU countries reported several issues regarding ‘assessment of the quality of water
systems’, ‘economic topics’, and ‘environmental objectives’.
The assessment of water quality systems covers:
Intercalibration of assessment methods for biological quality elements (IRBD and EU),
Relations between the monitoring and the entire assessment of the status of water bodies
(EU),
International agreement on biological assessment methods (IRBD and EU), and
The relationship between hydromorphological and biological conditions (IRBD and EU).
Page 14 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
The economic topics are related to:
Cost-benefits and cost recovery topics (EU), and
Common understandings concerning what are “economic instruments” and what are
“economic measures” (EU).
The environmental objectives relate to:
Environmental standards for annex VIII and X substances (EU),
Agreement on operational variables as a result of common or co-ordinated objectives
(IRBD),
Establishing threshold values (EU),
Collection and evaluation of toxicity test data (EU).
Implementation of the WFD in an effective and efficient manner
This title covers several topics regarding the handling of data, measures assessment and
the programme of measures, and the relations of the WFD with other policy areas.
Data management issues cover the collection of data, data storage and data management.
It would be worthwhile to strive after a data management system allowing simple
interactions among all systems in Europe. Some countries who mentioned this issue
requested some form of action at EU level, others had a preference for it to be tackled at
IRBD level.
Several countries refer to measures assessment and the programme of measures (PoM) as
issues that need co-ordination. In most instances, countries refer to the actual assessment
and actual measures for specified activities. The level of involvement (EU or IRBD) is
well related to the scale of the problem, e.g. the issue of abstraction and co-ordination of
measures to save water in irrigation should be dealt with at IRBD level, while climate
change is an issue for EU level. At the same time, issues occur at river basin level, but
are so widely spread through Europe that an EU level approach would be preferable.
This is the case for diffuse sources, eutrophication, alien species management, and
morphology issues.
In several answers, there is the wish for harmonisation of WFD objectives with other
policy areas. The issue mentioned most frequently in this respect is agriculture.
Nevertheless, since legislation at the EU level might be the most effective and
appropriate tool for adequate and generic emission control measures in some areas, other
policy areas might also be at stake (e.g. transport).
Development of new knowledge and methods
In this part, several issues are mentioned. In some cases, new research or development
activities seem appropriate, but in other cases, information exchange between different
countries could be adequate too. The demand for new knowledge turns up with the topics
‘assessment of quality’, ‘impact assessment’, ‘interactions between different water
systems’, ‘programme of measures’, ‘water resources management’, and ‘unknown
substances’. Most countries ask for action at EU level. Countries demand for simple
model approaches related to e.g. calculation of diffuse inputs, ecological effects due to
various pressures, prediction models, etc. Also is insight demanded in relations between
groundwater – surface water – sediments, and in relations in various quantitative surfaceand groundwater issues, such as water saving, water conservation, water management
during drought periods, etc. See also section 3, on issues demanding research.
Page 15 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
3.
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
ISSUES DEMANDING RESEARCH
Phase I of the activity produced a list of issues that would need extra research. The table
below links those topics (first four columns) to the CIS working groups7 concerned and
to research projects that are currently being executed (see Annex 6 for information about
the research projects).
No
1
2
Water resources
and demand
management
Groundwater
management
No
Sub-issue
CIS
group
Research project
1.1
Water saving
WGB
HarmoniCA-WP3
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Water saving in irrigation
Water conservation
Water reuse (e.g. treated wastewater)
New water sources (e.g. desalinisation)
1.6
Water management in drought prone
regions
2.1
WGC
Development of common approach for
quantification of diffuse pollution –
expressed by nutrients and other
parameters (i.e. heavy metals, specific
organic pollution)
Methodology for monitoring and
chemical status evaluation on karstic GW
bodies
Threshold values to prevent deterioration
of chemical status of GW bodies
2.2
2.3
3
3.1
Knowledge on
physical processes
3.2
3.2
4
Knowledge on
ecological
processes
4.1
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
7
Interaction groundwater - surface water - WGA,
sediments
WGB,
WGC,
WGE
Trends in coastal erosion
Saline intrusion; what is meant by
WGC
‘significant intrusion’. Insight in intrusion
mechanisms needed.
Relationship between
WGA
hydromorphological and biological
conditions
Environmental standards for annex VIII WGE
and X substances
Modelling tools to define reference
WGA
conditions
Intercalibration of assessment methods
WGA
for biological quality elements
Objectives for hydrology (minimum flow) WGA
Common Implementation Strategy. See for details the link under footnote 4 above.
Page 16 of 31
HarmoniCA-WP3
AQUAREC
AQUASOL, EASYMED,
MEDITATE, RRISEASOIL
AQUADAPT, ARID,
HarmonIT, MEDIS,
MEDITATE, OPTIMA,
TEMPQSIM,
WATERSTRATEGYMAN
EUGRIS, HarmoniCA-WP3,
LIBERATION,
SNOWMAN, TEMPQSIM
LIBERATION
BRIDGE
AQUATERRA,
EUROHARP, HarmoniCAWP3, HARMONIRIB,
HarmonIT, TEMPQSIM
ALIANCE
AQUATERRA, REBECCA,
WATERSKETCH
EURO-LIMPACS,
HarmoniCA-WP4,
REBECCA
REBECCA, STAR, SWIFTWFD
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
No
No
Sub-issue
4.7
Hydrology – ecology and morphology – WGA
ecology links. These need to be
quantified so that measures to address
these pressures, that will result in required
degree of improvement in ecological
improvement, can be determined.
Everything concerning the
WGA
connection/effect between/on
hydrological, hydromorphological, hydro
geological factors/processes and the status
of the ecosystems
Development of common EU-wide
WGA
biological assessment methods (option 1
of INTERCALIBRATION process
guideline)
Elaborations concerning the one out all WGA,
out principle for chemicals discharged in WGC,
significant quantities as part of the
WGE
ecological status/potential. Rephrase:
Research of the relevance of substances
and links between chemicals and status
Reinstalling river continuity in order to WGA
allow fish to migrate. A lot has been done
on ascent constructions, but knowledge
on the conditions regarding the
downstream migration of fish is currently
lacking and not yet covered adequately by
research.
Aspects of different monitoring network’s WGC,
WGE
optimisation
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
5
6
Monitoring
Pressure Impact
relations
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
5.1
CIS
group
Research project
AQUATERRA, EUROLIMPACS, REBECCA,
WATERSKETCH
AQUATERRA, EUROLIMPACS, REBECCA,
WATERSKETCH
REBECCA, STAR
EURO-LIMPACS,
MODELKEY
CEEAM, HarmoniCA-WP4,
STAMPS, SWIFT-WFD
5.2
Linking monitoring and modelling
5.3
Relations between the monitoring and the
entire assessment of status of WBs.
5.4
Development of techniques for Ecological WGA
Monitoring
Mining industry impact mitigation
REBECCA, STAR
Closing down old underground mining
areas, which impact the water quality and
might have negative effects by causing
temporary flooding
Quantification of the need to
internationally reduce the deposition of
anthropogenic loads of nutrient, heavy
metals and POP´s, SO2 (acidification)
Elaboration of models for load of N, P
WGA
and POP´s on coastal areas and sea
HarmoniCA-WP3
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
Mechanism for transport of N and P in
land and water
POP’s in biota
Page 17 of 31
HarmoniCA-WP4,
HARMONIRIB, HarmonIT
HarmoniCA-WP4, SWIFTWFD
WGA
WGE
HarmoniCA-WP3
HarmoniCA-WP3,
MODELKEY
HarmoniCA-WP3,
MODELKEY,
WATERSKETCH
EUROHARP, HarmoniCAWP3, MODELKEY
MODELKEY
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
No
7
8
No
Sub-issue
CIS
group
Research project
6.7
WGB
EURO-LIMPACS
6.8
Further elaboration of the impact of
autonomous developments in society on
quality elements and parameters
representing the status of surface- and
groundwater (“baselines in practice”).
Impact assessment
MODELKEY
6.9
Impact of hydropower
6.10
Impact from agricultural activities on
water bodies
Appropriate database for storing water
related data
WGA,
WGB,
WGC,
WGE
WGA,
WGB
WGA,
WGB
WGD
Data management 7.1
Measure
assessment
7.2
Data aggregation
WGD
7.3
GIS data management
WGD
8.1
Limitation of negative impact of flood
defence works
Assessment of hydromorphological
rehabilitation measures for river types
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
9
WFD policy
questions
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
9.1
9.2
WGA
General insight in the most effective and WGB
cost effective measures (e.g. should we
focus on chemical water quality
improvement, or focus on improvement
of the habitat quality, or which
combinations of those?)
Decision support systems for the selection WGB
of the best alternative in the programme
of measures
Methodologies to deal with social and
WGB
economic issues to develop future
scenarios
Elaboration of models for prediction
WGB
Decision support systems taking account WGB
the availability of data, the quality of data,
the scale to which available data apply,
and resulting uncertainties.
The decision support systems may focus WGB
on various levels of scale (EU, region,
country, river basin, smaller area etc)
Assessment of the impact of measures on
the chemical an biological quality of
surface and ground waters using
“practical and well considered
approaches”
Linking ecological and socio-economical
models
Tools for presentation to show the effects
of different measures and scenario's
Page 18 of 31
WATERSKETCH
EUROHARP,
WATERSKETCH
EUROHARP,
HARMONIQUA,
HARMONIRIB
HARMONIQUA,
HARMONIRIB, HarmonIT
WATERSKETCH
MODELKEY
MODELKEY
WATERSKETCH
MODELKEY
EUROHARP,
HARMONIRIB (!),
TRANSCAT
EURO-LIMPACS,
HARMONIRIB,
TRANSCAT
WGB
WGA,
WGB
WGB
HarmoniCA-WP3,
HARMONIRIB, HarmonIT
EUROHARP,
HARMONIRIB
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
No
No
Sub-issue
CIS
group
Research project
9.3
Community education and involvement in WGB
decision making
HARMONICOP,
NEWATER,
WATERSKETCH
9.4
Approach to evaluation of artificial
irrigation canals (in period of year
without water)
Assess the effectiveness of the
implementation programme. Evaluation
of environmental results of implemented
programmes of measures (e.g. the effects
of completed wastewater programs on the
chemical, ecological status of water
bodies in selected sub-river basins, urban
waste water directive; lessons to be
learned)
Economy - cost/benefits and cost
WGB
recovery problems
Scale of the analysis for individual
elements (pressures) of the costeffectiveness analysis
Dealing with changes to cost recovery
mechanisms as potential measures within
the first POM
Developing business as usual models and
dealing with less than full application of
other water policies in the costeffectiveness analysis.
Prioritising economic appraisal for the
first POM given the difficult timings
10 Policy assessment 10.1
11 Socio-economy
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.8
11.9
12 Others:
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
Incorporating the time related costs of
measures in the cost-effectiveness
analysis (e.g. related to capacity
constraints, industry investment phases
etc.)
Translating standards for
GES/classifications schemes into
specifications of environmental benefits
from a human (anthropogenic)
perspective
Establish reliable benefits transfer
approaches for assessing disproportionate
costs.
Assessing disproportionate costs in
protected areas where there is flexibility
in meeting WFD related objectives.
HarmoniCA-WP3,
HARMONIRIB,
MODELKEY, NEWATER
HarmoniCA-WP3,
HARMONIRIB
HarmoniCA-WP3,
HARMONIRIB
11.10 Coordinating cost-effectiveness analysis
in transboundary water bodies.
HarmoniCA-WP3,
TRANSCAT
11.11 Dealing with uncertainty about measures
given differencing levels of uncertainty
across sectors contributing to pressures
(e.g. agriculture/water industry) in an
even handed manner.
HarmoniCA-WP3,
HARMONIRIB
12.1
CLIME, EURO-LIMPACS
Climate change
Page 19 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
No
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
No
Sub-issue
CIS
group
12.2
12.3
12.4
Flooding
Industrial Wastewater
Landfill and waste
12.5
Urban Wastewater
Research project
EAF
ACTIF, FLOODRELIEF,
Floods FLOODSITE
WSSTP
CEMERA
AISUWRS, CARE-S,
CD4WC, CITYNET,
DAYWATER, WSSTP
Generally speaking, most issues are covered by one or more research projects. This
conclusion can be specified into two opposite directions:
1. The only research projects taken into consideration are EU financed projects that are
currently being executed. Undoubtedly, even more issues would have matched with
research when also already finalised projects would have been considered (the reason
for this choice is explained later). This would lead to the conclusion that research
covers even a higher degree of issues.
2. On the contrary, the issues for research as identified by Phase I, are not described in a
very specific manner. The description leaves room for interpretation, which makes is
relatively easy to find research projects that seem to fit the question completely or at
least partially. This would lead to the conclusion that the degree of coverage is
significantly lower.
Another way of examining the subject is to simply take the number of research projects
dedicated to a certain issue, e.g. in order to be able to prioritise new research to be
started. This leads to a division into three groups (see table below8).
High coverage (2-4 research
projects per issue)
- Water resources and
demand management
- Groundwater management
- Knowledge on physical
processes
- Policy assessment
Medium coverage (1-2
research projects per issue)
- Monitoring
- Data management
- WFD policy questions
Low coverage (Less than 1
research project per issue)
- Knowledge on ecological
processes
- Impact assessment
- Measures assessment
- Economics
Still, it is very difficult to draw conclusions on whether research projects match with
demands from the WFD implementation side without specification of both project results
and questions. During Phase 2 it has been proved to be very difficult to provide such
specifications in a generic way. At the same time, it is obvious that only research that is
well tuned into the needs at policy level will be used effectively. It doesn’t make much
sense to – for example – develop ‘decision support systems’ if those are not wanted by
the ones intended to make use of them. This brings us to the relation between research
and policy.
8
The category “Others” is left out of the table. This category gathers issues and research projects that were not identified in
Phase I, but are still relevant for the CIS process.
Page 20 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
Research and policy – improving the relationship
The relationship between researchers and policy-makers is an uneasy one. Researchers
often consider that there is no audience for their work; despite the important products
they develop. By contrast, policy-makers often consider that what researchers contribute
is not relevant, too theoretical and not applicable in practice.
Caricaturing – slightly provoking – the following respective viewpoints about each
other can be drafted:
Policy
- Researchers do not understand how
policy processes work, and therefore
develop tools that we do not need or
cannot apply.
- I never get a clear answer from
researchers on my clear question.
- Research produces information that is
unintelligible, irrelevant and
inassimilable.
- The reality we have to work with is
too complex to be understood.
- Researchers need too much – and too
expensive – data.
- If we don’t have scientifically sound
tools at our disposal, we just develop
them ourselves.
Research
- Policy-makers do not know how
much research is already available,
just waiting for them to be used.
- Policy-makers even seem to ignore
the existence of research, and rather
develop simplified knowledge
themselves.
- Policy-makers think ahead only one
day, so we don’t get time to answer
their questions.
- Policy-makers take decisions that do
not have rational foundations.
- New scientific insights should lead to
changes in policy as soon as possible.
- Policy-makers want sound research
without having to pay for it.
A lot has been written and said about this relation, and when it comes to
recommendations for improvement, the solution is frequently sought in improving the
communications between the two worlds, e.g. by exchange programmes. Initiatives to
improve the relationship between research and WFD implementation also do exist. Two
examples are mentioned here; the “Scientific support to policy” instrument under FP6,
and the Harmoni-CA initiative.
The EU Sixth Framework Programme (FP6) provides funds for research projects, with
“research for policy support” being one of the fields of interest. The activities under this
heading underpin the formulation and implementation of Community policies; amongst
Page 21 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
others the implementation of the WFD. REBECCA, SWIFT-WFD and BRIDGE9 are
such projects with relevance for the WFD, and other projects are under negotiation.
An important learning point from the cooperation between Working Group A on
Ecological Status and the research project REBECCA is that improving the
communication is an important matter that pays. The cooperation between the two
groups did not arise by itself. People have to bring about the cooperation together,
which means that they have to meet and communicate frequently. For example,
REBECCA produced a ‘gap report’, reviewing and identifying information gaps in
knowledge on relations between pressures, chemical and ecological status for the major
pressure types and biological quality elements. This document aimed at serving as
working document in the Working Group A. In this way, not only the gaps in
knowledge were identified, but also the gap between policy-makers and researchers was
bridged.
This relation between research and policy was the item during the last two Harmoni-CA
conferences (Feb. 2004 and April 2005) and since April 2004 first steps have been set to
bridge the gap between both groups. An important activity of Harmoni-CA is the setting
up of a web portal ‘WISE-RTD’ that enables policy-makers to find information about
research results and experiences (both national and international) on key-issues related
to the implementation of the WFD.
A second activity is connecting researchers to project leaders of the Pilot River Basins.
For this a cross-table has been prepared to link the key-activities from the PRBs with
products delivered by the CatchMod projects.
A third activity is the preparation of guidance documents for tools in the field of
uncertainty analysis, quality assurance, etc.
Finally, Harmoni-CA prepares synthesis reports on different issues like data bases,
IWRM overview, N&P tools, data availability & accessibility problems, tools for
monitoring network design, etc. This activity is being carried out in close cooperation
with the FP6 project Newater.
All these information with be accessible by the web portal WISE-RTD. Since April
2004 Harmoni-CA participates in Working Group B and the PRB meetings and
Working Group B participates in the CatchMod meetings.
Taking the experiences with REBECCA and Harmoni-CA into consideration, it seems
worthwhile to involve representatives of research projects in several parts of the
Common Implementation Strategy. Or, to be more precise, to involve representatives of
projects that are currently under execution. Running projects have the possibility to
anticipate and to adapt the output, e.g. “The model needs 4 parameters while only 3 are
available, can we work around it?” In direct communication the merits of the project
can be judged, for which problems it produces solutions, and where other solutions are
needed. This does not only concerns the field of expertise, but also the applicability at a
given scale (water body level ⇔ EU level), level of abstraction (conceptual, serving as
input for a guidance document ⇔ concrete, serving as input for e.g. a PRB), the data
and data formats needed and available, geographical circumstances, and finally the
administrative culture in which the solution fits best.
Of course, the emphasis on running projects does not mean that finalised projects are of
no interest. At the same time, one may assume that researchers of running projects do
9
Annex 2 provides more information about the individual projects.
Page 22 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
have knowledge about the findings of previous projects. The website of the finalised
project MULINO for example, announces that the results will be further developed in
the projects NEWATER and TRANSCAT.
Conclusions
-
-
It turned out to be impossible to generate a list of specific topics as input for the
research community with the generic information available.
Generally speaking, the issue categories “Water resources and demand
management”, “Groundwater management”, “Knowledge on physical processes” en
“Policy assessment” are relatively well covered by research, with 2-4 projects per
issue. The issue categories “Knowledge on ecological processes”, “Impact
assessment”, “Measures assessment” and “Economics” are relatively poorly covered,
with less than 1 project per issue. The categories “Monitoring”, “Data management”
and “WFD policy questions” fall in between, with 1-2 projects per issue.
It turned out during the activity that there are some fundamental gaps in our
understanding of ecological processes and particularly of the impact of human
activities on those processes. Whilst there is ongoing research, it won't deliver all of
the answers and there are still going to be gaps in our understanding when we come
to doing river basin planning.
Page 23 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
4.
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
ASSESSMENT IN COMPARISON WITH PRB REPORT AND CIS WORK PROGRAMME
This section assesses the outcomes of the questionnaire in comparison with the outcomes
of the PRB exercise and the CIS work programme for 2005 and 2006.
PRB reports
In 2004, two PRB reports were produced; the first one on PRB phase 1A testing, that
covered the CIS guidance documents regarding the article 5 report, the second one on
PRB phase 1B testing, that covered the rest of the guidance documents.
In general terms, the PRB reports underline the outcomes of the questionnaire:
- The implementation of the WFD will have effects on water management structures
throughout Europe. The structure of many administrations with tasks in water
management does not fit the WFD requirements. This could often raise problems
during the implementation of the directive (PRB 1B pg. 8 and conclusions).
- The PRBs reported data gaps and difficulties in comparing data from different
sources, especially in the first phase of the PRB exercise (PRB 1B pg.12 and section
3.3).
- Difficulties with knowledge of pressure – impact relations, threshold values for
pressures, and the conditions of good status following from reference conditions
(PRB 1A pg. 12). Though the PRB experienced these difficulties, they also conclude
that on the level of detail: “The focus of the guidance documents has shifted during
their development from recipe books for the operational level to sketches of outlines
for the national scale, but the current level of detail suits well. Less detail would give
too little direction, while more detail would mean that not all situations would fit. Of
course, this approach implies that specific elements do need development at a
national scale.” Instead, one also could read “at river basin district scale”.
- PRBs reported specific challenges in international river basin district, e.g. regarding
upstream-downstream relationships (PRB 1B pg. 15).
- Although in the questionnaire countries ask for harmonisation of data collection,
storage and management, the PRBs could not reach an agreement on how to perform
this (PRB 1B pg.16).
- The PRB report specifically discussed the issue of public participation. In the
questionnaire, this issue hardly was mentioned as being of concern (PRB 1A and 1B).
- The PRB report discusses several bottlenecks in the WFD planning process,
summarised into a few basic issues within the Directive: unclear objectives and data
that become available only long after they are needed in the process (PRB 1A pg. 20
and on).
- The article 5 analyses and objectives should be revised and improved after 2005, as
an iterative process, to optimise the design of both the monitoring programmes and
the programme of measures (PRB 1A conclusion).
CIS work programme
The CIS work programme presents a list of priority activities (refer to Annex IV). All
these activities merit equal considerations. However, a few important aspects are
highlighted below. The following description is copied from the final draft work
programme.
The intercalibration is a core task provided by the Water Framework Directive which
Page 24 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
is essential for ensuring a comparable level of protection in consistency with the
Directive. A number of additional activities, including the preparation of the
eutrophication guidance, are all intended to support the intercalibration exercise and
improve the quality of the results.
The pilot river basin exercise will continue to be an important exercise and “symbol” of
the Common Implementation Strategy. The integration of pilot basins in all working
groups and all activities under the CIS will create a closer link to the practical
implementation work.
Integrated river basin management covers a wide range of issues and aspects. It is
therefore important to identify priority issues, which need to be addressed on EU level.
The activity on screening the Article 5 analysis reports and linking it to research
priorities is designed to this end. In addition, the assessment of cost-effectiveness is in
the centre of attention in the beginning. Moreover, the initiated activity on water
scarcity should be incorporated into this framework. This activity is carried out in cooperation with the EU Water Initiative and participation from countries outside the EU
should be encouraged. At a later stage in the work programme, issues related to improve
international river basin management should be addressed.
On groundwater and priority substances, the CIS process should provide an
information exchange platform to address issues of practical relevance and importance as
long as the negotiations on the proposals is ongoing. In particular, the aspects of
chemical monitoring should be addressed to develop guidance on some key issues. As
regards priority substances, the information exchange may also address all those aspects
referred to in Article 16 (such as the identification of new priority substances, the setting
of environmental quality standards, the source screening and the reflection on emission
control measures).
On reporting, the preparation of the guidance part on reporting of monitoring results
should be addressed in 2005 and the part on reporting the river basin management
plan should be started as soon as possible afterwards. Furthermore, the harmonisation
and information exchange on geographical information systems (GIS) should be
another priority in order to improve the tools necessary to exchange spatial data in the
context of reporting into the “Water Information System for Europe” (WISE).
The link of agriculture and WFD has been identified as one of the highest priority in
this work programme. It will be important to discuss on how the Common Agricultural
Policy can contribute to the achievements of the WFD objectives and provide guidance
on how the authorities working on the WFD and the CAP can co-operate more closely.
In addition, recommendations should be made on how work with the farming community
can achieve these results in a co-operative manner.
A new policy on flood protection is developing at the moment following the
Commission Communication11 of July 2004 and the recent Council conclusion on this
document. In order to prepare the necessary follow-up, the work on flood risk
management should be brought under the umbrella of the CIS process.
