310 likes | 324 Views
This article explores the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) with respect to dangerous substances in the Netherlands. It discusses the challenges faced, the water management system, pressures on water bodies, monitoring, and specific substances detected. The experiences and lessons learned from the implementation process are also highlighted.
E N D
Implementation 312.000.000 Water Framework Directive 393.000 Dangerous Substances 35.800 Experiences 24.100 The Netherlands 10.600 Full title 0
Experience: There is a lot of information available on the internet, butin the end you have to do it all by yourself!
The implementation of the WFD with respect to Dangerous Substances Experiences in The Netherlands G. Niebeek/ 3 October 2006
PART I Watermanagement in The Netherlands low lands, wet lands
General information • Total area: 41,000 km2 • 3,000 km2 of fresh water • 4,000 km2 of marine water • Total population: 16 million
Dutch challenges I Without human intervention, about 60% of the Netherlands would be swallowed by the sea
Dutch challenges II In 75% of the Netherlands, the groundwater is less than 50 cm below surface level
Water system The ‘Dutch challenges’ require a fine-meshed water system… and even finer
50 meters 1,6 meters below sealevel Water system in the Randstad Fine-meshed water system (heavily modified or artificial) Highly regulated
Netherlands: delta of 4 rivers • Ems • Rhine • Meuse • Scheldt • all 4 River Basin Districts are international
Organisation of water management Different layers dealing with water management: • State 1 • Provinces 12 • Water boards 27 • Municipalities 500 All with their own autonomous competences
Part II Pressures
Waterbodies Total: 1000
Pressures Point sources Emission register Diffuse sources
INDUSTRY Diagram Emissions direct discharges international load untreated industry rainwater outlets SEWER SYSTEM stormwater overflow building materials SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS households AIR AIR SURFACE WATER road traffic run-off atmospheric deposition SOIL drainage agriculture navigation direct discharges recreation
Industry • About 250 industries: yearly electronic environment report > by law • About 750 industries: yearly information request to the local authorities > voluntarily • All other industries: estimation based on the production capacity and the emissions of the individual known industries > by RIZA and National Institute for Statistics
Example: - Yearly loss of 2 kg copper per ship due to use of antifouling - 5000 ships >2 * 5000 = 10.000 kg copper Different sources, different methodes • Combination of models and data • Basic method: • -emission factor * statistic variable = discharge load Reality is more complex
Part III Monitoring
Monitoring • Screening of monitoring data State waters (2002-2004) • Total about 200 substances List of 132 substances Former Directive 76/464/EEC List of Priority substances About 40 additional substances • Missing data Additional monitoring
Monitoring results State Waters PAH, Cd, TBT Regional Waters PAH, Pesticides, Cd, Ni * Based on available data
Part IV Specific substances
Detected Selection of specific substances 76/464/EEG Produced/Used > EQS Specific
Specific Substances • International Riverbasins Rhine: 15 substances (Cu, Zn, Bentazon, MCPA,.. • State level: 12 substances (PAH, Cu, Zn,…. • Regional level: to be defined
Specific Substances Deriving EQS by Member States • Make use of TGD and Manual on EQS • Cooperation with other Member States • Rhine • UK, D, NL
Experiences • Implementation of wfd is complex; many different experts needed • Guidance documents have been and are still valuable, • provided they are available in time • A lot of information is already available but there is also a data gap. It takes time to create additional data.
Experiences II • Legislation with binding obligations, a strict time frame and “learning by doing” is a bad combination • “One out all out” might be counterproductive • Cooperation between MS saves resources