Test Data Exchange 2008 Assessment of the reported data on Water Availability

1. Test Data Exchange 2008Assessment of the reported data on Water Availability Thematic Workshop 'Water Quantity and Use' 10-11 October 2007, EEA, Copenhagen Dr Christos Makropoulos Maggie Kossida and George Papoutsoglou ETC/W National Technical University of Athens-NTUA

2. Current EU picture: Data on Freshwater Resources Availability Per capita /country River runoff

3. The Need • Need for more detailed, less aggregated picture (in both space and time) • Need to collect existing information on relevant parameters • Need to identify gaps • Need to make sure we have all useful data to support EEA in their policy mission • Need to make sure reporting is done in a coordinated uniform fashion • Building on existing work and expanding where appropriate.

4. Step 1: Test Data Exchange 2008 • A learning exercise • Challenging deadlines • For submission • For assessment • Water Availability • Water Abstraction/Use

5. Purpose of the Test Data Exchange: The main purpose of the water availability data was to: • improve water facts to facilitate policy decisions • support the development of (useful/insightful) WS&D indicators • provide representative periodic assessments of the status & trends in the availability of freshwater resources • identify specific water-related issues • link impact with driving forces (incl. specific sectors) • provide policy responses and monitor progress inline with EU policy

6. Data Requested

7. Water Balance (Response: 14)

8. Water Balance * needs clarification (the reported value does often refers to the PET)

9. Water Balance * Some countries reported for more than 1 years ** Data were also provided from 1 country since 1962 ** LTAA varied from 1901-2007, and the reported interannual mean values varied from 5-58 consecutive years

10. Reservoirs (Response: 10)

11. Reservoirs *LTAA reference periods varied from 1962-2008, and the reported interannual mean values varied from 19-45 consecutive years.

12. Streamflow (Response: 14)

13. * Some countries that did not report discharge stated that the data are still being processed (e.g. Cyprus), or available at the web (e.g. France) or generally available upon request by some national agent * Some countries reported for more than 1 years ** Data were also provided from 1 country since 1962 ** LTAA varied from 1957-2008, and the reported interannual mean values varied from 17-54 consecutive years

14. Precipitation (Response: 14) • Overall availability: YES • Few countries commented on the temporal resolution of the available data (e.g. daily etc.) • Period of available data: VARIABLE • Mostly from ~1950-, some countries after 2000

15. Groundwater Levels (Response: 9)

16. *LTAA reference periods varied from 1958-2008

17. Overall Assessment • Water Availability data is shown to be accessible at disaggregated regional level • Water balance data is mostly available at RBD level;in the Eastern European countriesare common at RB level. • Discharge data and groundwater levels were reported frequently • The reservoir storage reporting was restricted and less frequent • The response on the precipitation ID data was also positive • Spatial distribution of respondents: equal spread between Southern, Western, Eastern Europe

18. Issues raised • Current time and resource limitations (but expressed interest to join in the near future) • Reporting time for data varies among the countries • Need for harmonisation between reporting schemes and existing practices (changing the existing practices where necessary)

19. Using the Data: some (initial) examples • Developed some preliminary examples, based on the Test Data Exchange 2008 • To investigate the usefulness of disaggregated data both in spatial and temporal scale

20. Internal Flow of 2006 in each RBD vs. the LTAA. Venta does not deviate from the LTAA, Daugave has maximum deviation, Not able to see this at county level! Regionalisation:

21. Seasonality: Monthly scale is important. See how for Danube RB monthly Internal Flow fluctuates Significant deviation from mean annual average External Inflow and Outflow are better depicted at RB scale. Representation per RDB allows comparison, and we can see the Danube RD accounts for 60% of the country’s inflow and outflow respectively, as compared to the Tisza RB 27% Regionalisation:

22. Reservoirs Seasonality: both examples (Latvia and Cyprus) denote that reservoir storage highly varies on a monthly scale, and the mean annual average can not pick up important trends ?

23. Streamflow • Plotted monthly RB streamflows in the East-Estonia RBD (which is a relatively water stressed RBD based on the ratio of abstractions over renewable WR). • All streamflows follow the same pattern and are seasonally driven (max in April, min Aug-Sept). • Knowledge of this type of information can help us in further assessing the available WR and the SoE

24. Comparison of mean monthly discharge (light blue) 2007 with the LTAA(orange) in different RBDs in Ireland • See how the former deviated from the LTAA: the deviation is negligible in the E-RDB as compared for instance to the SE-RBD. • On a country level we could loose this detail

25. Precipitation • Variability if both in spatial and in temporal (June vs. September) for France • Top right frames show what the picture would look like at country level  very different from regional level (per administrative district) • June: “country level map” = SEastern France • September: “country level map” = Central France.

26. Mean Groundwater Level seasonal fluctuation in Cyprus in 2007 Groundwater Seasonality • Range of fluctuation of groundwater levels in Cyprus can be large (e.g. range of min-max=5X the mean in Pafos) • For drought and water scarcity issued this is a very important information as the GW response time to this phenomena differs

27. Some conclusions… • Annual averages do not depict seasonality which is importance in the WR assessment • Country level averages do not depict spatial variability and trends • Streamflow, Reservoir Storage and Groundwater level data can be used conjunctively with the Water Balance to further our confidence in the WR availability assessment • Changes in the water balance of a RB /RBD over time can be used to assess the effects of forcings, such as climate variability • Comparison different RBs/RBDs allows insights into the roles of each component of DPSIR causal chain.

28. Further Steps • Additional (technical) clarifications required. Particularly in conceptualization of water balance (ETa vs PET, calc vs measured eg. ExIn, ExOut, DSgrw, information on the Balance Model, flowchart, streamflow gauges @ outlets, reservoir inflows) • Harmonization of definitions of terms (to also streamline reporting)

29. Further Steps • Investigation of ways for data homogenization (common, representative picture) • Ref. time and availability of the data in order to streamline reporting (n-1, n-2?) • Frequency of data update – with implications for indicator update frequency (/y, /2y?) • QC checks revealed some uncertainty and inconsistency in data sets (incl. sanity checks and sums). • Current data will be examined thoroughly and questions will be sent to countries where further clarifications are required (also in appreciation of country specific issues). • Preparation of data dictionairy (DD) for Regular Data Request 2009 (intention: early release following consultation)

30. Thank you for your attention (and for the data!)