Moreover, the work on environmental objectives will become increasingly important.
Currently, a discussion document is under preparation. On the basis of this document, the
Page 25 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
Water Directors will identify the subsequent activities, which will be engaged in the CIS
work programme 2005/2006. The work on environmental objectives will be carried out
by a step-by-step approach in which the mandate is formulated iteratively by addressing
some of the key aspects in more detail such as, e.g. discussions on derogations.
Finally, there are also other priorities, which have emerged already, such as the
integration of the WFD aspects into other Community policy, in particular the
Cohesion Policy, Transport Policy (navigation) and the Renewable Energies Policy
(hydropower). Detailed initiatives should be developed during 2005 for each of those.
On Cohesion Policy, there is already a drafting group established under another forum,
the Expert Group on environmental aspects in Structural and Cohesion Policy. The WFD
is investigated as a case study on how Cohesion Policy can contribute better to the
achievements of EU environmental policies. For the other
two aspects, a workshop dealing with hydromorphological pressures and the designation
of HMWB during 2005 may be a starting point to prepare a new, targeted activity on
transport and navigation under the CIS 2005/2006.
Below an overview of the organisational structure is presented.
Conclusions
As already written above, the PRB reports underline the outcomes of the questionnaire in
general terms. Most of the issues identified by the European countries are part of the CIS
work programme, or can easily be fitted in.
Page 26 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
At this moment, no group is addressing the hydromorphology issue explicitly, but the
first steps are made in such a direction. The structure presented above does also not
directly cover the difficulties felt with pollution from households and industries. It might
be worthwhile to investigate whether other policy areas sufficiently tackle these topics or
new initiatives could be useful (Annex V provides a short overview of the BAT
reference documents from the IPPC Directive). The conclusion that co-ordination with
other policy areas might be needed, is stressed by the outcomes under ‘WFD process’
(2.2), noting that there is a “fragmentation of the water legislation and powers”.
Several returns mention the need for tools, methods and insight in processes in the water
systems, and so underline the importance the strengthening of the relations with the
research community.
Page 27 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
5.
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
SUMMARY
Below, the results are summarised of the questionnaire to the most important issues in
the WFD implementation, as identified by the European countries. Firstly, the summary
focuses on the key issues with EU relevance, divided in ‘driving forces and pressures’
(4.1) and ‘other obstacles’ (4.2). Secondly, the issues are assessed in comparison with
the CIS working programme 2005-2006 (4.3). As foreseen in the activities’ mandate, the
key issues and identified knowledge gaps will be further linked with existing research
projects during the course of 2005.
5.1.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Driving forces and pressures with EU relevance
Impact of agriculture is considered as the “crucial issue” for almost every water
category regarding pollution and has the highest priority. In a great majority of the
countries, agriculture is the cause of severe problems. In some parts of Europe
agriculture has an impact on the reduction of flows of rivers and groundwater.
A second priority is morphology. This issue is mainly affected by works related to
hydropower, flood defence, building of reservoirs and agriculture in rivers. In some
parts of Europe navigation is considered to be a principal issue. The issue is
considered especially relevant for rivers. In certain regions, marine engineering
works are of specific concern. Aquifer modifications are only mentioned when linked
to the presence of reservoirs. Alleviation of hydromorphological impacts - caused by
bank alterations, navigation, hydropower and the presence of dykes - are also
emphasised.
Pollution from “households” (municipal wastewater) is a problem in a large
majority of the countries in rivers. This applies all sub-categories mentioned in the
questionnaire (municipal waste water, storm water overflows, and domestic waste
water not connected to a sewer system). Three major reasons for problems with this
issue have been identified: firstly, in several countries the sewer and treatment
facilities are not sufficiently developed. Secondly, in some countries the discharge of
treated wastewater into small streams leads to problems. Finally, the presence of
substances in the sewage that are hardly retained in the treatment facilities causes
difficulties (e.g. heavy metals). During the discussions, it was stressed that pollution
from point sources (i.e. municipal and industrial wastewater) must be tackled in order
to reach the objective of good status.
Pollution from “industry” does not seem to be an important issue at EU level.
Nevertheless, the fact cannot be ignored that individual countries face severe
problems with the consequences of existing industries.
Under the topic “other sources of pollution”, the issues “diffuse sources”,
“transport”, “long range transport of air pollution”, “new priority substances”, and
“historic pollution” are issues of concern.
Reduction in flow linked to groundwater is mainly identified with abstractions for
drinking water supply and agriculture.
Other anthropogenic pressures are not considered very relevant at EU level. In
general, lakes, and coastal and transitional waters are considered more susceptible to
these types of pressures. Climate change is considered a pertinent issue, though the
effects on the water system, and thus the WFD implementation, are not well
understood. The issue of Climate Change could have impacts on reference
conditions.
Page 28 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
5.2.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other obstacles
Problems were encountered related to data availability, data formats and the level of
aggregation of data. Although not commonly supported, the general feeling was that
further implementation of the WFD will lead to a solution for the problems.
Similar difficulties were encountered at international level regarding disunity in
methods and data formats. This issue seems more profound in cases where non-EU
countries are part of the international river basin district. An additional point in
international river basins is the ‘upstream-downstream’ relation.
In a number of cases, adequate measures can only be formulated at EU level (e.g.
marketing and use, pesticide directive, etcetera).
Countries had to face different knowledge gaps, such as the absence of possibilities
to estimate the current status of the water system, gaps in knowledge on the
interactions between different water systems (e.g. the interactions between surface
water, groundwater and sediments), lack of models to predict the effects and the
combined effects of pressures, lack of insight in reference conditions and the good
status, and, finally, a deficiency in instruments to assess the effect of proposed
measures.
Several countries reported difficulties in securing appropriate resources for the WFD
implementation. Many countries expect this resource problem to increase in the
future.
Specific attention was paid to the method of ‘how to present the outcomes of the
Article 5 reports in the WFD context’ (key elements: ‘pre-selection of problems for
follow up steps’, ‘communication with stakeholders, actors and the public at large’,
‘rules of the game’). This is not only a concern for Member States, but also for the
European Commission when the results of the Article 5 analyses are synthesised and
communicated, e.g. clarification of the role of socio-economics in the
implementation of the Directive.
5.3.
-
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
Research needs
It turned out to be impossible to generate a list of specific topics as input for the
research community with the generic information available.
Generally speaking, the issue categories “Water resources and demand
management”, “Groundwater management”, “Knowledge on physical processes” en
“Policy assessment” are relatively well covered by research, with 2-4 projects per
issue. The issue categories “Knowledge on ecological processes”, “Impact
assessment”, “Measures assessment” and “Economics” are relatively poorly covered,
with less than 1 project per issue. The categories “Monitoring”, “Data management”
and “WFD policy questions” fall in between, with 1-2 projects per issue.
It turned out during the activity that there are some fundamental gaps in our
understanding of ecological processes and particularly of the impact of human
activities on those processes. Whilst there is ongoing research, it won't deliver all of
the answers and there are still going to be gaps in our understanding when we come
to doing river basin planning.
5.4.
Assessment in comparison with the CIS working programme 2005-2006 and
other existing initiatives
Most of the key issues are already covered by activities under the current CIS working
programme:
Page 29 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
Driving forces and pressures
The issue of agriculture is already recognised by the WD given the start of the new
Strategic Steering Group “WFD and Agriculture”. Since the activities of this group cover
the issue, no additional activities are needed until further notice.
Following the discussions during the WD meeting in Amsterdam, the EC requested an
input on views from the WD concerning hydropower and navigation, as a first step to
establish a new activity with respect to hydromorphology. This action seems to cover the
issue of hydromorphology to a large extent, though further development might be
worthwhile. At the planned September workshop, the issue of the HMWB designation
process and Good Ecological Potential should be explored.
The issue of municipal wastewater is covered by the implementation of the urban
wastewater treatment directive (UWWTD, 91/271/EC) when it comes to insufficient
wastewater treatment facilities. It might be worthwhile to investigate whether additional
measures are needed in order to comply with the objectives of the WFD, especially with
regards to municipal wastewater from smaller agglomerations and to substances that are
not sufficiently retained in treatment facilities.
Generally speaking, the “IPPC BREF-process” covers the industrial sectors previously
mentioned. Nevertheless, it might be worthwhile to set up a system of information
exchange between individual countries, and the issue of “mining” and “landfill and
waste” might need extra attention.
In a number of a cases, with respect to the “other sources of pollution”, adequate
measures can only be formulated at EU level in a number of cases. This issue deserves
further investigation at EU level.
The issue “reduction in flow” is covered by the activity on water scarcity (under WGB).
The issue “climate change” has been studied already by the JRC, and deserves further
attention at EU level, since the impacts are largely unknown but may possibly have
substantial effects on the European water systems.
Several of the above-mentioned issues, might be very difficult to tackle with WFD
instruments only. Integration with other policy areas is therefore an option to be
considered.
Other obstacles
Actions at the level of Member States and International River Basin Districts are
necessary in order to overcome the difficulties with data availability. Some of them are
tackled by the activities of the Working Group D on Reporting and the Working Group
A with regard to the topic of intercalibration.
It is worthwhile to further investigate the various issues covered by the title
“international co-ordination” at EU level.
The same applies to “knowledge gaps”. In the second phase of this activity, steps will be
taken to improve the link between CIS and the research community.
The issue of “resources” should be solved by MS individually.
Finally, it could be advantageous to further formulate the issue of “communication of
WFD implementation results” at EU level.
Research needs
The relationship between research and policy is not always an easy one, but can be
improved by intensifying the face-to-face communication between the respective groups.
It would be worthwhile to organise a closer cooperation between CIS working groups
and relevant research projects. On the one hand, WG leaders can invite research groups
Page 30 of 31
WFD Key Issues and Research Needs
Final version, including phase 1 and 2, December 2005
regularly to the meetings of working groups and discuss the demands and possible
solutions offered (starting on a broad level, and narrowing down to a very specified
level). On the other hand, WG leaders can join meetings and workshops of research
projects of interest.
Page 31 of 31
Annex 1: Project team, Sounding Board, and Participants
Ghent meeting
Project team
Manuel
Marc
Gerard
Sandra
Menendez
De Rooy
Broseliske
Mol
Cedex
RIZA
RIZA
RIZA
Spain
The Netherlands
The Netherlands
The Netherlands
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sounding Board
Giovanni
Stéphanie
Thierry
Joachim
Jean
Anne
Robert
Marta
Philippe
Seppo
Sabine
Francesca
Thomas
Bidoglio
Croguennec
Davy
d'Eugenio
Erbacher
Gendebien
Hitchen
Moren
Quevauviller
Rekolainen
Rosenbaum
Somma
Stratenwerth
JRC
Ministry of Environment
French Water Agencies
DG Environment
SNIFFER
WRC
DEFRA
Ministry of Environment
DG Environment
Finnish Environment Institute - SYKE
Länder
JRC
Federal Environmental Ministry
Italy
France
France
European Commission
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Spain
European Commission
Finland
Germany
Italy
Germany
Participants to the Ghent meeting
Anna
Geo
Eleonora
Gerard
Stéphanie
Bob
Marc
Ilke
Anne
Eszter
Mariina
Robert
Edith
Kirsty
Manuel
Sandra
Roger
Marta
Tony
Giorgio
Philippe
Seppo
Jean-Marie
John
Francesca
Anne
Natasa
Åhr Evertson
Arnold
Bartkova
Broseliske
Croguennec
Dekker
De Rooy
Dieltjens
Gendebien
Havasné Szilágyi
Hiiob
Hitchen
Hödl
Irving
Menendez
Mol
Moore
Moren
Niilonen
Pineschi
Quevauviller
Rekolainen
Ries
Sadlier
Somma
Thoren
Vodopivec
WFD key issues, Final version
Swedish EPA
RIZA
Ministry of Environment
RIZA
Ministry of Environment
Ministry of Public Works and Water Management
RIZA
Vlaamse Milieu Maatschappij
WRC
Ministry of Environment and Water
Ministry of Environment
DEFRA
DG Environment
SNIFFER
Cedex
RIZA
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
Ministry of Environment
Danish EPA
Ministry of Environment
DG Environment
Finnish Environment Institute - SYKE
Ministry of Interior
Department of Environment
JRC
Swedish EPA
Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning
Annex I
Sweden
The Netherlands
Slovakia
The Netherlands
France
The Netherlands
The Netherlands
Belgium
United Kingdom
Hungary
Estonia
United Kingdom
EC
United Kingdom
Spain
The Netherlands
United Kingdom
Spain
Denmark
Italy
EC
Finland
Luxembourg
Ireland
Italy
Sweden
Slovenia
Page 1 of 1
Questionnaire
On WFD key issues
Purpose of the questionnaire
In the 2005-2006 mandate for WGB (on Integrated River Basin Management), an activity is foreseen
on the exchange of information deriving from the article 5 activities, and the need for research
resulting from that exchange. That mandate has been endorsed by the Water Directors during their
meeting in Amsterdam, last December.
The objective of the activity is to identify and prioritise issues and research needs deriving from the
WFD Article 5 activity, that need a EU-wide approach. In order to reach that objective, the following
steps will be executed:
- The first step consists in preparing a first draft list of issues and gaps identified during the
WFD Article 5 activity in a ‘light process’, before the actual Article 5 reports are finalised.
- In a second step, this first draft list is checked for EU level relevance and prioritised, once the
Article 5 reports have been published (during a workshop in the beginning of April). Right after
this check, the research needs deriving from the problems issues are made more explicit
(taking into account input from the research society, and resulting in a draft list of research
topics).
- Finally, the objective is to have both lists endorsed by the WD via the SCG.
This questionnaire must provide us with the information for the first draft list of issues and gaps, and
forms thus the basis of the activity.
Introduction to the questionnaire
The questionnaire aims at collecting answers at national level, with a national perspective. We ask you
to complete one questionnaire per country, so not for every river basin district. The questionnaire
consists of seven boxes to complete, starting with the coordinates of the official completing the form
and then continuing with six questions divided into three sections.
Section A asks for information on driving forces and pressures that prevent the achievement of good
status. It addresses the alterations of the physical or hydromorphological, quantitative, chemical and
biological conditions of the water system.
Section B asks for information on other conditions that hamper or even prevent the achievement of
good status, in particular at the level of the actual implementation of the WFD, and your views on any
future issues.
Section C finally, asks for your opinion on those issues that should be further developed at EU level.
If you have any questions when completing the questionnaire, please contact Marc de Rooy (+31 6
2000 4508), Gerard Broseliske (+31 320 298447) or Manuel Menéndez Prieto (+34 91 335 7939)
Completed by:
Country:
Name:
Organisation:
Address:
E-mail:
Mobile phone:
Fax:
Questionnaire on WFD issues
Telephone:
Version: 19-01-2005 – def
Page 1 of 6
SECTION A;
Driving forces and pressures that prevent the achievement
of good status
This first section asks for information on driving forces and pressures that altered the physical,
quantitative, chemical and biological conditions of the water system in a way that prevents the
achievement of good status.
In discussions, often general issues such as ‘agriculture’ or ‘hydromorphological changes’ are stated
to be the cause for not achieving good status. Our intention is to generate more in depth answers. We
therefore added specifications to the different issues, and we ask which issues generate concern for
which categories of water bodies (i.e. rivers, lakes, coastal or transitional water, and groundwater).
The list in this section is based upon the IMPRESS guidance document.
Please use the following guidance (see also example below):
- Please complete the grey lines and specify your answer in the white lines underneath. The
yellow lines are meant as headers only.
- If an issue is of concern to you, please indicate the weighting of the item using a scale of 1- 5;
1 indicates ‘it is a problem, or might become a problem, but with little impact and not of high
priority at this moment’, while 5 indicates that ‘the issue is the main reason for not achieving
the objectives, and is our top-priority’. You can also put a question mark (?), meaning that the
issue might possibly be a big pressure, but the actual impacts on the ecological quality are
poorly known or you you’re lacking data or you’re insure about the quality of the data.
- Please indicate the category of water body that is affected by the pressure.
- Boxes left open tell us that the issue is of no concern, or is not relevant for that category of
water body.
Example:
For a country, to the extent possible, households in cities are connected to outdated sewer systems,
the capacity of which needs upgrading. The sewer systems are connected to sewage treatment plants
with appropriate phosphate and nitrogen removal.
Households scattered in rural areas are not connected, and discharge into groundwater after
individual treatment, that often needs improving.
There are no lakes and the rivers flow into sea directly. The majority of the population lives in the cities
The table could be completed as follows:
Questionnaire on WFD issues
Version: 19-01-2005 – def
Groundwater
3
1
5
Coastal /
Transitional
POLLUTION
Households
Households - municipal waste water
Households - storm water overflows
Households - domestic waste water (not connected to a sewer
system)
Lakes
Water Body Category
Rivers
This is an example
A1: Driving forces and pressures
2
1
3
3
2
4
Page 2 of 6
Groundwater
Coastal /
Transitional
Lakes
- Complete both grey and white lines
- Scale 1-5
- Also indicate the category of water body
- Left blank? ⇒ not of concern or not relevant in your case
Water Body Category
Rivers
A1: Driving forces and pressures
POLLUTION
Households
Households - municipal waste water
Households - storm water overflows
Households - domestic waste water (not connected to a sewer system)
Industry
Oil and gas (including refineries and petrochemical industries)
Chemicals (organic and inorganic)
Pulp, paper & boards
Textile industry (including wool)
Tanning of hides and leather manufacture
Iron and steel
Non-ferrous metals
Power generation (not hydropower)
Shipyards
Other manufacturing processes (namely: …………………………………)
Agriculture
Arable land, grassland, mixed farming
Crops with intensive nutrient or pesticide usage or long bare soil periods
(e.g. corn, potato, sugar beet, grapevine, hop, fruit, vegetable)
Over grazing and cropping practice – resulting in erosion
Horticulture, including greenhouses
Other sources of pollution
Aquaculture / fish farming
Forestry
Impervious areas
Mining (including quarries)
Landfill and waste sites
Transport
ABSTRACTION
Reduction in flow
Abstractions for agriculture
Abstractions for drinking water supply
Abstractions for industrial purposes
Abstractions for fish farming
Abstractions for mining
Abstractions for navigation (e.g. canals)
ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE
Groundwater recharge
MORPHOLOGY
Flow management
Hydropower works (including dams)
Reservoirs
CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE
Questionnaire on WFD issues
Version: 19-01-2005 – def
Page 3 of 6
Groundwater
Coastal /
Transitional
Lakes
- Complete both grey and white lines
- Scale 1-5
- Also indicate the category of water body
- Left blank? ⇒ not of concern or not relevant in your case
Water Body Category
Rivers
A1: Driving forces and pressures
Flood defence works
Water transfer (including pumping stations)
Weirs, dams, locks, and sluices for navigational purposes
River management
Physical alteration of channel (including banks and dikes)
Shipping
Modification for agricultural purposes
Modification for fishery purposes
Land transport infrastructure (road/bridge construction)
Dredging
Transitional and coastal management
Estuarine/coastal dredging
Maritime engineering works (shipyards, harbours)
Land reclamation and polders
Coastal sand supply (safety)
OTHER ANTHROPOGENIC PRESSURES AND IMPACTS
Recreation
Fishing/angling
Introduced / alien species
Climate change
Others, namely ………………………………………………………………
A2: Programme of Measures
Which 10 of these issues are the most significant and will most probably be included in the Programme
of Measures?
Priority (highmedium-low)
Issue
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Questionnaire on WFD issues
Version: 19-01-2005 – def
Page 4 of 6
SECTION B;
Other conditions that hamper the achievement of good
status
Not only chemical, physical, quantitative and biological conditions hamper the achievement of the
objectives. Also other issues could be at stake, such as the availability of data, non-harmonised data
formats and methods of data aggregation, human resources, and international co-operation in a river
basin that may also complicate achieving those objectives.
B.1: What other obstacles did you face when producing the Article 5 report?
B.2: What issues do you expect to be an obstacle in the future (2-10 years)?
Questionnaire on WFD issues
Version: 19-01-2005 – def
Page 5 of 6
SECTION C;
- Issues that deserve further development at EU level
- The need for research
Some of the issues that you listed above will gain from a transnational approach, while for others this is
less favourable. One would expect that issues with major transnational characteristics will benefit from
an EU-wide approach, but also issues that occur at local level in the majority of EU member states could
merit from a transnational approach.
C.1 When looking at potential measures for the issues listed in sections A and B,
which of them would merit from an international approach? Indicate EU-level or
International River Basin District-level.
Issue
EU
IRBD
both
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C.2 For which of the issues listed under C.1 do you identify gaps of knowledge or a
lack of methodologies that could be input for research projects?
Issue
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Thank you for your assistance!
Please return the questionnaire to Marc de Rooy by e-mail ([email protected]).
Questionnaire on WFD issues
Version: 19-01-2005 – def
Page 6 of 6
WFD key issues - Annex IIIA: Input from the countries to Section A1 - Final version
Lakes
Coastal / Transitional
Groundwater
Rivers
Lakes
Coastal / Transitional
Groundwater
20
24
21
22
17
10
15
15
14
10
12
14
13
6
12
14
11
11
11
4
7
6
6
4
7
7
8
6
16
17
12
10
14
14
11
7
4
4
10
10
9
13
16
16
8
19
17
10
12
7
5
8
10
10
8
3
58
70
56
58
41
21
44
32
28
21
32
32
28
9
27
32
24
29
18
5
14
10
10
5
11
12
12
10
41
44
23
23
29
27
26
13
4
5
15
20
12
25
32
29
9
47
40
23
33
18
12
16
24
24
20
3
77
92
81
85
65
38
58
58
54
38
46
54
50
23
46
54
42
42
42
15
27
23
23
15
27
27
31
23
62
65
46
38
54
54
42
27
15
15
38
38
35
50
62
62
31
73
65
38
46
27
19
31
38
38
31
12
2,9
2,9
2,7
2,6
2,4
2,1
2,9
2,1
2,0
2,1
2,7
2,3
2,2
1,5
2,3
2,3
2,2
2,6
1,6
1,3
2,0
1,7
1,7
1,3
1,6
1,7
1,5
1,7
2,6
2,6
1,9
2,3
2,1
1,9
2,4
1,9
1,0
1,3
1,5
2,0
1,3
1,9
2,0
1,8
1,1
2,5
2,4
2,3
2,8
2,6
2,4
2,0
2,4
2,4
2,5
1,0
26
26
26
26
7
0
20
20
2
0
14
14
2
0
18
14
2
1
19
20
20
0
67
61
4
0
45
41
5
0
53
36
6
1
71
64
27
0
77
77
8
0
54
54
8
0
69
54
8
4
73
77
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
22
14
15
1
13
14
12
9
16
15
8
10
1
8
8
10
5
10
13
9
8
0
12
15
7
5
7
20
9
14
1
13
7
8
3
15
72
38
35
4
29
30
25
18
41
48
21
22
4
18
15
19
6
19
41
20
19
0
22
29
10
9
8
73
19
38
4
31
8
10
3
39
85
54
58
4
50
54
46
35
62
58
31
38
4
31
31
38
19
38
50
35
31
0
46
58
27
19
27
77
35
54
4
50
27
31
12
58
3,2 3,7
2,2 2,1
2,4 2,7
4,0
1,8 2,4
1,9 1,1
1,4 1,3
1,8 1,0
1,1 2,6
2
1
2
26
26
18
18
8
9
7
11
20
12
44
35
18
20
15
23
52
20
69
69
31
35
27
42
77 2,4 2,3 2,1 2,6
46 1,9 2,2 2,1 1,7
1
1
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
16
18
16
16
10
6
5
2
10
12
11
10
6
3
2
1
5
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
17
18
20
16
6
10
1
0
34
40
32
31
17
10
6
7
18
20
18
16
8
3
2
2
6
3
2
2
2
1
3
2
45
37
51
31
7
24
1
0
62
69
62
62
38
23
19
8
38
46
42
38
23
12
8
4
19
12
8
8
8
4
8
4
65
69
77
62
23
38
4
0
26
1
0
0
11
1
0
0
17
4
0
0
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
17
20
20
19
12
15
16
23
14
21
12
15
17
3
4
3
1
2
9
9
10
10
5
4
5
8
5
8
4
6
7
1
1
1
0
1
6
1
2
7
2
3
4
4
4
3
3
5
7
12
13
15
8
10
5
2
5
1
2
0
3
3
0
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
52
63
57
49
28
42
45
68
30
58
21
33
39
5
9
8
1
3
21
21
20
20
9
6
12
15
9
21
4
15
12
3
3
3
0
2
12
1
2
17
3
8
10
11
9
4
4
10
17
31
37
41
20
21
9
4
9
2
5
0
6
6
0
9
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
65
77
77
73
46
58
62
88
54
81
46
58
65
12
15
12
4
8
35
35
38
38
19
15
19
31
19
31
15
23
27
4
4
4
0
4
23
4
8
27
8
12
15
15
15
12
12
19
27
46
50
58
31
38
19
8
19
4
8
0
12
12
0
12
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
3,1
3,2
2,9
2,6
2,3
2,8
2,8
3,0
2,1
2,8
1,8
2,2
2,3
1,7
2,3
2,7
1,0
1,5
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
11
8
14
10
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
10
8
10
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
8
8
11
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
19
15
31
21
0
1
0
0
4
5
1
21
16
29
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
19
18
24
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
7
0
0
1
4
0
0
3
42
31
54
38
0
4
0
0
4
4
4
38
31
38
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
31
31
42
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
4
0
8
0
0
4
4
0
0
4
1,7
1,9
2,2
2,1
26
26
26
26
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
5
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
5
0
0
4
0
4
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
0
-
2,9 2,0
3,4 3,2
3,1 2,9
3,3
2,7
2,3
4,0
2,2
2,1
2,1
2,0
2,6
3,2
2,6
2,2
4,0
2,3
1,9
1,9
1,2
1,9
2,1
2,2
2,0
1,9
1,7
1,7
1,2
3,5
-
1,8
1,7
1,6
1,6
1,3
1,0
1,0
2,0
42 1,0 -
2,5 3,0
1,0
2,9 3,7
2,6 3,2
1,2
1,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,6
2,1
2,6
1,9
1,2
2,4
1,0
-
-
2,0
1,0
1,0
2,4
1,5
2,7
2,5
2,8
2,3
1,3
1,3
2,0
2,4
2,6
2,8
2,7
2,5
2,0 2,1
-
2,4
2,3
2,2
2,3
1,0 4,0 5,0 1,0 1,0
-
-
-
2,0 5,0 3,0
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
5
1,5
2,3
2,3
2,0
2,0
1,8
1,5
2,4
1,9
1,8
2,6
1,0
2,5
1,7
3,0
3,0
3,0
2,1
2,0
2,9
2,7
Lakes
Rivers
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
Rivers
Groundwater
HU: military sites, wastewater irrigation, wastewater sludge disposal, abandoned wells
IT: urbanisation
MT: Saline intrusion in response to abstraction
LV:transboundary pollution
Coastal / Transitional
Landfill and waste sites
Transport
ABSTRACTION
Reduction in flow
Abstractions for agriculture
Abstractions for drinking water supply
Abstractions for industrial purposes
Abstractions for fish farming
Abstractions for mining
Abstractions for navigation (e.g. canals)
AU: Abstraction for hydropower generation
ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE
Groundwater recharge
MORPHOLOGY
Flow management
Hydropower works (including dams)
Reservoirs
Flood defence works
Water transfer (including pumping stations)
Weirs, dams, locks, and sluices for navigational purposes
River management
Physical alteration of channel (including banks and dikes)
Shipping
Modification for agricultural purposes
Modification for fishery purposes
Land transport infrastructure (road/bridge construction)
Dredging
Transitional and coastal management
Estuarine/coastal dredging
Maritime engineering works (shipyards, harbours)
Land reclamation and polders
Coastal sand supply (safety)
OTHER ANTHROPOGENIC PRESSURES AND IMPACTS
Recreation
Fishing/angling
Introduced / alien species
Climate change
Others, namely:
Austria: transboundary impacts
Belgium (Flanders): storage cold / warm
CZ: old contaminated sites
DE: lifestock farming
DE: enhancement of river depth/width relation
DE: acidification
Lakes
Arable land, grassland, mixed farming
Crops with intensive nutrient or pesticide usage or long bare soil periods (e.g. corn,
potato, sugar beet, grapevine, hop, fruit, vegetable)
Over grazing and cropping practice – resulting in erosion
Horticulture, including greenhouses
NL: intensive stock farming (part of agricultural policy)
Other sources of pollution
Aquaculture / fish farming
Forestry
Impervious areas
Mining (including quarries)
Rivers
Agriculture
Groundwater
Oil and gas (including refineries and petrochemical industries)
Chemicals (organic and inorganic)
Pulp, paper & boards
Textile industry (including wool)
Tanning of hides and leather manufacture
Iron and steel
Non-ferrous metals
Power generation (not hydropower)
Shipyards
Other manufacturing processes (namely: …………………………………)
BE, CZ, LV, NL, HU, HE, SI: food processing industry
MT: mechanical servicing
Coastal / Transitional
Industry
Aus
Lakes
Households - municipal waste water
Households - storm water overflows
Households - domestic waste water (not connected to a sewer system)
Added scores
Rivers
POLLUTION
Households
Number of respondents
Section A1
Times mentioned
Average ranking
(important if
mentioned?)
Times mentioned
(%) (broad issue?)
1,8
2,0
1,8
2,0
2,5
5
3
4
2
2
3
1
1
3,0
4
1
3
1,0
2,0
2
1
2,0
2,0
-
2,0
2,0
-
1
1
3,5
-
1
1,0
4,0
3,0
3,0
5,0
-
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
3
2
2
1
3
2
2
1
3
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
1
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
1
1
4
4
1
2
1
2
3
4
3
4
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
3
2
2
5
2
1
5
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
4
1
1
4
4
1
1
3
3
1
3
4
4
3
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
4
2
5
1
1
1
2
2
4
4
4
4
5
1
1
5
2
2
4
3
1
1
1
3
4
4
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
2
3
4
3
4
4
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
3
1
4
1
5
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
4
2
2
2
5
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
4
2
5
3
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
2
4
4
4
2
4
2
3
3
4
1
3
3
3
2
1
1
3
4
1
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
4
3
1
4
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
4
4
1
4
5
5
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
2
3
1
3
5
5
5
4
4
1
1
4
1
3
4
1
2
3
1
3
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
4
4
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
WFD key issues - Annex IIIA: Input from the countries to Section A1 - Final version
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
Lakes
3
Rivers
1
1
1
3
2
3
1
4
4
5
3
2
4
3
4
3
2
3
2
2
Groundwater
3
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
3
3
2
1
1
2
3
1
5
3
4
5
2
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
2
2
2
1
2
3
4
3
1
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
1
2
2
3
2
4
1
Icela
3
2
2
1
Coastal / Transitional
3
3
3
2
1
Groundwater
3
3
2
3
2
Coastal / Transitional
Groundwater
2
1
1
Coastal / Transitional
Lakes
3
Lakes
1
Hungary
Greece
Rivers
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
Rivers
1
1
1
1
5
Germany
Groundwater
1
1
2
1
1
Coastal / Transitional
Groundwater
3
3
2
2
2
Lakes
Coastal / Transitional
4
4
4
4
3
Rivers
Lakes
2
2
1
Rivers
2
Groundwater
1
1
Coastal / Transitional
Coastal / Transitional
Groundwater
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
Finland
Estonia
Lakes
1
2
Lakes
3
3
1
3
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
Lakes
2
2
1
2
1
Rivers
Lakes
1
1
1
1
1
Rivers
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
Rivers
Groundwater
1
1
1
1
Denmark
Rivers
3
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
Czech republic
Groundwater
3
2
3
4
2
2
3
Cyprus
Coastal / Transitional
3
2
3
4
2
Coastal / Transitional
Rivers
Groundwater
Coastal / Transitional
1
Lakes
Belgium
(Flanders)
stria
1
1
4
5
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
5
4
3
4
2
3
4
1
4
3
2
3
3
4
2
2
4
2
3
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
2
3
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
3
1
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
5
5
3
3
3
2
5
1
3
1
1
3
4
1
3
2
4
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
4
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
3
1
4
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
4
1
1
2
5
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
5
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
5
3
2
3
2
2
2
4
3
3
3
2
2
4
3
5
5
5
4
5
4
4
2
3
4
1
4
3
4
2
3
3
1
2
2
4
3
3
1
3
3
3
2
2
1
2
2
1
3
3
2
3
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
3
3
2
2
1
4
3
3
4
3
2
2
3
2
4
4
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
5
5
5
1
1
1
4
2
3
3
2
2
1
3
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
2
1
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
5
4
2
4
4
4
4
1
5
4
2
4
3
4
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
2
4
4
4
2
2
1
1
2
3
3
3
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
4
3
4
4
1
2
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
4
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
3
3
5
5
1
5
4
5
2
2
4
3
3
4
2
2
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
5
1
5
5
5
5
3
1
3
3
2
5
WFD key issues - Annex IIIA: Input from the countries to Section A1 - Final version
2
2
1
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
1
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
Lakes
3
4
3
4
Rivers
Groundwater
3
3
3
2
4
2
2
3
Port
Coastal / Transitional
1
3
3
3
4
1
Groundwater
2
1
3
4
4
4
4
1
Coastal / Transitional
2
Lakes
2
1
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
Rivers
3
3
2
Groundwater
Groundwater
Coastal / Transitional
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
5
1
1
Lakes
1
4
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Poland
2
4
1
Rivers
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
Groundwater
2
1
1
1
Coastal / Transitional
1
3
1
2
1
1
3
3
3
Norway
Lakes
4
2
4
Lakes
Rivers
3
3
4
2
3
1
1
2
1
1
3
4
5
4
1
1
1
Netherlands
2
1
5
5
3
3
3
2
Malta
Rivers
1
1
3
1
3
1
5
1
3
3
3
4
5
Groundwater
1
1
Coastal / Transitional
4
4
Lakes
3
3
Rivers
4
4
3
3
4
1
Luxembourg
Coastal / Transitional
2
Groundwater
1
Coastal / Transitional
2
Lakes
3
Lithuania
Rivers
Lakes
Groundwater
3
2
1
1
1
Coastal / Transitional
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
Rivers
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
Groundwater
2
3
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
Latvia
Lakes
1
4
4
4
3
3
2
3
2
3
4
3
3
2
1
Italy
Rivers
1
1
Coastal / Transitional
1
Lakes
1
Rivers
Ireland
Groundwater
Coastal / Transitional
and
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
5
1
1
2
3
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
2
3
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
4
3
3
3
2
1
4
3
4
3
4
3
5
4
3
4
2
2
2
4
3
5
3
1
2
1
2
1
4
3
4
3
3
2
5
4
5
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
1
4
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
5
5
4
1
2
4
4
3
2
2
3
3
4
1
3
3
4
3
2
4
4
2
2
1
3
2
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
4
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
2
3
2
3
4
5
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
1
1
1
4
5
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
4
4
3
3
1
2
4
2
4
1
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
2
1
4
1
3
2
3
3
3
4
1
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
4
4
3
2
4
4
2
3
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
3
1
2
2
3
2
2
1
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
4
3
3
4
2
2
4
4
2
3
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
2
2
4
4
1
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
WFD key issues - Annex IIIA: Input from the countries to Section A1 - Final version
2
3
5
4
5
4
3
1
4
3
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
3
1
1
3
1
2
3
2
1
2
5
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
5
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
1
2
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
4
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
3
2
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
3
Groundwater
3
3
3
4
3
2
1
1
2
Coastal / Transitional
3
3
4
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
Lakes
2
2
3
3
2
1
2
3
2
Rivers
3
1
4
3
2
1
2
3
2
UK
Groundwater
2
1
Coastal / Transitional
Groundwater
Coastal / Transitional
3
4
3
2
3
3
1
1
2
2
2
5
2
2
3
3
3
Lakes
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
5
Rivers
2
4
3
2
3
2
4
Groundwater
2
5
3
2
3
2
4
Coastal / Transitional
5
3
4
4
2
Lakes
4
3
Rivers
Groundwater
Coastal / Transitional
4
5
3
5
3
3
5
3
Sweden
Lakes
3
Spain
Slovenia
Rivers
4
Rivers
Groundwater
Coastal / Transitional
3
3
Lakes
Slovakia
tugal
2
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
1
2
3
2
Abstractions for agriculture
Agriculture: Over grazing and cropping practice – resulting in erosion
Good agricultural practice (Nitrate Action Program)
Agriculture (including farmyard runoff)
8.
Limitation of soil input from chemical and organic fertilisers pertaining to animal
breeding effluents, according to good agricultural practices standards;
9.
Assessment of load reduction relating to animal breeding effluents, with respect to
updating of vulnerable zones for nitrates, by making reference to limits indicated by
D.C.R. 570/97;
Agriculture
Intensive nutrient and pesticide use in agriculture
Horticulture (including greenhouses)
Agriculture
Cropping practice
Diffuse pollution from agriculture and mining
Agricultural sector
Diffuse pollution from agriculture
Arable land, grassland, mixed farming
Over grazing and cropping practice – resulting in erosion
Agriculture – arable land, grassland mixed farming etc.Over-grazing and cropping practice
– resulting in erosion.
Agriculture - nutrient management issues
River Management - Modification for agricultural purposes
Minimise the use of pesticides (agriculture)
Pollution from animal husbandry
Pollution from aquaculture
Issue
Decrease cattle breeding (agriculture)
Minimise erosion (agriculture)
Abstractions for agriculture
Pollution from agriculture
Agriculture (general)
Inputs of nutrients from agricultural activity
Measures for reduction of diffuse pollution from agricultural sources
Agriculture: Crops with intensive nutrient or pesticide usage or long bare soil periods
3
2
2
2
2
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
key word
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
3
3
3
3
Priority
(high3medium2low1)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
UK
AU
BE
CY
CY
LT
MT
MT
NL
NO
PO
SE
SK
UK
UK
UK
IT
EL
EL
HU
IE
IT
BE
BE
CY
CY
DE
DK
EE
EL
A2: Programme of Measures (26 countries; excl. FR)
Page 1 of 29
Agriculture
Inputs of pesticides from agriculture and aquaculture
Inputs of nutrients and pesticides from forestry
Point source pollution from agriculture/regionally, locally
Forestry
Diffuse pollution caused by intensive nutrient or pesticide usage
Diffuse pollution caused by mixed farming
Agriculture impact mitigation
Agriculture - insufficient treatment of waste waters and waste control
Aquaculture / fish farming
Aquaculture
Agriculture
Arable land, grassland, mixed farming
Heavy metals and POP´s
Atmospheric deposition
Best practices to reduce diffuse pollution
Run off management
Reduction of erosion in river basins
Aquaculture/fish farming (Scot only)
Abstractions for fish farming
Fishing/angling
Intesive fishery
Fish farming
Pollution caused by fish farming
Flow Management – Flood defence works (migration barriers)
Implementation of flood mitigation measures
Flow Management – Flood defence works
Flood protection
Limitation of negative impact of flood defense works
Purification of historical soil and groundwater pollution (other source of pollution)
Remediation of polluted sites
Old contaminated sites
Historical contaminated sites
Optimise existing wastewater treatment plants (households)
Minimise storm water overflows (households)
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
SE
NL
ES
MT
ES
UK
DK
EL
CZ
FI
LV
AU
ES
AU
CZ
PL
BE
HU
CZ
DE
BE
BE
Crops with intensive nutrient or pesticide usage or long bare soil periods (e.g. corn,)
MT Control of alien species
IE Introduced species
IS Long range chemical transport from other countries to Iceland (POP´s and Heavy metals)
CZ
DK
DK
FI
IE
LV
LV
PL
SK
UK
IS
IS
LU
LU
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
2
2
1
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
atmospheric deposition
atmospheric deposition
atmospheric deposition
diffuse sources
diffuse sources
erosion
fishery
fishery
fishery
fishery
fishery
fishery
flood defence
flood defence
flood defence
flood defence
flood defence
historic pollution
historic pollution
historic pollution
historic pollution
households
households
agriculture
alien species
alien species
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
agriculture
Page 2 of 29
Pollution from Households municipal waste water
Waste water – households
Municipal wastewater treatment, wastewater collection
Improvement of waste water treatment (specially in small towns)
Urban wastewater program
Municipal wastewater discharges (substances unknown) & Storm water overflows
Households - municipal waste water
Households - storm water overflows
Extension wastewater treatment plants (households)
Pollution from Households - domestic waste water
UK
UK
BE
CY
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
Households
Pollution caused by municipal waste water
Households not connected to a sewer system
Domestic waste water (scattered dwellings)
Municipal sewage systems
Individual sewege systems
Municipal and industrial wastewaters – collection and treatment
Insufficient collection and treatment of urban waste water treatments: construction and
reconstruction of sewer system, construction and reconstruction of WWTPs, mitigation of
storm water overflows impacts on surface waters, reduction of leakage from the sewers
(to harmonise with requirements of 91/271/EEC Directive),
LT
LV
LV
NO
PL
PL
PO
SK
Performing summer purification for treatment facilities exceeding 20,000 I.E. in the
IT 6.
10-km stretch from the coast line;
Setting-up of earlier rainfall-holding tanks, or other useful devises for the reduction
IT 7.
of pollutant loads discharged in water bodies during rainfall. Through proposed actions, it
would be possible to convey to the existing treatment system 25% of discharged loads, in
the expected conditions, for built-up areas with more than 20,000 inhabitants, to be
brought up to 50% for 2016, and to 25% for areas ranging between 10,000 and 20,000
inhabitants; for coastal centres in the 10-km stretch, in order to improve conditions at sea,
previous figures have been raised by 20%;
Conveyance to treatment plants with secondary treatment for all conglomerations
IT 3.
with more than 2,000 I.E.;
Adoption of appropriate treatments (equivalent to a secondary treatment) for
IT 4.
conglomerations from 200 to 2,000 I.E.;
Thorough removal of nutrients in treatment plants with capacity exceeding 10,000
IT 5.
I.E. for phosphorous, 100,000 I.E. also for nitrogen. This latter treatment is extended to
the timetable of 2016, also to plants > 20,000 I.E. (10,000 I.E. when they significantly
affect water bodies with abstractions for drinking water);
CY
CZ
EE
ES
HU
IE
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
households
3
households
households
3
3
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Page 3 of 29
Inputs from scattered residential houses not connected to sewers
Households: municipal and domestic waste water
Unconnected households
Municipal waste water (incl. Fish- and Agricultural industry waste water)
Domestic waste-water
Households
Municipal waste water
Storm water
Municipal stormwater
Households - domestic waste water (not connected to a sewer system)
Urban diffuse pollution (including transport) (NI, Eng)
Household – waste municipal wastewater, stormwater overflows (higher priority) (except
for single dwelling septic tanks)
Pollution from Households - storm water overflows
Households - municipal waste water
Households - storm water overflows
Flow Management - Hydropower works (migration barriers)
Reduction in flow - Abstraction for hydropower generation
Flow management by hydropower works
Hydropower works
Reservoirs
Hydropower works (including dams)
Hydropower/ regionally, locally
Hydropower sector
Hydropower (Scot only)
Water transfer-for energy production
Reservoirs
Hydropower (+ geothermal)
Environmental permit policy (Industry)
Waste water – industry
IPPC measures
Industrial discharges (substances unknown)
11. Feasible drops in pollutant input, with relation to the use of best available
techniques, for industrial companies covered by the framework of application of IPPC
regulation;
Industry
Pollution caused by industries
Metal industry
Control of point source pollution
Some industries
Inputs of hazardous substances from industry
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
LT
LV
NO
PO
SE
DK
CY
LU
LU
AU
AU
LV
NO
NO
UK
FI
SE
UK
AU
AU
IS
BE
CZ
HU
IE
IT
DK
EL
IE
IS
MT
NL
NO
NO
SE
UK
UK
UK
industry
industry
industry
industry
industry
industry
industry
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
households
hydropower
hydropower
hydropower
hydropower
hydropower
hydropower
hydropower
hydropower
hydropower
hydropower
hydropower
hydropower
industry
industry
industry
industry
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Page 4 of 29
3
PO Ecosystems conservation and biological integrity – hydromorphological aspects
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
EE Measures for reduction of abstraction of surface water for cooling water in energy
production
EL Industry: Textile industry (including wool), olive oil press, pulp, paper & boards, chemicals,
etc.
FI Pulp and paper industries/regionally, locally
FI Chemicals
NL Industry
NO Chemical industry
SK Industry – insufficient treatment of waste waters and waste control
FI Iron and steel/ regionally, locally
FI Non-ferrous metals/ regionally, locally
FI Power generation (not hydropower)/ regionally, locally
IS Tannery
CY Pollution from landfill and waste sites
HU Waste management programs with special regard to landfills
NO Landfill/waste sites
PL Landfill and waste sites
SK Landfills and waste sites
UK Landfill and waste management (NI only)
IS Landfill and waste sites
PL Minning industry impact mitigation
PO Diffuse pollution from agriculture and mining
DE Mining
EE Measures for reduction of water losses in mining activities
HU Recultivation of abandoned mines
UK Mining (including quarries)
UK Mining (including quarries ) (Eng, Wales, Scot)
NO Mining
SL Physical alteration of channel
BE Restore infrastructure of banks (morphology)
CY Flow management from reservoirs
CZ Cross barriers
EL Physical alteration of channel (including banks and dikes) and modification for
agricultural purposes
EL Flow management
ES Reduction of hydro-morphological impacts in rivers
NL Flow management
NL River management
NL Transitional and coastal waters management (recovery of brackish water zones)
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
industry
industry
industry
industry
industry
industry
industry
industry
industry
industry
landfill and waste
landfill and waste
landfill and waste
landfill and waste
landfill and waste
landfill and waste
landfill and waste
mining
mining
mining
mining
mining
mining
mining
mining
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
industry
Page 5 of 29
Improvement of river continuities
Hydromphology – Physical alteration of channel, drainage management
River Management – Physical alteration of channel
Physical alteration
Flow management
River management
Maritime engineering works
Physical alterations
Flow management – disruption of longitudinal river continuity, migration bariers
Physical alteration of channel (including banks and dikes)
Morphology /flow management
Physical alteration of channel (including banks and dikes)/ regionally, locally
Physical alteration of a river channel
Physical alteration of water courses
Recreational waters protection with land use planning
Recreation
Reduction of sea intrusion in coastal aquifers
Limiting saline intrusion
Dredging activities (freshwater & marine)
Physical alterations including dredging and channelling
Shipping, international agreements needed
Transport of oil on sea areas (also during ice covered periods)
Control of pollution by hydrocarbons in coastal waters
Morphology- Maritime engineering works (shipyards, harbours
Harbours – Shipyards
Weirs, dams, locks, and sluices for navigational purposes
Transboundary pollution
Transport
Infrastructure questions
Infrastructure (roads / bridges / infrastructure)
Decrease abstracted volumes
Sustainable water supply: diminish use of high quality groundwater
Providing safe and good quality drinking water
Groundwater recharge
Reduction of impacts produced by water abstractions for irrigation
Search of additional sources of water in arid and semi arid areas: Desalinisation and
water re-use
ES Elaboration of emergency plans for drought situations
HU Drinking water source protection program (Safeguarding of public water supply)
With respect to minimum vital runoff (DMV);
IT 1.
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
SL
UK
AU
CZ
LT
LT
LV
SE
SK
UK
UK
FI
LV
LU
PL
IS
ES
MT
IE
MT
SE
FI
MT
CY
IS
LU
LV
SE
SE
IS
BE
BE
EE
EL
ES
ES
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
water supply
water supply
water supply
water supply
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
other morpholigical
recreation
recreation
salt intrusion
salt intrusion
shipping
shipping
shipping
shipping
shipping
shipping
shipping
shipping
transboundary pollution
transport / infrastructure
transport / infrastructure
transport / infrastructure
water supply
water supply
water supply
water supply
water supply
Page 6 of 29
Minimization of drought effects
Water supply - construction and rehabilitation of infrastructures
Promote efficient water use
Abstractions for drinking water supply
Abstractions
Abstractions for drinking water supply
Abstraction (regulation issues)
Abstractions for drinking water (Scot, Eng, Wales)
Reduction in groundwater flow
Climate change
Protection of sensible areas
Mitigation of emission of hazardous substances (surface and groundwater)
12. Return to natural conditions of some river stretches, as defined by competent Basin
Authorities.
Prevention of flood events
Integration of land use planning and water protection
Point discharges to groundwaters (coalfields, mines, landfills etc)
Land use change
Improvement of river training using biological systems
Rural areas
Improvement of physical planniing
Transitional and coastal management
Reduction of pollution( agriculture, households, other sources, ind.)
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
B.1: What other obstacles did you face when producing the Article 5 report? (27 countries)
Issue
Issues but not expecting actions under CIS Work programmes:o
Agreement on
definitions, political and legal context o
New areas of expertise requiredo
Data
Resources to investigate all that was required.
UK storage issues o
AU Availability of data e.g. local data
BE Datamanagement
BE Lack of structured data Hydromorphological pressures
BE Lack of structured data about waterabstraction and flow regulation
PO
PO
IE
IE
PL
SE
SL
LT
SL
PO
PO
PO
UK
CZ
DK
IE
UK
DE
EL
ES
HU
IT
Water resource saving and streamlining actions, in domestic, farming and industrial
IT 2.
sectors;
IT 10. Progressive reuse of waste waters for irrigation, specifically for identified priority
treatment plants;
MT Groundwater abstractions (including municipal and agricultural abstractions)
MT Surface water abstractions
PO Abstractions for drinking water supply – delimitation of protection zones and regulation
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
data
data
data
data
Key word
water supply
water supply
water supply
water supply
water supply
water supply
water supply
water supply
water supply
water supply
water supply
water supply
water supply
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
?
3
3
water supply
3
Page 7 of 29
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
EE
EL Lack of data in certain fields (e.g. economic, biological data)
Need for harmonisation of most of the available data according to the WFD and the
EL L.3199/2003 (transposition of the WFD into national legislation) requirements
ES Insufficiency of biological data
Lack of appropriate data about cost recovery. Unavailability due to harmonisation issues,
ES scale, etc
FI Availability of data varies considering different water categories and water types
Economic data: evaluation of water-related equipment, costs linked to uses,
FR environmental costs, economic weighting of uses at local level
HU Lack of data on transboundary groundwater bodies
HU Lack of ecological data
HU Not adequately harmonised water quantity and quality monitoring
Lack of detailed pressure information (farmyard facility status, regulation of abstractions,
IE petroleum storage facilities)
IE Lack of dangerous substances monitoring or licensing information
IE Inadequate resolution of data eg reporting units for census information
IE Lack of up to date data in some assessments (eg Forestry information)
IE Lack of comprehensive impact data
IE Lack of databases for previously unrecorded pressures (eg alien species)
IS Lack of basic background data and information.
There is a limited availability of emission data on dangerous substances. The problem is
that until recently authorities and enterprises were not fully aware of the kinds of
LT substances that are released as a consequence of production processes.
The information systems on water pressures, status and other related data are not
LT designed to the level which would allow proper collection of necessary data.
Lack of information about costs (eg environmental, ressource costs, financial costs)
BE
BE Lack of information about some wateruses.
CY Availability of data in usable format
CY Lack of an appropriate national monitoring and database system
Disunity of input data (Official statistics, databases of water users, databases of
CZ authorities)
CZ Input data availability (no access due to the business property legislation)
CZ Missing data (biological parameters, economical data)
DE Availability of data and date formats
DE Missing chemical data for small water bodies
2. Availability of existing data – although the necessary data exist it takes too much time
to coordinate internally between different institutions the need of the data. Data availability
in river basin scale is of course one of the issues but seems to be not a problem as new
databases are established specially for the needs of the river basin management.
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
Page 8 of 29
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
data
A general problem is that we all had to work with available data, although more
information should be used in order to estimate whether the objectives of the WFD could
be met in a more precise way. This underpins the importance of the future monitoring
activities in order to make sure that the choices made in the art 5 report can be confirmed
NL (or deselected) if specific and targeted information gets available.
NO Availability of data (harmonised formats)
PL Limited biological data
PL Data formats
PL Industry data not fully available
PL Limited number of monitoring points
PL System of data exchange not sufficient
PO Lack of data on pollutants use patterns
PO Lack of data on biological, hydromorphological and economic issues
PO Lack of data on pollutants discharges
PO Lack of data on water uses
PO Lack of sampling protocols at national level
PO Integration of existing data due to different scales and collection practices
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
Lake monitoring data is very limited and does not allow to reliably assess the current
LT status of majority of Lithuanian lakes and the impacts various pressures have on them.
The socio-economic data necessary for the economic analysis is collected either
LT nationwide or on a basis of existing administrative units (depending on data type).
Information is available, but is collected on inappropriate scale and thus is not suitable for
the intended use, as the national environmental monitoring programme is not designated
LV for gathering of information on the level of water bodies so far.
LV Necessary information is not separated during aggregation of the State statistics.
LV Information is not collected at all/ there a no data of environmental monitoring.
Currently available data are not sufficient to develop proposals, to analyse all pressures
LV and impacts and to make precise risk assessment.
- Collection and collation of data from different Authorities and Government Departments
MT and subsequent amalgamation.
MT - Insufficient data available
MT - Funding for the collection of necessary data
In some cases the level of aggregation of available data was very diverse, both at national
and at international level. This “scale problem” was most striking for issues related to the
NL economic analysis.
Limited knowledge of pressures agricultural activities induce on water bodies. There is a
lack of precise input data (application of fertilizers, population, number of livestock, area
of different crops) to be used in the models to assess agricultural loads of pollutants. The
data possessed is collected on the basis of administrative boundaries, not river basin
LT district ones.
Page 9 of 29
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
SK Lack of biological and priority pollutants data for surface waters
SK Lack of hydromorphological data for small water bodies
Groundwater: Databases on point sources pollution - only basic parameters of water
SK quality were available, incomplete coordinates for sources of pollution
Lack of data about urban waste waters collection and treatment of smaller municipalities
SK (smaller than 2000 PE)
Lack of data on waste water dealing in settlements without public sewerage system
SK
SK Groundwater: Database on water abstraction – only mean monthly data available
Groundwater: Data related to diffuse pollution from agriculture – different scale (per
SK administration division and not river basin division) and not in GIS
SL Missing data about impacts on ecosystem for many driving forces and pressures
SL Missing data about atmospheric deposition
Missing data about soil erosion (conection to determine phosphorus loss from soil)
SL
SL Not enough data to develop complex abiotic typology
SL Lack of sediment transport data
Missing data on hydromorphological pressure (characteristics of fish farms, small
SL irrigation systems, pumping for different use
Limited availability of data, particularly with regard to pressures not currently subject to
regulation in Scotland, ie, abstraction, flow regulation and morphological change
UK
UK Lack of coverage of information for Scotland
UK Data storage issues
UK Limited availability of data/coverage of information, particularly with:
Lack of data o
regard to pressures not currently subject to regulation (Scotland:
abstraction, flow regulation and morphological change, NI: Abstraction)
UK
Lack of data o
elements not covered in existing monitoring systems and
ecological data being aligned with terms and expressions in WFD
UK
UK
o
lack of groundwater data
UK
o
lack of baseline data in some areas e.g. economic analysis
UK
o
Variable availability of datasets across IRBDs
Need for work (now underway) to harmonise data management across IRBD boundaries
UK (NI):
3. Expert opinions – to find an expert with the solid opinion seems to be rather difficult,
EE since there are other experts who have different opinions.
Different approaches of neighbour countries in addressing issues of transboundary W.B.
BE evaluation
Different approaches of neighbour countries in addressing issues of transboundary W.B.
CZ evaluation
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
expert judgement
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
Page 10 of 29
At national level many efforts were needed to harmonise the information available at local
level to get a harmonised set of information at national level. In addition to that a lot of
discussion took place (and will continue) in order to try to harmonise/to co-ordinate the
national (harmonised) data with the national data of our neighbouring countries with whom
we share the international river basins of the 4 earlier mentioned rivers.
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
In the context of international river basin districts differences in interpretation of the WFD
and resulting different “approaches” made comparison of results a time consuming
NL activity.
PO Coordination in international river basin districts due to different work programmes
Integration of data in international river basin districts due to different approaches and
PO methodologies applied
SL Missing data about transboundary pollution (sea)
Risk analyses in relation to the effect of existing measures on the status of
BE (transboundary) waters
BE Knowledge gaps : good status (good potential), reference conditions
BE Interaction of different pressures on watersystem
BE Impact assessment (for ex. historical pollution of sediments)
DE Unsure objective definition due to missing WFD-appropriate assessment methods
DE Several unknown pressure-impact relationships for morphology
Lack of tools to estimate the ecological status of the water bodies and for lakes and
DK coastal areas lack of consistent data on the biological quality elements.
ES Difficulty in evaluating the degree of significance of the impacts
FR Geographical frames of reference need to be improved
FR Knowledge of pressures: notably diffuse pollution, hydromorphology
FR Knowledge of the quality of aquatic environments
NL
NL
International co-ordination is a time consuming and complex process, in spite of many
years of common experience in the frame of existing international river basin treaties.
1. Cooperation in international river basin districts (with Latvia and Russia), mainly due to
EE different work programs and difficulties in information exchange.
HU Pollution from upstream countries
LU No harmonised evaluation methods in international river basin district
Neighbour countries, which are not the EU Member States (Russia and Byelorussia), are
not keen on the cooperation within international river basin districts.
LV
The Netherlands are located at the down stream end of 4 international rivers, The Rhine,
Meuse, Scheldt and the Ems. As a consequence all national river basin districts are part
of larger international districts. The international co-ordination of the implementation of the
WFD is also applied to the preparation of the WFD art 5 report, resulting in 4 so-called
NL “international roof reports”
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
Page 11 of 29
Existing knowledge and information are insufficient to evaluate possible effects and costs
of proposed measures.
Good and simple methods /models for predicting ecological effects from quantified
pressures, often a mix of different pressures
Difficulties in finding operational pressure criteria for risk assessment
Lack of tools to relate hydromorphological pressures and ecological impact
Identification of linkages between surface water, groundwater and terrestrial ecosystem
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
PO
SE Development of models for better calculations
SE Better background documents for judging good status
SE Tools for assessing water exchange between adjacent coastal regions as well as between
Preliminary objectives for some of chemical parameters higher than limit of quantification
SK of the analyses, missing objectives for some of the parameters
SK Lack of tools for facilitation of analyses
SK Lack of information about state of art in implementation of measures
NO
PO
LV
NO
LV
LU
LT
LT
LT
Limited knowledge of the impacts different pressures have on water body ecosystems
(specifically to biology). A number of decisions for the designation of risk water bodies
were based on expert judgments, assumptions, which are not still validated with clear
evidences. Moreover, forecasts of water status as a result of various water management
scenarios and measures are also aggravated because of limited knowledge of those
interrelationships.
There is the lack of knowledge on the economic importance of the candidate water bodies
for the designation as heavily modified.
There is incomplete knowledge on the level of cost recovery for different users
(households, industry and agriculture)
Needs of research for evaluation methods p.ex. Biological and hydromorphological
evaluation methods
Currently recovery of costs can be assessed for water supply and wastewater collection
services only, because information about the environmental impacts and costs associated
with other water services is insufficient.
IE Unknown impacts due to morphological and hydrological factors
IE Inadequate knowledge of pollutant runoff behaviour
Poorly understood relationships between some pressure, state and impact indicators
IE
Lack of certainty of relationship between existing impact data and future status definition
IE
Uncertainty in link between pressures and their source economic sectors and subsectors
IE
IS Lack of methods to quantify pressure force to weight if issue is of concern.
There is no sufficient data and knowledge on interrelationships between physico-chemical
LT factors and biology to determine meaningful types in Lithuania.
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
Page 12 of 29
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
UK
EL
ES
ES
IE
EL
IS
LU
LU
MT
MT
SE
Technical problems related to the delay on providing technical assistance for producing
the Article 5 report
Lack of human resources
Human resources
Very high load of work due to international coordination
- Human resources (lack of)
- Deficiency in expertise in particular areas
Lack of time and in some cases difficulties to get data
o
Limitation of resources especially to address technical cross - IRBD Issues
such as typology
Administrative arrangements for the implementation of the Article 5
Lack of standardisation of methods for defining typologies
Lack of clear criteria for the definition of reference conditions
Uncertainty in quantifying driving force trends (eg CAP changes)
NL
AU Limited resources (human and financial)
CY Human resources
DE Human resources
4. Capacity problems – the availability of human resources is lacking behind, probably
due to the fact that the information exchange internally has been poor and all the relevant
intuitions have not been notified timely or have not understood the real amount of work
EE that had to be done.
In NL the political agenda was dominated by safety against flooding. When the WFD
came into force a change in mindset and organization was necessary in order to combine,
and, where necessary, to co-ordinate and to prioritize the 2 political obligations.
Missing environmental quality standards – especially for concentrations of pollutants in
SL sediment and biota
Evaluation/ prediction of impact on ecosystem for combining effect of different pollutants
SL
Lack of ecological tools for assessing impacts, particularly with regard to morphology and
UK diffuse pollution
UK New areas of expertise required
Lack of ecological tools for assessing impacts, particularly with regard to morphology and
UK diffuse pollution
EL Political approval for many issues that will be included in the report
Administrative complexity of Spanish distribution of competences between central and
ES regional governments
Start-up and completion time of sewerage infrastructure projects is just preliminary,
therefore it is complicated to make forecasts about the effects of improved wastewater
LV treatment on water quality in lakes, rivers etc.
resources
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
national priorities in policies
resources
resources
resources
national priorities in policies
national priorities in policies
knowledge gap
national priorities in policies
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
Page 13 of 29
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
NL
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
The knowledge of pollution from agglomerations below 2000 person equivalents is limited
since a part of them do not posses centralized sewer system and therefore are not
obliged to get a permit. According to national legislation a permit is required when
discharge from a point source is >5 m3 a day. This amount is rarely reached without
centralized sewerage connection system. As the result, there is no requirement to monitor
LT their discharges and report data to relevant authorities.
There is a big uncertainty with respect to how melioration ditches, small canalized rivers
and artificial interbasin water transfer channels should be treated. In the meantime there
is not enough data to conclude if melioration ditches and small canalized rivers will
naturally recover, which of them are planned to be continually maintained and which of
them are or will be abandoned in this respect. Furthermore, there are significant spatial
data gaps which form obstacles to locate and analyze the system of ditches.
Consequently, the ditches were neither assigned to heavily modified or artificial water
bodies nor to water bodies at risk. Similar situation is with dug out channels, which were
not designated as artificial for now since some of them resemble natural streams. More
LT observation to decide on their status is needed.
Development of various plans that influence water status is not harmonised and
LV consistent in time.
The time frame of the WFD covers a period of 15 years or even more in case of
exemptions. A lot of discussion took place at technical and political level in order to get
used to the stepwise approach of the WFD, the role of the art 5 analysis, of the
monitoring programme and the programmes of measures to be included in the River
basin management plan. Specifically the fact that the art. 5 report was a kind of preselection of potential problem area’s (standing in the way to meet the WFD objectives)
and that in a later stage the set of possible measures were to be decided taking on board
the political acceptance and viability of a set of measures was very difficult to
communicate.
NL
The WFD objectives are formulated in a theoretical way. In the process of making them
operational it turned out that many more efforts seem to be necessary in order to meet
the objectives. This fact was and still is a subject of a national political debate.
NL
The geographical position of NL is such that a major part of the water bodies are either
artificial of candidate heavily modified. It was felt that the general mindset of the WFD
was more focusing on natural and pristine water bodies. Time was (and still) is needed to
explain the factual situation in the NL (“…..you have the burden of proof position……”
WFD process
There is the lack of reference unimpacted sites in bigger rivers as well as in the
transitional and coastal waters to estimate the values of reference conditions for certain
LT types.
Page 14 of 29
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
B.2:What issues do you expect to be an obstacle in the future? (27 countries)
Issue
- Attainment of quality standards in groundwater since the groundwater quality
(particularly that of 'deep' groundwater) does not respond immediately to measures taken
MT in the surface catchment area.
MT - High population density and high population per linear km of coastline
MT - Island status
MT - Small nation size
MT - Dependence of GDP on coastal tourism
SE Recovery time very long specially concerning eutrophication
uk Issues around cost effectiveness of POMs and disproportionate costs
LU The agriculture policies
SE The agricultural sector
SE Airborne impact
AU Availability of data
BE datamanagement
Lack of information about costs (eg environmental, ressource costs, financial costs)
BE
BE Lack of information about some wateruses.
CY Availability of data in usable format
EL Non-harmonised data formats
EL Availability of data (mainly biological quality data for inland surface waters)
ES Cost of the adaptation of the water data monitoring networks
HU Not enough data to establish threshold values
IE Availability of appropriate economic data
IE Obtaining data for further characterisation assessments
IS Lack of basic background data and information.
The knowledge of pollution from agglomerations below 2000 person equivalents is limited
LT since a part of them do not posses centralized sewer system .
The level at which the State statistics are aggregated, as aggregation is traditionally made
LV at the level of administrative units.
Missing of the (new) Groundwater Directive and the Daughter Directive on priority
NL substances (WFD art. 16 (7) and (8).
SE The competent authorities are new and need time for consolidation
SE Very many lakes and rivers
Assessment criteria for the risk analysis are preliminary and under development,
SE boundaries for good status is not set
SK Identification of preliminary objectives for hydromorphology
UK Agreement on definitions, political and legal context
SL Deposit sites from industrial and agriculture activities
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
agriculture
agriculture
atmospheric deposition
data
data
Key word
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
Page 15 of 29
Insufficient data for those proposals, risk assessments etc., where long time series of
data are necessary to ground the decision.
Availability of data (harmonised formats)
Lack of data on economic and hydromorphological issues
Updating of databases
Lack of sediment transport data
Large quantities of additional data are required. Much of this is new data to be acquired
and other data is disparate and needs to be collated.
Large quantities of additional data are required.
o
Much of this is new data to be acquired and other data is disparate and needs
to be collated:
o
Currently undefined but largely demand for monitoring and data for further
characterisation
Definition of environmental objectives
Establishment of environmental quality standards for pollutants discharged in river basin
districts
Flood protection measures as a part of WFD 2000/60/EC ( Article 4 ??)
Flood protection
Common approach in evaluation of transboundary W.B. (data spectrum and
methodology)
1. Cooperation with non member states (Russia)
Cooperation with the neighbour countries, which are not the EU Member States.
Many substances (priority, priority hazardous and “substances discharged in significant
amounts” are related to EU legislation based on prevention of distortion of competition
(“marketing and use directive”, pesticide directive etc.). For many substances it will be
vital that generic measures are formulated at EU level.
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
PO
PO
SE
SL
BE
BE
Coordination of environmental quality standards setting for pollutants discharged in
international river basin districts
Coordination in international river basin districts
Load from other countries affecting the Swedish coastal waters
Achieve high level of certainty about transboundary pollution (sea)
Knowledge gaps on diffuse pollution
Relation pressure -impact
In case the Daughter directive on priority/priority hazardous substances lacks measures
at EU level, very laborious notification procedures are foreseen with in fact unpredictable
outcomes. For this reason the Netherlands always took the stand that measures should
be formulated at the most appropriate level using the most appropriate (legal) instruments
NL (in this case at EU level).
Complex discussions are expected concerning the adverse effects resulting from
upstream downstream relations (shift of responsibility from upstream to downstream and
NL vise versa).
NL
CZ
EE
LV
PO
CZ
LU
uk
PO
uk
UK
uk
LV
NO
PO
PO
SL
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
international co-ordination
environmental standards
flood defence
flood defence
data
environmental objectives
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
Page 16 of 29
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
NO Good and simple methods /models for predicting ecological effects from quantified
pressures, often a mix of different pressures
NO Difficulties in finding operational pressure criteria for risk assessment
NO Common, accepted and simple methods/models for calculating inputs (esp. diffuse
inputs)
NO Common, accepted and simple methods/models for analysis of cost/efficient measures
Forecasts of the effects of the proposed investment projects in the wastewater treatment
LV sector.
Availability of practical instruments to assess the expected impact of measures. One may
think of simple models/approaches which take account of the (limited) availability of data
(“no sophisticated models for which the necessary data is not or cannot be made
NL available”)
Time and debate is needed to eliminate knowledge gaps and to gain the necessary
experiences (knowledge concerning substances; what are the exact steering variables for
NL a good ecologic status/potential etc).
LT
Limited knowledge of pressures agricultural activities induce on water bodies. There is a
lack of precise input data (application of fertilizers, population, number of livestock, area
of different crops) to be used in the models to assess agricultural loads of pollutants.
Qualitative and quantitative relationship surface water- groundwater – sediments for all
BE relevant substances
BE Relationship groundwater & ecosystem
Measure-effectiveness (all pressures work together, so need for integrated solution)
BE
DK Level of costs incurred from measures aimed at achieving the goals of WFD
New scenarios for water demand (not considered or wrongly evaluated in the elaboration
ES of the Article 5 reports)
FR Evaluation of measures’ impact
FR Absence of accurate definition of the good status
Establishment of consistent methodologies for cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and cost
IE incidence analysis
IE Quantification of economic value of ecological/environmental resource
IE Quantifying pollutant losses
IE Establishing EQS for relevant pollutants
IS Lack of methods to quantify pressure force.
Limited knowledge of the impacts different pressures have on water body ecosystems
(specifically to biology), forecasts of water status as a result of various water
management scenarios and measures are also aggravated because of limited knowledge
LT of those interrelationships.
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
Page 17 of 29
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
NO Common, accepted and simple methods/models for calculating benefits / disproportionate
costs
Economical issues respecting full recovery costs including specially resources costs
PL
PO Lack of knowledge about the response of aquatic system to pressures
SE Elaboration of models
SE Leakage coefficients
Questions concerning water exchange between adjacent coastal regions and between
SE coastal zone and open see
SK Incomplete information of diffuse pollution from agriculture
Achieve high level of certainty about impacts on ecosystem for some of driving forces and
SL pressures – especially new hazardous substances and alien species
Setting of missing environmental quality standards – especially for concentrations of
SL pollutants in sediment and biota
SL Achieve high level of certainty about atmospheric deposition
SL Determine phosphorus loss from soil
SL Relationship between hydromorphological and biological conditions
SL Impact of alloctonous fish species on other biological elements
SL Assessment of biological rehabilitation measures for river types
SL Lack of common European hydromorphological assessment method
UK Availability of monitoring/assessment tools
uk Availability of monitoring/assessment tools
uk
o
many classification tools not fully validated for another 2-3+ years
Lack of recognition of need to prioritise work and be pragmatic in approaches – some
uk knowledge gaps will take a very long time to fill.
LU Monitoring of the priority substances
PO Monitoring – technical and financial aspects
IT Interregional co-operation in the Po river basin
Hydrological regime – good status achievement (needs and threats of water are priority
BE functions above environmental objectives)
CY Social costs (increase in water prices)
CY Mentality of certain water users
Economy analysis (recovery of the costs of all water services (not only drinking water &
CZ sewage)
DE Acceptance of measures by the people concerned (e.g. landowners)
Area-wide morphological alterations due to important uses will prevent from achieving
DE good status in a significant number of water bodies (esp. rivers)
DE Enforcement of measures in agriculture
IE Creating legislation to implement POM
IE Establishing water charging principals
MT - Enforcement
national priorities in policies
national priorities in policies
national priorities in policies
national priorities in policies
national priorities in policies
national priorities in policies
national priorities in policies
national priorities in policies
national priorities in policies
national priorities in policies
knowledge gap
monitoring
monitoring
national co-ordination
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
knowledge gap
Page 18 of 29
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
Looking at the priorities, a complex assessment is needed in order to combine in an
NL equitable way all the functions a water system may have.
A transparent process will be needed to strike the right balance among all the functions of
NL a water system when preparing the programme and measures
How to explain to politicians/decision makers and the public that although the ecological
functioning of a water body is OK, that the classification leads to moderate because some
chemicals (discharged in significant quantities) do not meet the water quality standard
NL
Major polluting sectors have a limited economic strength which will make the discussion
NL regarding their contribution to the set of programme of measures difficult
NL is a densely populated country. Availability of space for various (WFD required)
NL measures cannot easily be made available (Land clauses act procedures)
UK Pressure from stakeholders,
EL Organisation of an efficient public participation and consultation process
uk Effective stakeholder involvement:
uk
o
Pressure from stakeholders
o
Conflict between stockholders at IRBD level e.g. on expectations with respect
to good ecological quality and potential cost of achieving this
uk
AU Financial resources as well as for data collection and measures
AU Human resources
CY Relevant human resources
CY Implementation costs
CZ Range of monitoring and its costs
CZ Financing of Programme of measures
DE Financial means
DE Human resources
Resources to river basin analysis, monitoring, water status assessment and river basin
management planning. Biological monitoring should especially be developed and
FI augmented, as well as the monitoring of the littoral zone.
HU Bottlenecks in institutional capacities
IS Lack of human resources
IT Fund raising
IT Human resources
Shortage of resources for measures required under WFD as now all funds are divided to
LT fulfil other directive requirements.
LU Lack of human resources
LV Slow growth of capacity necessary to evaluate possible effects and costs of the proposed
- Implementation of measures; that is transforming issues into actions through possibly
MT the enactment of subsidiary legislation.
- Keeping up with monitoring obligations particularly due to envisaged lack of human
MT resources and high costs involved.
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
public participation
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
national priorities in policies
national priorities in policies
public participation
public participation
public participation
national priorities in policies
national priorities in policies
national priorities in policies
national priorities in policies
Page 19 of 29
Financial resources to fully implement requirements
Enough personal and financial resources
Lack of human resources
Lack of financial resources
Resources for monitoring impact
The need to keep costs within budget
Limited budget & resources for:
o
monitoring impact of WFD
o
costs of groundwater data
New water resources (possible climate change >>> reservoirs, BAT in households &
industry)
The fragmentation of the water legislation and powers
Tight Deadlines
Lack of harmonisation of CAP/WFD
Uncertainty in the definition of environmental objectives until 2009
Not clear criteria for assessment of good status
Establishment of GES, MEP & GEP
Prioritisation of POM
Gaining stakeholder buy-in
Harmonisation of development plans and programmes elaborated by different sectors, as
most of them have their own time plans, which do not correspond to the WFD
implementation.
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
- Integration of all issues in the RBD and ensuring the coordination between all entities
MT concerned
Different target groups and varying public interests are involved such as e.g. navigation,
production of hydropower, safety (protection against flooding) and nature conservation.
NL
If (many) new priority and priority hazardous substances are placed on annex X of the
WFD a complicated process may start. The existing 33 Annex X substances play,
amongst other substances and quality elements, an important role in the recently finalized
art. 5 risk analysis. A monitoring programme will be developed and programme of
measures will be based taking account of these 33 substances. In case the list in annex X
will be expanded this may have an impact on both the monitoring programme and also on
the programme of measures. The next set of Annex X substances may lead to other
programme of measures than based on the first set of 33 annex X substances (risk of
disinvestments in measures). Give water managers a good chance to start building the
necessary measures.
NL
Operationalization of criteria applied to the heavily modified water bodies designation
PO
PO Programme of measures – priority setting and financing
SL Measures: How to reach consensus between the sectors
LV
CZ
CY
CY
DE
ES
HU
IE
IE
IE
PL
SE
SL
SL
UK
UK
uk
uk
uk
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
water supply
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
WFD process
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
resources
Page 20 of 29
WFD process
Issue
Research projects
New methodologies
Support for non-member states
All (esp. those under B)
Improvement of river training using biological systems
Intercalibration of assessment methods for biological quality elements
Relations between the monitoring and the entire assessment of status of WBs.
Transboundary aspects of the assessment of status of WBs.
International agreement on biological assessment methods
To develop assessment methods
Control of alien species
Harmonization of the criteria applied to the heavily modified water bodies designation
x
x
x
EU
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
SK Relationship among hydromorhological and biological condition
SL Relationship between hydromorphological and biological conditions
EE Management of coastal waters, measures and coordination of measures for coastal
waters
MT More in-depth analysis of the problems specific to coastal areas with particular reference
to saline intrusion
MT Small island and island state issues in relation to water and coastal management
BE Datamanagement
X
CY Appropriate database for storing water related data
X
CY Lack of biological and general water quality data
ES Harmonisation of data collection
MT Funding for the collection of necessary data
MT Collation of monitoring data
NL Data management in such a way that a simple interaction among all systems in Europe is
possible
PO Ecological status classification system
SK Objectives for hydrology (minimum flow)
SK Approach to evaluation of artificial irrigation canals (in period of year without water)
LT
LT
LT
NO
PL
BE
CZ
CZ
DE
HU
MT
PO
x
x
x
x
x
X
1e priot
x
IRBD
x
X
*
X
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
1
data management
coastal water management
coastal water management
data management
data management
data management
data management
data management
data management
coastal water management
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
both key word
x
C.1 When looking at potential measures for the issues listed in sections A and B, which of them would merit an international approach?
Indicate EU-level or International River Basin District-level. (27 countries)
Effective interaction and prioritisation between policy underlying different directives (CAPuk WFD, NOD-WFD, etc)
PO Integration of sectoral policies and stakeholders expectations
PO Administrative aspects
Page 21 of 29
Common analyses at (international) river basin scale concerning the development of cost
effective programme of measures
A common understanding concerning “what are economic instruments” and what are
“economic measures”
Community education and involvement in decision making
Harmonisation of environmental objectives.
Establishment of GES, MEP & GEP
Agreement on operational variables as a result of (international) common or co-ordinated
objectives
Definition of environmental objectives
Collection and evaluation of toxicity test data
Environmental standards for annex VIII and X substances
Establishing threshold values
Establishing EQS for relevant pollutants
Environmental quality standards setting for pollutants discharged in international river
basin districts
Elaboration of EQS for POP´s in biota
Setting of missing environmental quality standards – especially for concentrations of
pollutants in sediment and biota
Flood control measures
Prevention of flood events
Enforcement of measures in agriculture
Impacts of common policies on water quality (particularly CAP)
Harmonising the WFD and the Nitrate Directive
Harmonisation of the WFD and the CAP
Coordination of activities in pollution reduction
Control of pollution caused by agricultural activities: coordination of the proposed pollution
reduction measures and common agricultural policy
Development of effective measures to limit pollution from agricultural sources possibly
through amalgamating the EU Water Policy with the CAP
NL
x
x
X
X
X
x
X
x
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
MT
ES
PO
DE
FI
HU
HU
LT
LV
SE
SL
PO
AU
BE
HU
IE
PO
CY
CZ
IE
NL
NL
IE
LV
Harmonization of data collection and management
Harmonization of monitoring programmes
Harmonization of monitoring technical specifications
Environmental, ressource, financial costs and effects of measures
Economy - cost/benefits and cost recovery problems.
Establishment of consistent methodologies for cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and cost
incidence analysis
Quantification of economic value of ecological/environmental resource
Assessment of environmental impacts and costs associated with all water services and
evaluation of the possible effects and costs of the proposed measures.
PO
PO
PO
BE
CZ
IE
x
+
X
+
X
x
x
X
*
*
x
x
x
x
X
x
Y
X
Y
Y
Y
harmonising WFD with other policies
harmonising WFD with other policies
environmental standards
flood defence
flood defence
harmonising WFD with other policies
harmonising WFD with other policies
harmonising WFD with other policies
harmonising WFD with other policies
harmonising WFD with other policies
environmental standards
environmental standards
environmental objectives
environmental objectives
environmental standards
environmental standards
environmental standards
environmental standards
economy
education
environmental objectives
environmental objectives
economy
economy
economy
economy
data management
data management
data management
economy
economy
Page 22 of 29
Setting of adequate and generic emission control measures at EU level for those
substances where quality objectives at EU level exist and EU legislation is the most
effective and appropriate tool.
Achieve high level of certainty about impacts on ecosystem for some of driving forces and
pressures – especially new hazardous substances and alien species
Assessment of transboundary pollution (sea)
Comprehensive assessmentchieve of atmospheric deposition
Determine phosphorus loss from soil
Impact of alloctonous fish species on other biological elements
Common European hydromorphological assessment method
Impacts of reduced flows due to abstraction (research?)
X
Waste management /landfill issues
Agricultural nutrient management issues
Control of transboundary pollution
Transboundary aspects of R.B.M.Plans public consultations.
Assessment of hydromorphological rehabilitation measures for river types
Best practices to reduce diffuse pollution
Developing measures for agriculture losses (including farmyard runoff)
Developing measures for dredging activities (freshwater & marine)
Developing measures for introduced species
X
X
X
X
X
*
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
UK
UK
UK
LV
CZ
AU
ES
IE
IE
IE
SL
ES
AU
BE
CZ
DE
FR
FR
IE
IE
LV
MT
MT
MT
SE
Municipal sewage systems (small towns)
Identification of new relevant substances
Impact assessment
Long term changes of driving forces and the environmental objectives
Area-wide morphological alterations due to important uses
Evaluation of actual agricultural pressures
Links between pressures and impacts (ecological charecteristics)
Inadequate knowledge of pollutant runoff behaviour
Unknown relationships between pressure state and impact
Estimation of the impacts and measures to control pollution caused by forestry.
Desalination - impacts and implications
Effects of Climate Change
Assessment of erosion phenomena
Quantification of the need to internationally reduce the deposition of antrophogenic loads
of nutrient, heavy metals and POP´s
SE Mechanism for transport of N and P in land and water
SE Elaboration of models for load of N, P and POP´s on coastal areas and see
SE Elaboration of models for prediction
SK Development of common approach for quantification of diffuse pollution – expressed by
nutrients and other parameters (i.e. heavy metals, specific organic pollution)
NL
Y
Y
Y
x
x
x
X
X
X
+
X
X
X
+
x
X
x
Y
Y
+
X
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
international co-ordination
international public consultation
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
harmonising WFD with other policies
households
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
Page 23 of 29
POLLUTION (households, industry and agriculture)
ABSTRACTION
MORPHOLOGY
OTHER ANTHROPOGENIC PRESSURES AND IMPACTS (Climate change)
Control of pollution caused by other sources: landfills and transport
Measures to minimise adverse effects of maritime engineering works
Assessment of the impact of measures on the chemical an biological quality of surface
and ground waters using “practical and well considered approaches”
Municipal sewage systems
Individual sewege systems
Landfill and waste sites
Minning industry impact mitigation
Agriculture impact mitigation
Recreational waters protection with land use planning
Limitation of negative impact of flood defense works
Elaboration of tools for presentation to show the effects of different measures and
scenarios
Assessment of biological rehabilitation measures for river types
Diffuse pollution (Mainly agricultural, but also road run-off)
Morphology pressures
Alien species management
Flow management /navigation issues
Interaction groundwater – surfacewater - sediments
Interaction flood protection – ecological restoration
Interaction water balance – water quality objectives
Links between groundwater and surface water (reciprocal influences)
Development of criteria for identification of change in surface water category
Development of criteria for identification of change in groundwater water category
Coordination of programme of measures in international river basin districts
Agricultural practises including abstractions for irrigation
Pollution from households
Flow management including physical alterations of channels and modifications for
agricultural purposes
Pollution from industry
Other water abstractions (for drinking water supply, industrial purposes, etc.)
Groundwater recharge
Fishing/angling
Landfill and waste sites
Climate change
Control of pollution caused by various branches of industry: a common approach would
be valuable.
X
X
X
YES
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
EL
LV
SL
UK
UK
UK
UK
BE
BE
BE
FR
SK
SK
EE
EL
EL
EL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
PL
SE
LU
LU
LU
LU
LV
LV
NL
+
9
9
9
9
9
9
+
+
X
X
x
1e priot
YES
YES
9
9
9
1
1
x
X
X
*
9
9
9
9
x
x
+
+
Yes
1
1
1
1
PoM
PoM
PoM
PoM
PoM
PoM
PoM
PoM
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
physical interactions
physical interactions
physical interactions
physical interactions
physical interactions
physical interactions
PoM
PoM
PoM
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
Page 24 of 29
Control of pollution caused by agricultural activities: a common approach would be
valuable.
A common understanding of the societal impact of environmental objectives and the role
of political decision making e.g. as regards the programme of measures
Programme of measures
Morphology pressures (best practice exchange/definition – no guidance)
Diffuse pollution (Mainly agricultural, but also road run-off): EU: Not formal guidance but
management and information exchange
Addressing concrete cases at sub basin scale
Water resource management in drought prone regions
Artificial recharge of treated wastewater
Management of groundwater, availability and resource management in international
districts
Coordination of measures to save water in irrigation
Emergency plans for drought situations
Water saving
Water conservation
Water demand management
Water reuse
Promote efficient water use
Minimization of drought effects
Impacts of reduced flows due to abstraction
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
+
x
*
X
water resources management
water resources management
water resources management
water resources management
water resources management
water resources management
water resources management
water resources management
water resources management
water resources management
PoM
water management at sub basin scale
water resources management
water resources management
PoM
PoM
PoM
PoM
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
HU
LU
MT
NL
Aspects of different monitoring network’s optimalisation
Assessment methods
Development of techniques for Ecological Monitoring
Elaborations concerning the one out all out principle for chemicals discharged in
significant quantities as part of the ecological status/potential.
PO Ecological status classification system – indicative parameters and integration
approaches
FR
NO
CZ
DE
All issues
Esp. those under B
Relations between the monitoring and the entire assessment of status of WBs.
Development of common EU-wide biological assessment methods (option 1 of
INTERCALIBRATION process guideline)
FI Linking monitoring and modelling
HU Everything concerning the connection/effect between/on hydrological, hydromorpholgical,
hydrogeological factors/processes and the status of the ecosystems
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
?
?
assessment of quality
C.2 For which of the issues listed under C.1 do you identify gaps of knowledge or a lack of methodologies that could be input for research projects? (27 cntrs)
ES
ES
IT
IT
IT
IT
PO
PO
UK
FR
CY
CY
EE
PO
UK
UK
NL
LV
Page 25 of 29
Relationship between hydromorphological and biological conditions
Methodology for monitoring and chemical status evaluation on karstic GW bodies
Treshhold values to prevent deterioration of chemical status of GW bodies
Hydrology – ecology and morphology – ecology links. These need to be quantified so
that measures to address these pressures, that will result in required degree of
improvement in ecological improvement, can be determined.
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
PO
CY
BE
ES
IE
BE
IE
PO
SE
SL
Methodologies to estimate environmental and resource costs
Community education and involvement in decision making
Intercalibration of assessment methods for biological quality elements (
Modelling tools to define reference conditions
Establishment of GES, MEP & GEP
Environmental standards for annex VIII and X substances
Establishing EQS for relevant pollutants
Environmental quality standards
Elaboration of EQS for POP´s in biota
Setting of missing environmental quality standards – especially for concentrations of
pollutants in sediment and biota
BE Impact assessment
CZ Long term changes of driving forces and the environmental objectives
UK
BE
CY
LU
LU
NL
Groundwater – surface water:
Ecological interactions
Datamanagement
Appropriate database for storing water related data
Data aggregation
GIS data management
Decision support systems taking account the availability of data, the quality of data, the
scale to which available data apply, and resulting uncertainties.
NL The decision support systems may focus on various levels of scale (EU, region, country,
river basin, smaller area etc)
PO Technologies for real time data collection and management
CZ Economy - cost/benefits and cost recovery problems.
IE Establishment of consistent methodologies for cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit and cost
incidence analysis
IE Quantification of economic value of ecological/environmental resource
LV Assessment of environmental impacts and costs associated with all water services and
evaluation of the possible effects and costs of the proposed measures: methodology
adapted to our conditions and best practices
SL
SL
SL
UK
PO Ecological potential classification system - indicative parameters and integration
approaches
SK Objectives for hydrology (minimum flow)
SK Approach to evaluation of artificial irrigation canals (in period of year without water)
environmental standards
impact assessment
impact assessment
economy
economy
education
environmental objectives
environmental objectives
environmental objectives
environmental standards
environmental standards
environmental standards
environmental standards
economy
economy
data management
data management
economy
data management
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
data management
data management
data management
data management
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
assessment of quality
Page 26 of 29
Inadequate knowledge of pollutant runoff behaviour
Unknown relationships between pressure state and impact
Limited knowledge of the impacts different pressures on water body ecosystems
(specifically to biology)
LT Limited knowledge of impact from agricultural activities on water bodies
LT Limited knowledge on interaction between biological and chemical parameters
LT Limited knowledge on impact of hydropowers to ecosystem
LU Diffuse assessment
LV Estimation of the impacts and measures to control pollution caused by forestry:
methodology
LV How to calculate precisely pollution loads that affect a single water body and their
cumulative effects?
MT Trends in Coastal Erosion
NL Further elaboration of the impact of autonomous developments in society on quality
elements and parameters representing the status of surface- and groundwater.
(“baselines in practice”)
Assessment of transboundary pollution (sea)
Comprehensive assessment of atmospheric deposition
Determine phosphorus loss from soil
Impact of alloctonous fish species on other biological elements
Best practices in the control of transboundary pollution
Assessment of hydromorphological rehabilitation measures for river types
Costs and effects of measures
Closing down old underground mining areas, which impact the water quality and might
have negative effects by causing temporary floodings
Methodologies to deal with social and economic issues to develop future scenarios
Decision support systems for the selection of the best alternative in the programme of
measures
SL
SL
SL
SL
LV
AU
BE
EE
ES
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
ES
Achieve high level of certainty about impacts on ecosystem for some of driving forces and
pressures – especially new hazardous substances and alien species
SL
PO
SE
SE
SE
Linkages between individual and multiple pressures and ecological status
Mechanism for transport of N and P in land and water
Elaboration of models for load of N, P and POP´s on coastal areas and see
Quantification of the need to internationally reduce the deposition of antrophogenic loads
of nutrient, heavy metals and POP´s
SE Elaboration of models for prediction
SK Groundwater: Development of common approach for quantification of diffuse pollution –
expressed by nutrients and other parameters (i.e. heavy metals, specific organic pollution)
IE
IE
LT
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
international co-ordination
measures assessment
measures assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
impact assessment
Page 27 of 29
Measures to minimise adverse effects of maritime engineering works: best practices
LV
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
PO
SK
SK
EL
EL
Linkages between groundwater, surface waters and terrestrial ecosystem
Development of criteria for identification of change in surface water category
Relationship among hydromorhological and biological condition
Agricultural practises including abstractions for irrigation
Flow management including physical alterations of channels and modifications for
agricultural purposes
EL Groundwater recharge
EL Climate change
EL Landfill and waste sites
FI Linking ecological and socio-economical models
PL Minning industry impact mitigation
CY Water resource management in drought prone regions
CY Artificial recharge of treated wastewater
EE Groundwater management
ES New technologies to save water in irrigation
ES New technologies for non conventional water sources(desalinisation and reuse)
IT Water saving
IT Water conservation
IT Water reuse
PL Limitation of negative impact of flood defense works
SE Elaboration of tools for presentation to show the effects of different measures and
scenarios
SL Assessment of biological rehabilitation measures for river types
Groundwater – surface water:
Pressures management
UK
BE Interaction groundwater – surfacewater - sediments
MT Saline Intrusion - firstly a clear definition is needed in the Directive of what is meant by
'significant intrusion'. This is achievable only through further Community-wide research in
'intrusion mechanisms'.
MT Development of synergies between the CAP and agricultural pollution
MT Action plans for the control and eradication of alien invasive species
NL General insight is needed to find out what the most effective and cost effective measures
are. (focus on chemical water quality improvement, focus on improvement of the habitat
quality or focus on combinations of chemical and habitat oriented measures)
Control of pollution caused by landfills and transport: methodology, practical experience
LV
HU Evaluation of environmental results of implemented program of measures. (e.g: Effects
of completed wastewater programs on the chemical, ecological status of waterbodies in
selected sub-river basins – lessons to be learned)
PoM
PoM
PoM
PoM
PoM
PoM
water resources management
water resources management
water resources management
water resources management
water resources management
water resources management
water resources management
water resources management
physical interactions
physical interactions
physical interactions
physical interactions
PoM
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
physical interactions
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
measures assessment
Page 28 of 29
WFD key issues - Annex IIIB: Input from the countries to Sections A2-C2 - Final version
PO Technologies and methodologies to support an efficient water use
PO Integration of climate change in water resources management
MT The impact of implementing the WFD on small islands; where the implementation of
obligations result in specific complications not encountered in larger MS
WFD process
water resources management
water resources management
Page 29 of 29
Annex IV: Priorities under CIS 2005-2006
Table 3 from the CIS work programme 2005/2006:
Priority activities under the Common Implementation Strategy 2005/2006 including
attribution to the Working Groups and tentative timeframe for start and completion of
work (WG: working group; EAF: expert advisory forum; IRBM: integrated
river basin management; GW: groundwater).
No
Key activities
Responsible Group
Tentative timeframe
A1
Intercalibration exercise
WG A – Ecological
Status (led by JRc)
Results reported to
Committee in July 2006
A2
Eutrophication guidance
WG A – Ecological
Status (led by DG
ENV)
Guidance by end 2005
B1
Integration of pilot river basins
into all CIS activities
WG B – IRBM
Outcome report in Dec
2006
B2
Information sheets on costeffectiveness
WG B – IRBM (led by
FR)
Information sheets by
[check]
B3
Link to research and Article 5
evaluation
WG B – IRBM (led by
SP/NL)
Various products,
finalised in late 2005
B4
Water scarcity
WG B – IRBM (led by
FR) (also linked to EU
Water Initiative)
Guidance end 2005
C1
Preparatory work on groundwater
WG C – Groundwater
Ongoing
E1
Preparatory work on priority
substances
WG E – Priority
Substances
Ongoing
F1
Preparatory work on flooding
EAF Flooding
Ongoing
C2
Monitoring
DG Monitoring linked
to WG C and E
Guidance documents
for GW and PS end
2006
D1
Reporting and GIS – development
of WISE and reporting guidance
2007 and 2010
WG D – Reporting
Reporting guidance on
monitoring end 2005
and on RBMP mid 2007
S1
Link of Agriculture / WFD
Strategic Steering
Group (led by UK and
DG ENV)
Summary report with
key results end 2006
S2
Improving integration of WFD in
other policy areas – regional
policy, transport/navigation,
energy/hydropower (agriculture
and research see separate point)
Strategic Coordination Group
Ongoing
No
Key activities
Responsible Group
Tentative timeframe
S3
Environmental objectives
Strategic Coordination Group
Stepwise work
programme according
to discussion paper
S4
Improvement of transboundary
co-operation
Strategic Coordination Group
Mandate to be defined
later
Annex V: Information on BREFs, from:
http://eippcb.jrc.es/pages/BActivities.cfm
Activities of the EIPPCB. Here you will find details of the industrial sectors being addressed, the
people involved in that work, the background information being used in the work, records of early
technical working group meetings and draft reference documents as they become available.
It is the intention to develop a series of reference documents so as to cover, as far as practicable, the
activities listed in Annex 1 to the Directive. The work program consists of a number of work sectors
each year as determined by the Information Exchange Forum (IEF). The IEF consists of
representatives from Member States, industry and environmental non-governmental organisations.
Each sector of work is addressed by a specific Technical Working Group (TWG) established for the
duration of the work. The documents drafted by the EIPPCB will be circulated around the TWGs for
comments before being submitted to the Environment Directorate-General of the Commission and
being further considered by the IEF.
The reference documents are produced following a set BREF outline and guide as agreed with DG
Environment and the IEF which gives important foundations for the understanding of best available
techniques reference documents (BREFs).
For advice on downloading Documents click here. BREFs and DRAFTs are large documents and in
order to avoid problems they should be downloaded rather than opened straight from the Web page.
When you click on one of these links you are given the option to select the site where you prefer to
download the document from. This does not apply to MRs, which are smaller documents, and can be
downloaded directly from this page.
The (8) adopted BREFs in English language together with translations of parts of them into all Member
State languages have been published on a CD by the Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities. The CD is titled "Reference Documents on Best Available Techniques (Council
Directive 96/61/EC) : First edition (multilingual)" ISBN 92-894-3678-6
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/pubs/industry.htm).
= BREF
formally
adopted;
TWG & Members list
(click on TWG name
to see the list of
members)
= BREF
finalised;
= Final
Draft
BREF;
Documents available
(see key below table)
= Working
Draft
BREF;
= work
started.
Background
material
Additional
Information
Pulp and Paper
manufacture
BREF (12.01)
List
Yes
Iron and Steel
production
BREF (12.01)
List
Yes
Cement and Lime
production
BREF (12.01)
List
Yes
Cooling Systems
BREF (12.01)
List
Yes
Chlor-Alkali
manufacture
BREF (12.01)
List
Yes
Ferrous Metal
processing
BREF (12.01)
List
Yes
Non-Ferrous Metal
processes
BREF (12.01)
List
Yes
Glass manufacture
BREF (12.01)
List
Yes
Tanning of hides and
skins
BREF (02.03)
List
Yes
Textile processing
BREF (07.03)
List
Yes
Monitoring systems
BREF (07.03)
List
Yes
Refineries
BREF (02.03)
List
Yes
Large Volume Organic
Chemicals
BREF (02.03)
List
Yes
Smitheries and
Foundries
MR
List
Intensive Livestock
Farming
BREF (07.03)
List
Emissions from
storage of bulk or
dangerous materials
MR
List
Common waste water
and waste gas
treatment and
management systems
in the chemical sector
BREF (02.03)
List
Economic and cross
media issues under
IPPC
MR
FD (11.04)
List
Large Combustion
Plant
MR
FD (11.04)
List
Large Volume
Inorganic Chemicals Ammonia, Acids &
Fertilisers
MR
D2 (03.04)
List
Large Volume
Inorganic Chemicals Solid & Others
MR
D1 (08.04)
List
Slaughterhouses and
Animal By-products
MR
BREF (11.03)
List
Food, Drink and Milk
processes
MR
D2 (05.03)
List
BREF (07.04)
BREF (01.05)
Yes
Yes
Ceramics
MR
D1 (10.04)
List
Management of
Tailings and WasteRock in Mining
Activities
MR
BREF (07.04)
List
Surface treatment of
metals
MR
D2 (04.04)
List
Surface treatments
using solvents
MR
D1 (05.04)
List
Waste Incineration
MR
D2 (03.04)
List
Waste Treatments
[Previously Waste
Recovery/Disposal
activities]
MR
D2 (01.04)
List
Speciality inorganic
chemicals
MR
D1 (09.04)
List
Organic fine
chemicals
MR
D2 (12.04)
List
Polymers
MR
D1 (09.04)
List
Energy Efficiency
2003
Yes
List
Key to "Documents available":
BREF
(mm.yy)
indicates that a document has been formally adopted by the Commission
and can be downloaded by following the link which leads to the list of
mirrors available and selecting the site nearer to you.
BREF
(mm.yy)
indicates that a document has been finalised after submission to DG
Environment and the final version dated as shown can be downloaded by
following the link which leads to the list of mirrors available and selecting
the site nearer to you.
FD (mm.yy)
indicates that a Final Draft document dated as shown has been put up for
discussion with DG Environment and the Information Exchange Forum and
the draft can be downloaded by following the link.
D1/2/3
(mm.yy)
indicates that a 1st / 2nd / 3rd working Draft reference document dated as
shown has been put to consultation in the TWG and the draft can be
downloaded by following the link.
MR (mm.yy)
indicates work has started, theTWG has met for the first time on date shown
and a Meeting Report of that first meeting can be downloaded by following
the link where shown.
yyyy
indicates work is planned to commence in the year shown and has not yet
started.
Annex 6; Overview of relevant currently running research projects
Introduction
This Annex gives an overview of the currently executed research projects with relevance for the WFD
implementation. Of course, more relevant research projects and initiatives exist than the ones
mentioned below. Nevertheless, in order to keep a list that is easily accessible, the projects are limited
to the currently running projects and to the FP projects. Another reason for sticking to the currently
executed projects is that in those projects, people still can be contacted to discuss with and to adapt
the product if necessary (as stated in the main body of the document).
FP projects can often be considered as a core in a network of researchers around a certain topic, and
FP projects are frequently followed by LIFE or INTERREG projects. Generally speaking, the people
within a certain FP project know what relevant LIFE, INTERREG or COST initiatives exist.
More information about LIFE, INTERREG or COST projects is available at the respective websites:
LIFE database: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm
LIFE, the Financial Instrument for the Environment, introduced in 1992, is one of the
spearheads of the European Union's environmental policy. LIFE-Environment aims to
implement Community policy and legislation on the environment in the European Union and
candidate countries. This approach enables demonstration and development of new methods
for the protection and the enhancement of the environment.
INTERREG: http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/interreg3/abc/abc_en.htm
General principles:
Economic and social cohesion
Balanced and sustainable development of the European territory
Territorial integration with candidate and other neighbouring countries
An example of a LIFE project with relevance for the WFD implementation is presented below,
nr. 42 Watersketch.
COST site: http://www.cost.esf.org/index.php
Founded in 1971, COST is an intergovernmental framework for European Co-operation in the
field of Scientific and Technical Research, allowing the co-ordination of nationally funded
research on a European level. COST Actions cover basic and pre-competitive research as
well as activities of public utility. The goal of COST is to ensure that Europe holds a strong
position in the field of scientific and technical research for peaceful purposes, by increasing
European co-operation and interaction in this field.
Finally, the Water supply and sanitation technology platform (WSSTP) must be mentioned. The
Water Supply and Sanitation Technology Platform (WSSTP) is one of the technology platforms that
are set up within the European Environmental Technology Action Plan (ETAP) that was adopted by
the European Commission in 2004. It is a European initiative, open to all stakeholders involved in
European water supply and sanitation and major end-user groups. The participants in the platform will
together produce a common vision document for the whole European water industry together with a
strategic research agenda and an implementation plan for the short (2010), medium (2020) and long
term (2030). The WSSTP will contribute to:
- The competitiveness of the European water industry (Lisbon Strategy);
- Solving the European water problems
- Reaching the Millennium Development Goals (Johannesburg).
By this, the scope of WSSTP goes beyond the WFD. Member States are involved via the Member
State Mirror Group.
WSSTP site: http://www.wsstp.org/default.aspx
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 1 of 33
Projects:
1. Achieving technological innovation in flood forecasting (ACTIF – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: ACTIF will actively consolidate and disseminate Fifth Framework research advances in
Flood Forecasting through three scientific meetings and preparation of best European practice
guidance. The ACTIF partners will compile best practice guides on three topics where significant
research advances have been made in recent years and also on cataloguing specific data sets of
long-term value to the research community. Thus ACTIF will facilitate the uptake by end-users of
European research advances in flood forecasting, warning and dissemination.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-200280014
Contract Type: Preparatory, accompanying and support
measures
Start Date: 2003-02-01
End Date: 2006-01-31
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: ACTIF
Update Date: 2005-06-07
http://www.actif-ec.net/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Other
Organisation: H R Wallingford Group Ltd
Howberry Park
OX10 8BA Wallingford
UNITED KINGDOM
Contact Person:
Name: POWELL, Keith (Dr.)
2. Assessing and improving sustainablilty of urban water resources and
systems (AISUWRS – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The overall scope is to assess and improve the sustainability of urban water resources
and systems with the help of computer tools. The project will analyse a range of existing urban water
supply and disposal scenarios by demonstrating how each scenario differs in its handling of
contaminants. The sources of contaminants, their flow paths and the sinks will be identified for
different urban areas and a quantification of the contaminant loads undertaken. The impact of these
contaminant loads on their capability to contaminate groundwater will be estimated. For the
verification and validation of the model, detailed field studies will be carried out in 4 case study cities.
In addition AISUWRS aims to develop a management and DS system that will make use of
innovative pipeline and urban water system assessment procedures to deliver detailed guidelines
and recommendations for the safeguarding and protection of urban water resources.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2002-00110
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-11-01
End Date: 2005-10-31
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: AISUWRS
Update Date: 2005-06-07
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 2 of 33
URL: http://www.urbanwater.de/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Education
Department: DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED GEOLOGY
Organisation: UNIVERSITAET KARLSRUHE (TECHNISCHE HOCHSCHULE)
12 Kaiserstrasse 12
PF 6980
76128 KARLSRUHE
GERMANY
Contact Person:
Name: SCHMIRANDER, Andrea (MRS)
3. Advance logging investigations of aquifers in coastal environments
(ALIANCE – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The goal of ALIANCE is to improve the investigation, characterisation and monitoring of
coastal aquifers for vulnerability assessment. For this, ALIANCE proposes to develop a set of
geophysical approaches for the quantitative evaluation of brine intrusion. This includes state-of-theart geological, geochemical, petrophysical, logging and hydrological methods, and the design of 5
new geophysical and hydrodynamical logging/testing sensors yielding new data for model validation.
Two end-member sites in terms of hydrogeological behaviour will be set up for long-term
experimentation, the testing of the new tools, and the validation of site-specific experimental and
modelling protocols from µm- to 100 m-scale. Active in-site testing from short and longer-term
injections with variable salinity fluids will simulate over drafting or saline water intrusion. The electrohydraulic coupling principle will be used to characterise and monitor water/brine hydrodynamics in
coastal environments.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2001-00091
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-01-01
End Date: 2005-07-31
Duration: 43 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: ALIANCE
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://www.isteem.univ-montp2.fr/LGHF/water/ALIANCE/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Research
Department: INSTITUT DES SCIENCES DE LA TERRE, DE L'EAU DE MONTPELLIER
Organisation: CENTRE NATIONAL DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE
Place Eugene Bataillon
34095 MONTPELLIER
FRANCE
Contact Person:
Name: RETOURNA, Michel (Mr)
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 3 of 33
4. Strategic tools to support adaptive, integrated water resource management
under changing utilisation conditions at catchment scale : a co-evolutionary
approach. (AQUADAPT – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The AQUADAPT project will generate knowledge and tools to support strategic water
resource planning in semi-arid contexts with an emphasis on the co-ordination of planning with other
aspects of environmental, land use, and socio-economic development. The project is characterised
by a co evolutionary perspective, the application of a cross-disciplinary enquiry framework, and
emphasis on practical outputs, informed by end-users. Research will characterise co evolutionary
trajectories and identify robust configurations of technologies, policies and distribution arrangements.
Actions focus on an analysis of the spatial and temporal relationships between climate change, land
use, governance arrangements, human behaviour, water quality/quantity, and environmental
integrity. Output supports decision-making and stakeholder participation in water resource planning
and management. The consortium combines contributions from theoretical and empirical research,
industry and potential end-users.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2001-00104
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-02-01
End Date: 2005-07-31
Duration: 42 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: AQUADAPT
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://www.aquadapt.net/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Education
Department: DEPARTAMIENTO DE ECOLOGIA - FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS
Organisation: UNIVERSITY OF ALICANTE
Carretera de Alicante a San Vicente s/n
P.O. Box 99
03080 ALICANTE
SPAIN
Contact Person:
Name: RUIZ, Juan (Prof)
5. Integrated concepts for reuse of upgrated wastewater (AQUAREC – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The project intends to develop integrated strategies for the reuse of upgraded ef-fluent
from wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) as a fresh water substitute for non-potable use. It will
provide standards, recommendations and data for policy makers (strategy level), methodologies,
practices and guidelines for preparing and operating reuse systems (management level) and design
standards and cost data for proven reuse process chains (technology level). Case and feasibility
studies serve to substantiate and validate the results. The consortium consists of 23 partners from 12
countries and integrates fields as diverse as economics, environmental science, medicine, hygiene,
geology, chemical, systems and civil engineering. Innovation is expected mainly from novel targets
(inclusion of pre-accession states, focus on multi-purpose industrial reuse), application of best
available tools from many disciplines, user oriented approach and introduction of hybrid processes.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2002-00130
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2003-03-01
End Date: 2006-02-28
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 4 of 33
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: AQUAREC
Update Date: 2005-06-07
http://www.ivt.rwth-aachen.de/Eng/Forschung/aquarec.html
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Education
Department: INSTITUT FUER VERFAHRENSTECHNIK
Organisation: AACHEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Turmstrasse 46
52064 AACHEN
GERMANY
Contact Person:
Name: RAUHUT, Burkhart (Prof. Dr.)
6. Enhanced zero discharge seawater desalination using hybrid solar
technology (AQUASOL – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: Proposal addressed to perform an innovative development of environmentally friendly
seawarer desalination with zero discharge brine. Scientific and technological developments will be
focused in the increasing of current Performance Ratio of conventional MED desalination systems by
the inclusion of a double heat pump to energy recovering from brine, the use of brine to the
commercial production of salt, avoiding any discharge, and coupling a hybrid solar/gas-fired costefficient thermal energy system. Final developed system is expected to have remarkable
environmental features, with relevant aspects in energy efficiency and water production cost, when
compared with conventional MED systems.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2001-00102
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-03-01
End Date: 2006-02-28
Duration: 48 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: AQUASOL
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://www.psa.es/webeng/aquasol/index.html
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Research
Department: PLATAFORMA SOLAR DE ALMERIA
Organisation: CENTRO DE INVESTIGACIONES ENERGETICAS, MEDIAMBIENTALES Y
TECNOLOGICAS
S/N Carretera Senes S/N
PO Box 22
04200 TABERNAS
SPAIN
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 5 of 33
7. Mitigation of Water Stress through new Approaches to Integrating
Management, Technical, Economic and Institutional Instruments
(AQUASTRESS – FP6)
AquaStress is an Integrated Project (IP) funded by the European Commission in the frame of the 6th
R&D Framework Programme (www.cordis.lu). Water stress is a global problem with far-reaching
economic and social implications. The mitigation of water stress at regional scale depends not just on
technological innovations, but also on the development of new integrated water management tools
and decision-making practices. The AquaStress IP delivers enhanced interdisciplinary methodologies
enabling actors at different levels of involvement and at different stages of the planning process to
mitigate water stress problems. This IP draws on both academic and practitioner skills to generate
knowledge in technological, operational management, policy, socio-economic, and environmental
domains. Contributions come from 35 renowned organizations, including SMEs, from 17 Countries.
AquaStress will generate scientific innovations to improve the understanding of water stress from an
integrated multisectoral perspective to support:
- diagnosis and characterisation of sources and causes of water stress;
- assessment of the effectiveness of water stress management measures and development of new
tailored options;
- development of supporting methods and tools to evaluate different mitigation options and their
potential interactions;
- development and dissemination of guidelines, protocols, and policies;
- development of a participatory process to implement solutions tailored to environmental, cultural,
economic and institutional settings;
- identification of barriers to policy mechanism implementation;
- continuous involvement of citizens and institutions within a social learning process that promotes
new forms of water culture and nurtures long-term change and social adaptivity.
The IP adopts a Case Study stakeholder driven approach and is organised in three phases; (i)
characterisation of selected reference sites and relative water stress problems, (ii) collaborative
identification of preferred solution options, (iii) testing of solutions according to stakeholder interests
and expectations (Figure 1-1). It will make a major contribution to the objectives of the Global Change
and Ecosystems Sub-Priority 1.1.6.3, addressing Topic II.3.3.b of the 6th Framework Programme of
the European Commission www.cordis.lu and it supports the Community Directive 2000/60/EC and the
EU Water Initiative.
http://www.aquastress.net
[email protected]
8. Understanding river-sediment-soil-groundwater interactions for support of
management of waterbodies (river basin & catchment areas) (AQUATERRA –
FP6)
Action Line: River-soil-groundwater system functioning
Changes in climatic conditions, land use practices and soil and sediment pollution have large-scale
adverse impacts on water quantity and quality. The current knowledge base in river basin
management is not adequate to deal with these impacts. Austere is both integrating and developing
knowledge to resolve this and disseminating it to stakeholders. In the water cycle, soil is a key element
affecting groundwater recharge and the chemical composition of both subsurface and surface waters
(the latter is additionally affected by sediments). The proper functioning of the river-sediment-soilgroundwater system is linked to key biogeochemical processes determining the filter, buffer and
transformation capacity of soils and sediments. Austere aims at a better understanding of the system
as a whole by identifying relevant processes, quantifying the associated parameters and developing
numerical models of the groundwater-soil-sediment-river system to identify adverse trends in soil
functioning, water quantity and quality. The modelling addresses all relevant scales starting from
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 6 of 33
micro-scale water/solid interactions, the transport of dissolved species, pollutants as well as
suspended matter in soil and groundwater systems at the catchments scale, and finally the regional
scale, with case studies located in major river basins in Europe. With this integrated modelling system,
Austere provides the basis for improved river basin management, enhanced soil and groundwater
monitoring programs and the early identification and forecasting of impacts on water quantity and
quality during this century. Austere is committed to the dissemination and exploitation of project results
through structured workshops, dedicated short courses, and the active participation of consortium
partners in national and international conferences. A peer review panel supervises the quality and
direction of the project.
Coordinator
Contact Person:
Name: FRANK, Elisabeth
Email: efrank©attempto-service.de
http://www.attempto-projects.de/aquaterra/
Organisation:
Attempto Service GmbH
ATTEMPTO - EU-Management
Albrechtstr. 9
72072 Tübingen
GERMANY
Project details
Project Reference: 505428
Contract Type: Integrated Project
Start Date: 2004-06-01
End Date: 2009-06-01
Duration: 60 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Cost: 20.22 million euro
Project Funding: 13.00 million euro
9. Arid cluster: strengthening complementarity and exploitation of results of
related rtd projects dealing with water resources use and management in arid
and semi-arid regions (ARID – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The ARID Cluster will review and consolidate the work of three currently funded EU
projects with a view at ensuring that through collaboration, information sharing and dissemination a
consistent set of recommendations and user friendly tools and methodologies for water management
in arid and semi arid areas are developed. The three projects have concentrated their research
efforts on integrated water resource management based on GIS databases. They all draw on
hydrological, socio-economic and institutional data but each one of them places emphasis on
different determinants of water supply and demand conditions: e.g. co-evolutionary dynamics,
participation of end-users and socio-economics. The proposal will serve to bring together each
projects existing and acquired expertise to improve knowledge on water resources use and
management in areas prone of water shortages and drought.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-200280018
Contract Type: Preparatory, accompanying and support
measures
Start Date: 2003-02-01
End Date: 2006-01-31
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: ARID
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://arid.chemeng.ntua.gr/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Other
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 7 of 33
Department: DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
Organisation: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON
Gower Street
WC1E 6BT LONDON
UNITED KINGDOM
Contact Person:
Name: VICKERS, Ilse (Dr)
10. Background cRiteria for the IDentification of Groundwater thresholds
(BRIDGE – FP6)
Action Line: Sustainable management of Europe's natural resources - Environmental assessment
The Commission proposal of Groundwater Directive COM(2003)550 developed under Article 17 of the
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) sets out criteria for the assessment of the chemical status of
groundwater, which is based on existing Community quality standards (nitrates, pesticides and
biocides) and on the requirement for Member States to identify pollutants and threshold values that
are representative of groundwater bodies found as being at risk, in accordance with the analysis of
pressures and impacts carried out under the WFD. In the light of the above, the objectives of BRIDGE
are:
i) to study and gather scientific outputs which could be used to set out criteria for the assessment of
the chemical status of groundwater,
ii) to derive a plausible general approach, how to structure relevant criteria appropriately with the aim
to set representative groundwater threshold values scientifically sound and defined at national river
basin district or groundwater body level,
iii) to check the applicability and validity by means of case studies at European scale,
iv) to undertake additional research studies to complete the available data,
v) and to carry out an environmental impact assessment taking into account the economic and social
impacts.
The project shall be carried out at European level, involving a range of stakeholders and efficiently
linking the scientific and policy-making communities. Considering the requirement of the diary of the
Groundwater Daughter Directive proposal, which implies that groundwater pollutants and related
threshold values should be identified before December 2005 and listed by June 2006, the duration of
the project should be 24 months. In that way the proposed research will contribute to provide research
elements that will be indispensable for preparing discussions on further steps of the future
Groundwater Directive.
Coordinator
Contact Person:
Name: FOUILLAC, Anne Marie
Email: [email protected]
Organisation:
BUREAU DE RECHERCHES GEOLOGIQUES
ET MINIERES
Service Analyse et caracterisation minerale
39-43 quai André Citroen - Tour Mirabeau
75739 PARIS
FRANCE
Project details
Project Reference: 6538
Contract Type: Specific Targeted Research
Project
Start Date: 2004-12-23
End Date: 2006-01-01
Duration: 12 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Cost: 2.96 million euro
Project Funding: 1.88 million euro
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 8 of 33
10. Computer aided rehabilitation of sewer networks (CARE-S – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: This project deals with public sewer and storm water networks and their problems caused
by ageing such as structural failures, insufficient capacity causing floods, local pollution, and
increasing maintenance costs. The ultimate goal is to develop a suite of tools, which provide the most
cost-efficient system of maintenance, repair and rehabilitation of sewer networks, with the aim to
guarantee a security of sanitary sewage collection and storm water drainage that meets social,
health, economic and environmental requirements as well as the re-use of water for consumption.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2002-00106
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-10-01
End Date: 2005-09-30
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: CARE-S
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://care-s.unife.it/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Research
Organisation: FOUNDATION FOR TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AT THE
NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
1 D Strindveien 4
7465 TRONDHEIM
NORWAY
Contact Person:
Name: ARNTZEN, Roar (Doctor)
12. Cost-effective development of urban wastewater systems for water
framework directive compliance (CD4WC – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The project CD4WC will deal with optimising the efficiency of the urban wastewater
system with regard to impacts in natural water bodies and with regard to investment and operation
costs. The European Water Framework Directive sets "good water quality" as the ultimate goal for
water management, from which the necessary performance of the wastewater system must be
derived. With this water-quality based approach, the design of the systems is not predetermined and
the options to meet the goals become much more widespread as compared to the common approach
where the design of the wastewater system is prescribed. Further, interactions between the
subsystems sewer system, wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and receiving water may result in
synergy effects. This synergy potential will be systematically evaluated and the cost benefits will be
quantified, in order to give guidance to wastewater managers for efficient development of their
systems.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2002-00118
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2003-02-01
End Date: 2006-07-31
Duration: 42 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: CD4WC
Update Date: 2005-06-07
http://www.tu-dresden.de/CD4WC/src/index.php?id=1&session_id=none
Coordinator
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 9 of 33
Organisation Type: Education
Department: INSTITUTE FOR URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT
Organisation: DRESDEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
Mommsenstrasse 13
01062 DRESDEN
GERMANY
Contact Person:
Name: POST, Alfred (Mr)
13. Centre of excellence in environmental analysis and monitoring (CEEAM –
FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The CEEAM will be a leading centre in Central and Eastern Europe focusing on
development of new analytical and monitoring tools in the field of water pollution and air-towater/water-to-air transfer of pollutants. It will be principally dedicated to proper procedures of
collection of environmental samples (passive dosemeters and. other cheap methods), their pretreatment, storage and preparation for analyses (preconcentration, isolation, etc.) by analytical
techniques such as: GC, HPLC (both coupled with MS), and ECZ. The key is sue is an observable
trend in environmental analysis towards more and more complicated matrices (living organisms,
tissues, etc.), requiring strengthening of the aforementioned stages of the analytical process. The
Centre intends to act as a contact point between the ERA and PL and other NAB. It will also
concentrate on increasing networking both to boost the research and implement the results.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-200280010
Contract Type: Preparatory, accompanying and support
measures
Start Date: 2003-01-01
End Date: 2005-12-31
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: CEEAM
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://www.pg.gda.pl/chem/CEEAM/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Other
Department: FACULTY OF CHEMISTRY
DEPARTMENT OF ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Organisation: TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF GDANSK
G.Narutowicza Street 11-12
P.O.Box 612
80 952 GDANSK
POLAND
Contact Person:
Name: GODLEWSKI, Jan (Prof.)
Tel: +48-58-3471474
Fax: +48-58-3415821
Email: [email protected]
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 10 of 33
14. Centre of complex environmental monitoring and environmental risk
assessment (CEMERA – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The objective of the proposal is to create CEMERA, a leader in Central Europe in the
area of complex environmental protection and closely tied to the quality of life of the individual. The
activity of the Centre will be based on interdisciplinary research groups composed of scientists from
both EU and NAS countries. The activity of the Centre will be closely linked with ERA through
networking, scientific exchange, and twinning. Reaching the goals of Cemera will allow in the future:
improved preparation of new landfills and better management of existing ones; creation a basis for
the rational taking of decisions that, will be compatible with social expectations regarding protection
of the environment as a result of the educational and information drives; increased social acceptation
for the use of recycled materials, horticulture and forestry; increased social trust. In scientific
authorities in the fields of environmental protection.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-200280008
Contract Type: Preparatory, accompanying and support
measures
Start Date: 2002-12-01
End Date: 2005-11-30
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: CEMERA
Update Date: 2005-06-07
http://www.cemera.pl/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Other
Department: FACULTY OF BIOLOGY
Organisation: WARSAW UNIVERSITY
Miecznikowa 1
02 096 WARSZAWA
POLAND
Contact Person:
Name: MACIEJEWSKI, Wojciech (Prof.)
Email: [email protected]
15. Citynet - the network of european research projects on integrated urban
water management (CITYNET – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The CityNet project cluster consists of six individual 5 FWP projects and deals with the
integrated aspects of water management in urban areas (water supply, sewerage, drainage)
including their urban/rural interfaces (raw water sources, receiving waters, groundwater). The CityNet
cluster consists of 47 research partners and 59 end-users I thus comprising a significant part of the
European R&D capacity and implementation potential in urban water systems.
This proposal for Accompanying Measures (AM) aims to widen and deepen the joint activities of the
cluster partners with respect to three aspects of integration, i.e.
(1) the urban water system and its water resources
(2) the necessary infrastructure for water supply, urban drainage and wastewater management, and
(3) the socio-economic aspects of urban water management.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-200280013
Contract Type: Preparatory, accompanying and support
measures
Start Date: 2003-02-01
End Date: 2006-01-31
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 11 of 33
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: CITYNET
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://citynet.unife.it/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Other
Organisation: FOUNDATION FOR TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AT THE
NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
1 D Strindveien 4
7465 TRONDHEIM
NORWAY
Contact Person:
Name: LOKTU, Morten (Dr.)
16. Climate and lake impacts in Europe (CLIME – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: We have brought together a consortium of scientists and end-users from 10 countries to
assess the direct and indirect effects of changes in the weather on the dynamics of lakes in northern,
western and central Europe. Particular attention will be paid to water quality variables used as
diagnostic elements in the water Framework Directive. The primary objective is to develop a suite of
well as past changes in the weather. The models will be validated by historical data and perturbed by
simulations of future variations in the weather. These simulations will be based on the output from an
ensemble of Regional Climate Models and will be linked to socio-economic analyses of their costs
and benefits of the predicted changes. One of the main outputs will be a Decision Support System
that can be used to optimise the management of lakes in a warmer world.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2002-00121
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2003-01-01
End Date: 2005-12-31
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: CLIME
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://clime.tkk.fi/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Research
Department: CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY
Organisation: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL
Hill of Brathens
AB31 4BW BANCHORY(KINCARDINSHIRE)
UNITED KINGDOM
Contact Person:
Name: BUTLER, Brian (Mr)
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 12 of 33
17. Adaptive decision support system for stormwater pollution control
(DAYWATER – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The project aims at developing an adaptive decision support system (ADSS) for use by
stakeholders involved in urban storm water management where decisions are made on many scales
reflecting the spatial topology of urban catchments and the dynamic nature of urban development.
The ADSS is a combination of simulation models, assessment tools, databases, guidance
documents, road maps etc. Part of the research focuses on the functional behaviour of structural and
non-structural best management practices (BMPs). Models will be developed for simulating pollution
fluxes and assessing their possible source-elimination and fate in structural BMPs, and procedures
for environmental risk assessment related to discharge of storm water priority pollutants to surface
waters as well as urban soils and ground waters will be developed. The project is carried out by a
multi-disciplinary research team and includes end-users and case studies in four European cities.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2002-00111
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-12-01
End Date: 2005-11-30
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: DAYWATER
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://www.daywater.org/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Education
Department: CENTRE D'ENSEIGNEMENT ET DE RECHERCHE SUR L'EAU, LA VILLE ET
L'ENVIRONNEMENT (CEREVE)
Organisation: ECOLE NATIONALE DES PONTS ET CHAUSSEES
Avenue Blaise Pascal, 6 et 8,
77455 MARNE LA VALLEE
FRANCE
Contact Person:
Name: VELTZ, Pierre (Dr.)
18. Development of an innovative plate multi-effect evaporator for seawater
desalination (EASYMED – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: Water scarcity is a global major concern. The use of alternative water sources, such as
desalination, is a high potential solution in sustainable development perspective. A qualified
workforce has been implemented to promote research and development of an innovative desalination
process, based on plate Multi-Effect Distillation, which focuses on four attractive points: low
investment and running costs, construction-friendly, high modularity, low-level energy requirements.
Economic, political, end-user issues and environmental considerations influence the challenging
water desalination market. Water management and desalination policies have to be considered at a
regional, social and economic scale. A user-oriented market analysis will enhance the pertinence of
the dissemination phase up to industrialisation.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2001-00095
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-01-01
End Date: 2005-06-30
Duration: 42 months
Project Status: Execution
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 13 of 33
Project Acronym: EASYMED
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://www.easymed-eu.com
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Other
Organisation: NAN C.I.E. - CENTRE INTERNATIONAL DE L 'EAU
Rue Gabriel Péri 149
BP 290
54515 VANDOEUVRE-LES-NANCY
FRANCE
Contact Person:
Name: BEGORRE, Henri (Mr)
19. European groundwater and contaminated land remediation information
system (EUGRIS – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: This proposal outlines an Accompanying Measure to develop an European web based
information management system(EUGRIS)on groundwater and contaminated land remediation. The
management of this issues requires complex interdisciplinary expertise as well as a considerable
amount of supporting technical information and knowledge. EUGRIS will be generally available and
applicable providing a comprehensive and overarching information and innovation resource. The
gateway will provide a "one stop shop" for information provided by research projects, legislation,
standards, best practice and other technical guidance and policy/regulatory publications from the EC,
participating Member and Accession States and from various international networks dealing with
groundwater and contaminated land issues.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-200280021
Contract Type: Preparatory, accompanying and support
measures
Start Date: 2003-03-01
End Date: 2005-08-31
Duration: 30 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: EUGRIS
Update Date: 2005-05-03
http://www.eugris.info/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Other
Organisation: FEDERAL ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
1 Bismarckplatz 1
PF 33 00 22
14191 BERLIN
GERMANY
Contact Person:
Name: LANGER, Hans (Mr.)
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 14 of 33
20. Towards harmonised procedures for quantification of catchment scale
nutrient losses from european catchments (EUROHARP – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: Implementation of the Water Framework Directive calls, i.a., for harmonised
methodologies (hereafter referred to as 'tools') to quantify nutrient losses from diffuse sources.
Experiences gained from reporting on quantitative nutrient data at European level, and the
development of the HARP Guidelines, have revealed the need for reliable and comparable
quantification tools.
EUROHARP will compare the performance of 10 tools by applying them on a large number of
European-wide catchments, starting with the 5 catchments with the most comprehensive N and P
related data available, located on a north.south/east- west gradient, before a final full scale
application in a network of 17 catchments throughout Europe. EUROHARP will deliver an electronic
decision support system ('toolbox') to assist end-users in selecting the most practicable and costeffective tools for quantifying N and P losses from diffuse sources under different environmental
conditions in Europe for their implementation of, i.a., the Water Framework Directive. Furthermore,
social and economic consequences of improved quantification of diffuse losses of nutrients will be
investigated.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2001-00096
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-01-01
End Date: 2005-12-31
Duration: 48 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: EUROHARP
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://www.euroharp.org/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Research
Organisation: NORWEGIAN INSTITUTE FOR WATER RESEARCH
19 Brekkeveien 19
P.O. Box 173
0411 OSLO
NORWAY
Contact Person:
Name: JOHANNESSEN ULSTEIN, Merete (Research Director)
21. Integrated Project to Evaluate the Impacts of Global Change on European
Freshwater Ecosystems (EURO-LIMPACS – FP6)
Action Line: "Assessment of ecological impacts of global change on freshwater bodies, development
of ecological indicators of ecosystem ""health"" and related remediation strategies"
Freshwater ecosystems, under stress from land-use change and pollution, face additional pressures
from climate change, directly and through interaction with other drivers of change. Euro-lampas is
concerned with the science required to understand and manage the ecological consequences of these
interactions. It is relevant to the Water Framework Directive and other international directives and
protocols and supports the Ems Charter on Sustainable Development. The Project comprises a
consortium of leading scientists to integrate river, lake and wetland ecosystem science at the
catchments scale. It focuses on the key drivers of aquatic ecosystem change (land-use, nutrients, acid
deposition and toxic substances) and examines their interactions with global, especially climate,
change using time-series analysis, space-for-time substitution, palaeolimnology, experiments and
process modelling. It considers these interactions at 3 critical time-scales:
(i) hours/days, concerned with changes in the magnitude and frequency of extreme events;
(ii) seasons, concerned with changes in ecosystem function and life-cycle strategies of freshwater
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 15 of 33
biota;
(iii) years/decades, concerned with ecological response to environmental pressure, including stress
reduction and ecosystem recovery. An innovative toolkit for integrated catchments analysis and
modelling will be developed to simulate hydrological, hydro chemical and ecological processes at the
catchments scale for use in assessing the potential impact of global change under different climate
and socio-economic scenarios. A unified system of ecological indicators for monitoring freshwater
ecosystem health, and new methods for defining reference conditions and restoration strategies will
be developed. These will take into account the probable impacts of future climate change and the
need for a holistic approach to restoration based on habitat connectivity.
Coordinator
Contact Person:
Name: PATRICK, Simon
Email: [email protected]
http://www.eurolimpacs.ucl.ac.uk/index.php
Organisation:
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON
Environmental Change Research, Centre,
Department of Geography
Gower Street
WC1E 6BT LONDON
UNITED KINGDOM
Project details
Project Reference: 505540
Contract Type: Integrated Project
Start Date: 2004-02-01
End Date: 2009-02-01
Duration: 60 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Cost: 19.15 million euro
Project Funding: 12.65 million euro
22. Real-time flood decision support system integrating hydrological,
meteorological and radar technologies (FLOODRELIEF – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The FLOODRELIEF project aims
l) to develop and demonstrate a new generation of flood forecasting methodologies which will
advance present capabilities and accuracies and
2) to make the results more readily accessible both to flood managers and those threatened by
floods. This will be achieved by exploiting and integrating different sources of forecast information,
including improved hydrological and meteorological model systems and databases, radar, advanced
data assimilation procedures and uncertainty estimation, into a real-time flood management decision
support tool designed to meet the needs of regional flood forecasting authorities. The benefits
expected from this project are increased accuracy of both quantitative precipitation forecasts and
hydrological forecasts cost-effective implementations of numerical weather modelling for precipitation
forecasts in a highly accessible internet-based forecast information system.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2002-00117
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-11-01
End Date: 2006-04-30
Duration: 42 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: FLOODRELIEF
Update Date: 2005-06-07
http://projects.dhi.dk/floodrelief/index2.asp?goto=http%3A//projects.dhi.dk/floodrelief/overview.htm
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Other
Department: WATER RESOURCES DIVISION
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 16 of 33
Organisation: DHI - INSTITUTE OF WATER & ENVIRONMENT
Agern Allee 11
2970 HOERSHOLM
DENMARK
Contact Person:
Name: HAVNOE, Karsten (Mr)
23. Integrated flood risk analysis and management methodologies (FLOODSITE
– FP6)
Action Line: Integrated flood risk management methodologies
The management of flood risk is a critical component of public safety and quality of life. The
FLOODsiteIntegrated Project will produce improved understanding of specific flood processes and
mechanisms and methodologies for flood risk analysis and management ranging from the high level
management of risk at arider-basin, estuary and coastal process cell scale down to the detailed
assessment in specific areas. It includes specific actions on the hazard of coastal extremes, coastal
morph dynamics and flash flood forecasting, as wells understanding of social vulnerability and flood
impacts, which are critical to improving the mitigation of flood risk from all causes. The project seeks to
identify technologies and strategies for sustainable flood mitigation and defence, recognising the
complex interaction between natural biophysical systems and socio-economic systems, to support
spatial and policy planning in the context of global change and societal advance. Several pilot studies
are included in FLOOD site. These will identify lessons from recent floods (e.g. Elbe, 2002), and test
the proposed operational use of methods on integrated risk management and sustainable flood
defence (the Thames and Schultz Estuaries and the Ebor coastal delta) or new technology for flash
flood forecasting (in France and Italy). FLOOD site will also develop common language, guidance and
tools for dissemination of the project results and professional training packages. FLOOD site will build
upon the previous and current European and national research and practice in river and coastal flood
processes and flood risk mitigation methods to promote consistency of approach. Several of the
FLOOD site project partners are identified as contributors to proposals for the virtual centre on floods
and droughts identified in Para 1.1.6.3.II of the work programme; this virtual centre will complement
the activities of the FLOOD site project.
Coordinator
Contact Person:
Name: SAMUELS, Paul
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.floodsite.net/
Organisation:
HR WALLINGFORD LTD
Water Management Group / Coastal Group
Howbery Park
OX10 8BA WALLINGFORD
UNITED KINGDOM
Project details
Project Reference: 505420
Contract Type: Integrated Project
Start Date: 2004-03-01
End Date: 2009-03-01
Duration: 60 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Cost: 13.99 million euro
Project Funding: 9.68 million euro
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 17 of 33
24. Harmonised modelling tools for integrated basin management
(HARMONICA – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The Water Framework Directive provides a European policy basis for water management
and the elaboration in river basins. It prescribes the development of river basin management plans.
The development of these plans increasingly needs high quality computer based tools (ICT tools),
including tools for socio-economic analysis and stakeholder participation. Though many tools have
been developed, there is no clear and complete overview on what is available and which tools to use
in which situations. HarmoniCA will establish a forum for unambiguous communication and
discussion concerning the use and development of all tools relevant to the implementation at the
WFD. In six work packages key aspects of integrated modelling will be considered in close
collaboration with the modelling community, the policy makers and the users.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2002-20003
Contract Type: Coordination of research actions
Start Date: 2002-10-01
End Date: 2007-09-30
Duration: 60 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: HARMONICA
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://www.harmoni-ca.info
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Other
Department: HOOFDADELING WATERSYSTEMEN
AFDELING LANDELIJKE ZAKEN
Organisation: INSTITUTE FOR INLAND WATER MANAGEMENT AND WASTE WATER
TREATMENT
Zuiderwagenplein 2
8224 AA LELYSTAD
NETHERLANDS
Contact Person:
Name: VAN BENNEKOM, André (ir.)
25. Harmonising collaborative planning (HARMONICOP – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The main objective of the HarmoniCOP project is to increase our understanding of
participatory river basin management in Europe and support the implementation of the Water
Framework Directive on this point.
The research will focus on three aspects that are both essential for river basin management and
scientifically challenging:
- scale issues (at which level and in which phase to organise which kind of PP)
- the role of information and information tools
- the influence of the cultural-/ political-/ geographical context. Nine countries will be studied and indepth case studies will be conducted. The research will result in a Handbook on public participation
methodologies to be used in implementing the Water Framework Directive. Throughout the project,
end-users will be involved through workshops, the case studies, the Internet, etc.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2002-00120
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-11-01
End Date: 2005-10-31
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 18 of 33
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: HARMONICOP
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://www.harmonicop.de
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Education
Department: INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH
CHAIR FOR RESOURCE FLOW MANAGEMENT
Organisation: UNIVERSITAET OSNABRUECK
Albrechtstrasse 28
49069 OSNABRUECK
GERMANY
Contact Person:
Name: Prof. Dr. Claudia Pahl-Wostl
E-mail: [email protected]
26. Harmonising quality assurance in model based catchment and river basin
management (HarmoniQUA – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The WFD challenges water managers to cope with a complex of problems. Increased
problem scale and an integrated approach force organisations to co-operate. This raises the need to
couple models and to incorporate socio-economic aspects. Sound coupling of models requires a
widely accepted, transparent methodology. The project will develop a European methodology for
modelling and simulation in water management, covering both generic and domain specific modelling
activities. The methodology and derived guidelines are accessible by software tools, also allowing
monitoring of the process and facilitating quality assurance. The methodology and tools are
extensively tested in both multidomain and integrated case studies; covering geographical conditions
and modelling cultures, involving various stakeholders and end users. An exploitation infrastructure
guarantees long term support and future use by the entire community of water managers.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2001-00097
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-01-01
End Date: 2005-12-31
Duration: 48 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: HARMONIQUA
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://harmoniqua.wau.nl/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Education
Organisation: WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY
Costerweg 50
P.B. 9101
6701 HB WAGENINGEN
NETHERLANDS
Contact Person:
Name: DE VISSER, Piet (mr)
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 19 of 33
27. Harmonised techniques and representative river basin data for assessment
and use of uncertainty information in integrated water management
(HarmoniRIB – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The preparation of integrated water management plans for the WFD will require making a
large number of decisions by operational agencies in Europe. A decision maker has to make
decisions based on the available information. In most cases this information is deficient, incomplete
and uncertain. How should this affect the decision-making? The methodology to quantify uncertainty
and to assess the propagation of uncertainty from the raw data to concise management information
and decision-making is the main subject in this project. HarmoniRiB will develop an uncertainty
analysis toolkit comprising methodologies and tools for identifying, assessing and quantifying
uncertainty and risk in decision making - Furthermore, a network of representative river basins with
datasets comprising information on uncertainty will be developed and made publicly available. The
suitability of the methodologies, the tools and the datasets will be demonstrated through a number of
integrated case studies.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2002-00109
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-10-01
End Date: 2006-03-31
Duration: 42 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: HARMONIRIB
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://www.harmonirib.dk/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Research
Organisation: GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF DENMARK AND GREENLAND
8 Oester Voldgade 10
1350 KOEBENHAVN K/COPENHAEGEN
DENMARK
Contact Person:
Name: SONNENBORG, Alex (Mr)
28. IT frameworks (HarmonIT – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The aim of integrated water management is to develop sustainable policies that reconcile
competing demands within catchments. Interactions between processes make this a difficult task.
Consequently, managers use models to help foresee the likely outcomes of different options. Models
tend to address single issues and to see the wider implications, several models must be linked. Few
current models are designed for linking and no generic plug and play mechanism exists that allows
models of large multi-national catchments or complex processes spanning many disciplines to be
built up. The HarmonIT project is one of a cluster concerned with developing the methodologies and
tools required to implement integrated water management as envisaged by the Water Framework
Directive. Its objective is to identify the user requirement for model linking and deliver solutions at two
levels: file transfer (XML) and an Object Oriented approach.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2001-00090
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-01-01
End Date: 2005-12-31
Duration: 48 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: HARMONIT
Update Date: 2005-06-07
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 20 of 33
URL: http://www.harmonit.org/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Research
Department: CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY
Organisation: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL
Maclean Building, Crowmarsh Gifford
OX10 8BB WALLINGFORD
UNITED KINGDOM
Contact Person:
Name: RODGERS, Keith (Mr)
29. Development of a decision support system for sustainable management of
contaminated land by linking bioavailability, ecological risk and ground water
pollution of organic pollutants (LIBERATION – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The primary objective is to improve ground water: protection and ecological risk
assessment by developing and validating a decision support system (DSS) for sustainable
management of contaminated land and connective freshwater and groundwater systems. Current risk
assessment practise is based on determining total concentrations in soils, which overestimate risks
by not considering bioavailability. Bioavailability provides a measure of exposure to organisms within
in the soil and influence dispersion of pollutants to ground water. The results from this project will
help in reducing remediation costs and at the same time ensure sustainable land management, as it
links bio availability measures to ecological effects and ground water pollution. The DSS will help site
redevelopers to manage risk by providing rapid, cheap and reliable chemical and biological tools for
assessing bioavailability and leaching.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2001-00105
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-01-01
End Date: 2005-06-30
Duration: 42 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: LIBERATION
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://www.liberation.dk/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Research
Department: DEPARTMENT OF TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
Organisation: NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE - MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY
25 Vejlsoevej 25
P.O. Box 358
8600 SILKEBORG
DENMARK
Contact Person:
Name: LOEKKE, Hans (Dr.)
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 21 of 33
30. Towards sustainable water use on mediterranean islands: addressing
conflicting demands and varying hydrological, social and economic conditions
(MEDIS – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: MEDIS will advance a rational sustainable and equitable use of water on islands in the
Mediterranean and will thereby contribute to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.
The study will be carried out on Corsica, Crete, Cyprus, Mallorca and Sicily. Based on data on
hydrology, geophysics and climate improved methodologies for the characterisation of aquifers and
the monitoring of water consumption; recharge and safe field will be developed. Improved agricultural
practices aimed to conserve water will be specified. A stakeholder analysis and the collection and
analysis of information on water demand by various consumers will lead to mutually agreeable water
distribution schemes in a participatory process. This will form the basis for recommendations on
equitable and sustainable water management regimes as derived through Multi-Criteria-Malysis
under current and future precipitation rates.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2001-00092
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-02-01
End Date: 2006-01-31
Duration: 48 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: MEDIS
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://www.uni-muenster.de/Umweltforschung/medis
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Education
Department: CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Organisation: WESTFAELISCHE WILHELMS - UNIVERSITAET MUENSTER
Mendelstrasse 11
48149 MUENSTER
GERMANY
Contact Person:
Name: STEGTMEYER, Christoph (Dr)
31. MEditeranean Development of Innovative Technologies for intergAted
waTer managEment (MEDITATE – FP6)
Action Line: Comprehensive policy for integrated water planning
MEDITATE aims at the development of a water management support system at the Mediterranean
catchments level, integrating the use of alternative water resources such as karts submarine springs,
seawater or brackish water desalination and water reuse, for water scarcity management. Innovative
technologies for submarine springs, from survey using an autonomous underwater vehicle, monitoring
at the spring level till capture prototype, will be developed mainly in this project. Economical and
environmental study of submarine springs will be conducted and taken into consideration. Submarine
springs study will also be used to determine the real water resource potential at the coastal karts
aquifers in three Mediterranean catchments. The submarine springs could represent important
alternative water resource as it has been reported during the last 30 years, but without serious
scientific arguments. New technology for characterising the submarine springs will help to infirm or
confirm this hypothesis. Low cost and low energy desalination plants for temporary use and salinity
variability of submarine springs water will not be developed within MEDITATE, but designed based
unfeasibility analysis. A general analysis of desalination cost for various conditions will be taken into
account in the socio-economic analysis for the management system. In the same manner, a review of
water reuse will be carried out, taking into consideration environmental and health problems, technical
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 22 of 33
and cost problems in order to have serious data to be considered in water management scenarios.
The water management support system will bring stakeholders in a decision-making process
considering water visions for 2025. The WMSS will provide set of scenarios, giving safe water yield,
based on the characterisation and hydrological modelling of four catchments. This WMSS will allow
integrating different types of knowledge inclusive all social actors, in a decision-making process.
Coordinator
Contact Person:
Name: DORFLIGER, Nathalie
Email: [email protected]
Organisation:
BUREAU DE RECHERCHES
GEOLOGIQUES ET MINIERES
Water Department, Ressource Assessment
http://www.brgm.fr/Fichiers/europe/MEDITATE.pdf Discontinuous Aquifers Unit
39-43, quai André Citroën - Tour Mirabeau
75739 PARIS
FRANCE
Project details
Project Reference: 509112
Contract Type: Specific Targeted Research
Project
Start Date: 2004-05-01
End Date: 2007-05-01
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Cost: 2.51 million euro
Project Funding: 1.65 million euro
32. Models for Assessing and Forecasting the Impact of Environmental Key
Pollutants on Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems and Biodiversity
(MODELKEY – FP6)
Action Line: Develop model(s) for assessing and forecasting the impact of environmental pollution on
fresh water and marine ecosystems and their biological diversity
MODELKEY comprises a multidisciplinary approach aiming at developing interlinked and verified
predictive modelling toolsas well as state-of-the-art effect-assessment and analytical methods
generally applicable to European freshwater and marine ecosystems:
1)to assess, forecast, and mitigate the risks of traditional and recently evolving pollutants on fresh
water and marine ecosystems and their biodiversity at a river basin and adjacent marine environment
scale,
2)to provide early warning strategies on the basis of sub-lethal effects in vitro and in vivo,
3)to provide a better understanding of cause-effect-relationships between changes in biodiversity and
the ecological status, as addressed by the Water Framework Directive, and the impact of
environmental pollution as causative factor,
4)to provide methods for state-of-the-art risk assessment and decision support systems for the
selection of the most efficient management options to prevent effects on biodiversity and to priorities
contamination sources and contaminated sites,
5)to strengthen the scientific knowledge on an European level in the field of impact assessment of
environmental pollution on aquatic eco-systems and their biodiversity by extensive training activities
and knowledge dissemination to stakeholders and the scientific community. This goal shall be
achieved by combining innovative predictive tools for modelling exposure on a river basin scale
including the estuary and the coastal zone, for modelling effects on higher levels of biological
organization with powerful assessment tools for the identification of key modes of action, key toxicants
and key parameters determining exposure. The developed tools will be verified in case studies
representing European key areas including Mediterranean, Western and Central European river
basins. An end-user-directed decision support system will be provided for cost-effective tool selection
and appropriate risk and site prioritization.
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 23 of 33
Coordinator
Contact Person:
Name: BRACK, Werner
e-mail: [email protected]
Organisation:
UFZ - Umweltforschungszentrum Leipzig Halle GmbH
Department of Chemical Ecotoxicology
Permoserstrasse 15
Postfach 2
4318 Leipzig
GERMANY
http://www.modelkey.ufz.de/
Project details
Project Reference: 511237
Contract Type: Integrated Project
Start Date: 2005-02-01
End Date: 2010-02-01
Duration: 60 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Cost: 12.43 million euro
Project Funding: 8.40 million euro
33. New Approaches to Adaptive Water Management under
Uncertainty (NEWATER – FP6)
Action Line: Methodologies of integrated water resource management and transboundary issues
The central tenet of the NeWater project is a transition from currently prevailing regimes of river
basinwater management into more adaptive regimes in the future. This transition calls for a highly
integratedwater resources management concept. NeWater identifies key typical elements of the
current watermanagement system and focuses its research on processes of transition of these
elements to adaptiveIWRM. Each key element is studied by novel approaches. Key IWRM areas
where NeWater isexpected to deliver breakthrough results include:
1. governance in water management (methods to arrive at polycentric, horizontal broad
stakeholderparticipation in IWRM)
2. sectoral integration (integration of IWRM and spatial planning; integration with climate
changeadaptation strategies, cross-sectoral optimization and cost-benefit analysis)
3. scales of analysis in IWRM (methods to resolve resource use conflicts; transboundary issues)
4. information management (multi stakeholder dialogue, multi-agent systems modelling; role ofgames
in decision making; novel monitoring systems for decision systems in water management)
5. infrastructure (innovative methods for river basin buffering capacity; role of storage in adaptation
toclimate variability and climate extremes)
6. finances and risk mitigation strategies in water management (new instruments, role of public-private
arrangements in risk-sharing)
7. stakeholder participation; promoting new ways of bridging between science, policy
andimplementationThe development of concepts and tools that guide an integrated analysis and
support a stepwiseprocess of change in water management is the corner-stone of research activities
in the NeWaterproject. To achieve its objectives the project is structured into six work blocks, and it
adopts amanagement structure that allows effective exchange between innovative and cutting edge
researchon integrative water management concepts.
Coordinator
Contact Person:
Name: PAHL-WOSTL, Claudia
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.newater.info/index.html
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Organisation:
University of Osnabrueck
Institute of Environmental Systems Research
(USF)
Neuer Graben / Schloss
49076 Osnabrueck
GERMANY
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 24 of 33
Project details
Project Reference: 511179
Contract Type: Integrated Project
Start Date: 2005-01-01
End Date: 2009-01-01
Duration: 48 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Cost: 15.91 million euro
Project Funding: 12.00 million euro
34. Optimisation for Sustainable Water Management (OPTIMA – FP6)
Action Line: Comprehensive policy for integrated water planning
Water is a key resource in the Mediterranean region, and efficient use and allocation are paramount to
sustainable development, in particular in the coastal zone of the South and East, undergoing fast
economic development, land use and demographic change. The overall aim of OPTIMA is to develop,
implement, test, critically evaluate, and exploit an innovative, scientifically rigorous yet practical
approach to water resources management intended to increase efficiencies and to reconcile
conflicting demands. Based on the European Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) the approach
equally considers economic efficiency, environmental compatibility, and social equity as the pillars of
sustainable development. The proposed methodology will extend classical optimisation and
mathematical programming methodology, in several respects, by: Using a full-featured dynamic and
distributed simulation model and genetic programming as the core to generate feasible and nondominated alternatives. Water technology alternatives including their cost structure, and up-to-date
remote-sensing derived land use information are primary inputs; Extending the set of objectives,
criteria and constraints through expert systems technology to include difficult to quantify environmental
and social dimensions; Putting specific emphasis on local acceptance and implementation through the
inclusion of stake-holders in an interactive, participatory decision making process carefully embedded
in institutional structures, using a discretemulti-criteria reference point methodology; Comparative
evaluation and benchmarking across the set of local and regional case studies in 12 countries, namely
Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Tunisia and Morocco around
the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean. The project also aims at building a wide dissemination
network of expertise and knowledge exchange sharing its findings and generic data.
Coordinator
Contact Person:
Name: PINELLI, Dino
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.ess.co.at/OPTIMA/
Organisation:
FONDAZIONE ENI ENRICO MATTEI
Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei
Corso Magenta 63
N/A
20123 MILANO
ITALY
Project details
Project Reference: 509091
Contract Type: Specific Targeted Research
Project
Start Date: 2004-07-01
End Date: 2007-07-01
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Cost: 1.98 million euro
Project Funding: 1.50 million euro
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 25 of 33
35. Relationships between ecological and chemical status of surface
waters (REBECCA – FP6)
Action Line: Sustainable management of Europe's natural resources - Environmental assessment
The strategic objective of the REBECCA proposal is to provide relevant scientific support for the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The two specific aims of the project are,
firstly, to establish links between ecological status of surface waters and physic-chemical quality
elements and pressures from different sources, and, secondly, to develop and validate tools that
member states can use in the process of classification, in the design of their monitoring programs, and
in the design of measures in accordance with the requirements of the WFD. These objectives will be
achieved by collating existing knowledge and analysing knowledge gaps, and using this information as
a basis for analysing the dose-response relationships between pressures and chemical/biological
quality elements based on existing data. Furthermore, REBECCA will explore, develop and improve
models and statistical tools, which can be used in assessing the links between the ecological and
chemical quality elements; or to assess critical/target loads and other objectives for pressures. These
tools will be validated in selected test sites. The results of the project will be disseminated throughout
the project lifetime to stakeholders at EU and national levels, particularly to the Working Groups of the
Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) for the WFD, and used to develop a Toolbox containing
detailed information of the methods, tools and models.
Coordinator
Contact Person:
Name: REKOLAINEN, Seppo
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.environment.fi/default.asp?node=11778&lan=en
Organisation:
SUOMEN YMPARISTOKESKUS
Mechelininkatu 34a
PO Box 140
251 HELSINKI
FINLAND
Project details
Project Reference: 502158
Contract Type: Specific Targeted
Research Project
Start Date: 2003-12-01
End Date: 2006-12-01
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Cost: 7.45 million euro
Project Funding: 4.00 million euro
36. A cheap easy-to-handle desalination approach for crop irrigation under
Mediterranean conditions (RRISEASOIL – FP6)
Action Line: Advanced water treatment, re-use and energy implications
Considering that
(i) one of the most serious problems facing the Mediterranean Region is related with water due to the
limited amount of natural water resources and the fact that neither the increase in population of this
region nor the foreseen climatic changes are going to contribute favourably to improve the regional
situation as far as water is concerned and
(ii) improving the water consumption by users and uses and plant breeding for efficient water and
nutrient use is one of the areas addressed in the Call (INCO-2002-B. 1.2)together with water treatment
(INCO-2002-B. 1.3)
The objectives of this Proposal are:
(i) The development of selective polymeric materials (cheap to produce) for desalination of seawater,
post-irrigation water and soil with the aim of developing a most effective technological approach than
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 26 of 33
the existing ones.
(ii) The use of biotechnological modes and means for promoting efficient and nutrient use of watery
plants, improving their immunity and resistance towards diseases and droughts.
To achieve these objectives the following steps are to be undertaken.
Step 1. Selection of main strategic cultures of three Mediterranean Countries as Pilot sources for
vegetation experiments based on socio-economic importance, crops quality and structure,
agronomical, agrochemical and climatic conditions of their cultivation.
Step 2. Synthesis, characterisation of calixchitin polymers for desalination of seawater, post-irrigation
water and soil, followed by their application at Laboratory and Pilot Plant scale.
Step 3. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the industrial potential de-sorption solutions
resulting from sea, post-irrigation waters and soil.
Step 4. Design of material phenylpropanoid polymeric derivatives with the capability to function as a
plant growth regulatory, fertilizers, quality enhancers for the protection of crop quality and productivity
under drought conditions.
Step 5. Combination
Coordinator
Contact Person:
Name: DANIL DE NAMOR, Angela
Email: [email protected]
Organisation:
THE UNIVERSITY OF SURREY
SCHOOL OF BIOMEDICAL AND LIFE
SCIENCES, THERMOCHEMISTRY
LABORATORY
UNIVERSITY OF SURREY
GU2 7XH GUILDFORD
UNITED KINGDOM
Project details
Project Reference: 509153
Contract Type: Specific Targeted Research
Project
Start Date: 2004-04-01
End Date: 2007-04-01
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Cost: 1.56 million euro
Project Funding: 1.25 million euro
37. Sustainable management of soil and groundwater under the pressure of
soil pollution and soil contamination (SNOWMAN – FP6)
Action Line: Coordination of national activities - Networking of national or regional programmes or
parts of programmes actors: public authorities, research agencies, open call for proposals (ERANETs)
Aiming at solution and prevention of actual and future environmental problems, EU policy resulted in
many Directives concerning water and soil. Moreover, the Commission of the European Communities
composed a paper "Toward a Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection" and set up a tight time schedule.
Despite of above mentioned legislative efforts an effective EU-wide approach to the problem of site
remediation and groundwater contamination is hindered by a number of problems described by the
CLARINET Working Group on Co-ordination of RTD on an European level:
-There is little synergy at EU level between national and EU RTD programmes, leading to a serious
overlap of research projects and parallel expenditures and less efficient use of limited resources.
-The broad dissemination of project results through national RTD programmes at an European level is
very modest and fragmented.
%These are the starting points of SNOWMAN-Era-Net:
What do we HAVE? The consortium will produce a sound overview on programmes and their contents
and management in the field specified. A database containing all relevant information will be produced
and analysed. What do we WANT? A Vision Paper will define the goal of European research activities
in this specific field of environmental research. How can we GET co-operation NOW? ? Specification
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 27 of 33
of next steps, short- and medium-term, preparing ground in order to reach the overall goal of
ERANET, i.e. to implement and conduct a research programme on bi-/multilateral level throughout
Europe. Suitable tools (like uniform evaluation criteria etc.) will be developed in Working group
meetings and collected within a summary report. Knowledge dissemination will be supported by a
close linkage with the EUGRIS project. On this portal, all findings produced within SNOWMAN will be
published and made available to a wider community. On interpersonal level, networking with the
European Soil Policy Working Group or Cost activities will be maintained.
Coordinator
Contact Person:
Name: VETTER, Stefan W J
Email: [email protected]
Organisation:
BUNDESMINISTERIUM FUR LAND UND
FORSTWIRTSCHAFT, UMWELT UND
WASSERWIRTSCHAFT
Unit II/1
Stubenring 1
1010 Wien
AUSTRIA
Project details
Project Reference: 3219
Contract Type: Coordination action
Start Date: 2004-01-01
End Date: 2007-01-01
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Cost: 1.05 million euro
Project Funding: 1.05 million euro
38. Standardized aquatic monitoring of priority pollutants using passive
sampling (STAMPS – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: STAMPS is a 10 partner consortium of scientists from universities, commercial and
governmental organisations, and a Normation Organisation to achieve normation of passive sampling
methods for monitoring priority pollutants in freshwater. Calibrated devices and sampling procedures
will be developed and their performance validated along side spot sampling for pollutants in
freshwater across Europe. A commercial design will be manufactured in large numbers for field
evaluation alongside spot sampling. Throughout, the data and methodology will inform normation.
Results will be disseminated across the EU to end-users. The potential of this approach in
environmental management and water quality legislation will be demonstrated, and the technical
standardisation of passive sampling will be integrated fully with formal standardisation at European
level.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2002-00119
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2003-01-01
End Date: 2006-03-31
Duration: 39 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: STAMPS
Update Date: 2005-06-07
http://www.port.ac.uk/research/stamps/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Education
Department: SCHOOL OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Organisation: UNIVERSITY OF PORTSMOUTH
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 28 of 33
King Henry I Street
PO1 2DY PORTSMOUTH
UNITED KINGDOM
Contact Person:
Name: ACE, Malcolm (Mr)
39. Standardisation of river classifications: framework method for calibrating
different biological survey results against ecological quality classifications to
be developed for the water framework directive (STAR – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The Water Framework Directive defines a framework for monitoring the Ecological Status
of surface and ground waters. The Ecological Status of rivers will be determined from a range of
taxonomic groups and a variety of methods. Most Member States will have their own assessment
procedures but a common European Standard is required.
Through field sampling and desk studies we aim to:
1) cross-calibrate and integrate assessments using different methods and taxonomic groups
2)recommend which procedures to use in which situations
3) define the precision and reliability of each method and
4) assist the EU in defining the boundaries of classes of Ecological Status. A decision support system
will be developed for applying the project findings. The research will used to help establish a
European standard for assigning the Ecological Status of rivers from multiple sources of ecological
data.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2001-00089
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-01-01
End Date: 2005-06-30
Duration: 42 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: STAR
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://www.eu-star.at/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Research
Department: CENTRE FOR ECOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY DORSET
Organisation: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL
Winfrith Technology Centre, Winfrith Newburgh
DT2 8ZD DORCHESTER
UNITED KINGDOM
Contact Person:
Name: WILLIAMS, Philip (Dr)
Tel: +44-17-93411500
Email: [email protected]
40. Screening method for Water data Information in support of the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive (SWIFT-WFD – FP6)
Action Line: Sustainable management of Europe's natural resources - Environmental assessment
The monitoring requirements for successfully implementing the WFD will directly depend upon
available measurement techniques of demonstrated quality, which will be able to deliver reliable data
at unaffordable cost. Besides the necessary "classical" laboratory analyses, screening methodologies
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 29 of 33
will play a key role in the WFD implementation, in particular for the detection of accidental pollution or
the control of water bodies at risk. The WFD will represent a powerful management tool only if
monitoring data are of reliable and comparable quality.
The costs of wrong decisions based on erroneous data could be tremendous, which justifies that
Community efforts are made to ensure that data are produced according to a proper quality assurance
regime. In the light of the above, the objectives of SWIFT-WFD should focus on the production of
quality control tools for validation purposes of screening methods, an inventory of existing screening
test (chemical and biological) methods through laboratory-based (tank experiments) and/or field
interlaboratory studies based on a selection of reference aquatic ecosystems at European scale, and
with classical laboratory-based analyses to validate their results and demonstrate their equivalence for
parameters regulated both WFD. In parallel, the project should consider the development of new "lowcost", innovative, screening techniques (both for chemical and biological parameters) and their
validation using the same approach (interlaboratory testing and comparison with laboratory-based
methods). In addition, exchange of knowledge, transfer of technologies and training related to water
monitoring will represent a key issue for ensuring the comparability of data produced by screening
methods
Coordinator
Contact Person:
Name: GONZALEZ, Catherine
E-mail: [email protected]
Organisation:
ASSOCIATION POUR LA RECHERCHE ET
LE DEVELOPPEMENT DES METHODES ET
PROCESSUS INDUSTRIELS
Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines d'Alès Centre LGEI'
Boulevard Saint-Michel 60
75272 PARIS
FRANCE
http://www.swift-wfd.com/
Project details
Project Reference: 502492
Contract Type: Specific Targeted Research
Project
Start Date: 2004-01-01
End Date: 2007-01-01
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Cost: 6.74 million euro
Project Funding: 4.03 million euro
41. Evaluation and improvement of water quality models for application to
temporary waters in southern european catchments (TEMPQSIM – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: The aim of the project is to provide advanced tools to significantly improve the efficiency
of integrated water management in the Mediterranean and semiarid river catchments. There are
major problems in the application of existing water quality models during periods without runoff and
the extreme first flush effects at the beginning of the rain period. The dynamic processes in
sediments during the period of no Surface runoff and the interaction of resuspended matter and water
quality is often not considered. It is proposed that selected models will be improved by development
of new hydrological and sediment modules. They will be tested in a rigorous experimental
catchments framework, at various Mediterranean case study sites at the sub-basin scale. Experience
of data needs and model application, through close interaction to a range of end-users, will be used
to prepare guidelines for the operational use of models and adapted management strategies.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2002-00112
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-11-01
End Date: 2005-10-31
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 30 of 33
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: TEMPQSIM
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://www.tempqsim.net/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Education
Department: FACHGEBIET GEWAESSERGUETEMODELLIERUNG
Organisation: UNIVERSITAET HANNOVER
Am kleinen Felde 1
30167 HANNOVER
GERMANY
Contact Person:
Name: HOWIND, Henning (Regierungsoberamtsts)
42. Integrated water management of transboundary catchments (TRANSCAT –
FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: Transboundary catchments are usually differently managed in each country, not
respecting the interests of its neighbour. These different approaches to utilization of the catchments
may have catastrophic effects. The main goal of the project will be to create a Decision Support
System (DSS) that will allow an integrated water management system within the scope of the
transboundary catchments. It will be able to cope with the complexity of the water resources systems
and the uncertainty of decision-making. The DSS will be built around modules that allow simulation of
the range of different climatic, topographic, environmental and socio-economic conditions. Five pilot
sites with different natural, social, political, and economical conditions were selected so that collection
and evaluation of the data would be as broad and as general as possible.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2002-00124
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2003-02-01
End Date: 2006-01-31
Duration: 36 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: TRANSCAT
Update Date: 2005-06-07
http://www.transcat-project.net/index.php
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Industry
Department: RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Organisation: INSTITUTO DE SOLDADURA E QUALIDADE
KM 3 Av. Professor Doutor Cavaco Silva, N 33, Talaide,T
P.O. Box 119
2780920 OEIRAS
PORTUGAL
Contact Person:
Name: DIAS LOPES, Eduardo (Mr.)
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 31 of 33
43. Principles, tools and systems to extend spatial planning on water courses
(WATERSKETCH – Interreg IIIB)
River basin planning in the BSR has always been a complex, yet important topic. It has gained a new
momentum with the implementation of EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). Also principles of
Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) are to be applied and national expansions of
Natura2000 networks are in progress. All these actions support sustainable use of waters, but they
also restrain and steer economical activities of society. Even different EU directives have opposing
goals. All these practices and contrasting goals need to be taken into account in river basin planning.
In BSR especially the needs of increasing tourism for natural and recreational areas together with
well-developed areas have to be foreseen in land and river basin planning. Often these contrary
actions are too demanding for spatial planners, and therefore multiple criteria decision support
systems addressing as well the ecological as the socio-economic dimensions are urgently needed.
Legally binding workload will be demanding especially in sparsely populated areas, where resources
and funds are highly limited. Moreover, some such regions have numerous water bodies, which further
impedes the planning processes. New member states will aggravate the situation in European scale,
since with different societal backgrounds and environmental problems they are required to begin their
river basin planning activities according to EU legislation
and directives.
The main aims of the project are to prepare a strategy via which challenges seen in river basin
planning in the Baltic Sea region may be addressed by
1) Analysing and synthesising the different directives and conventions focused on use of
watercourses.
2) Evaluating, how the goals of the regulations are expressed at the regional scale land use planning
(especially related to WFD)
3) Demonstrating different situations of river basin planning with a wide set of case studies ranging
from southern tip of BSR (Poland) to northern parts of it (Northern Finland)
4) Providing a Water Planning Decision Support System for spatial planners, which takes into account
all main components needed for economically, socially and ecologically sustainable use of
watercourses
5) Raising capacity to promote the sustainable development in river basins by means of an information
exchange platform, training workshops and the dissemination of the information needed for
sustainable use of river basins by a handbook.
Lead Partner:
Duration: 01.07.2004 - 30.06.2007, 36 months
Finnish Environment Institute
P.O.Box 413
FIN-90014 Oulun yliopisto
FINLAND
Approximate total project budget:
1,552,000.00€
Contact person:
Seppo Hellsten
P.O Box 413
FIN-90014 Oulun yliopisto
FINLAND
Tel: +358 9 40300 961
E-Mail: [email protected]
http://www.watersketch.net/en/index.php?page=main
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 32 of 33
44. Developing strategies for regulating and managing water resources and
demand in water deficient regions (WATERSTRATEGYMAN – FP5)
General Project Information
Objectives: Objective of the project is to develop and evaluate alternative strategies for regulating
and managing water resources development of the Southern European water deficient regions.
Methodology, tools, guidelines and protocols of implementation will be developed that enable
decision makers to delineate and assess a wider range of integrated water management strategies.
Expected results include the evaluation of existing water management situation in Southern Europe
through a systematic typology of water management problematique, the development of a
methodology for evaluating water management scenarios, the development of water resources
allocation scenarios and water cost recovery strategies, the formulation of guidelines and protocols
for integrated water management and training decision makers on implementing multi-objective water
management.
Project Reference: EVK1-CT-2001-00098
Contract Type: Cost-sharing contracts
Start Date: 2002-01-01
End Date: 2005-06-30
Duration: 42 months
Project Status: Execution
Project Acronym: WATERSTRATEGYMAN
Update Date: 2005-06-07
URL: http://environ.chemeng.ntua.gr/wsm/
Coordinator
Organisation Type: Education
Department: DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Organisation: NATIONAL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS
9 Heroon Polytechniou 9
15780 ATHENS
GREECE
Contact Person:
Name: SIMOPOULOS, Simos (Prof)
WFD Research Needs - Annex 6
Version 14-11-’05 - DEF
Page 33 of 33
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement