1 / 28

WFD Ecological status and pressures in rivers and lakes

WFD Ecological status and pressures in rivers and lakes. Summary and request for inputs Prepared by / compiled by: Peter Kristensen (EEA), Anne Lyche Solheim, Kari Austnes (NIVA), Monika Peterlin (IWRS) Silvie Semaradova , Hana Prchalova (CENIA ) Claudette Spiteri ( Deltares ).

wolfe
Download Presentation

WFD Ecological status and pressures in rivers and lakes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WFD Ecological status and pressures in rivers and lakes Summary and request for inputs Prepared by / compiled by: Peter Kristensen (EEA), Anne Lyche Solheim, Kari Austnes (NIVA), Monika Peterlin (IWRS) SilvieSemaradova, Hana Prchalova (CENIA) ClaudetteSpiteri (Deltares) Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  2. Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC/ICM

  3. Objectiveofpresentation • Overviewofresults and approach • Feedback ondata analysis, data selection, presentation form • Clarificationsonreportingissues Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  4. Content • Objectiveofpresentation • Methodology: Basis for classification (Chapter 3) • European overviewofecological status, pressures and impacts (Chapter 5) • Ecological status, pressures and impact in different countries (Chapter 4) • Issues for clarification Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  5. Methodology: % classified and confidenceofclassification Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  6. Methodology: Basis for classification: QEs Rivers Lakes Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  7. Data analysis: General principles 1 • All analyses basedonclassified WBs only • No differentiation status/potential, • to givethe total picture • becausetheproportionofnaturalvs HMWB/AWB varieslargelybetweencountries: somecountries/RBDs have veryfewnatural WBs (NL, Northern DE) • Aggregated to EU, memberstate (MS) or RBD level (maps) • MS ranked by thepercentage WBs < goodstatus Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  8. Data analysis: General principles 2 • Pressures/impactspresented as single, combined or with/without • Onlyaggregatedpressure types shown: A WB is regarded as affected by theaggregatedpressure type ifeithertheaggregated and/or anyofthecorrespondingdisaggregatedpressure is reported for that WB • Pressures/impacts at European levelarepresentedas % ofaffected WBs in countriesreportingthatpressure/impact Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  9. Ecological status, pressures and impacts: Conclusions • More than half of the surface water bodies in Europe are in less than good ecological status or potential. • Rivers and transitional waters are reported to have worse ecological status or potential and more pressures and impacts than water bodies in lakes and coastal waters. • The main pressuresare diffuse pollution causing nutrient enrichment, and hydromorphological pressures causing altered habitats. Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  10. European overviewofEcological status Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  11. European overviewofEcological status of rivers and lakes • More than half the surface water bodies in Europe are reported to be in less than good ecological status or potential, and will need mitigation measures to meet the WFD objective • The worst areas of Europe concerning ecological status and pressures in freshwater are reported from Central Europe, in particular in Northern Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium • Reporting is still missing for certain MS (PT, DK, SI, MT) and RBDs % WBs in less thanGoodecological status Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  12. Main pressures and impacts in rivers and lakes Rivers Lakes Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  13. European overviewofpollutionpressures • Member states which have reported pressures, but where certain RBDs are marked as “no data reported” should indicate • whether this particular pressure has not been reported in this RBD or • whether no water bodies in this RBD are affected by this particular pressure. Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  14. European overviewofHyMopressures • Member states which have reported pressures, but where certain RBDs are marked as “no data reported” should indicate • whether this particular pressure has not been reported in this RBD or • whether no water bodies in this RBD are affected by this particular pressure. Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  15. Rivers ecological status and pressuresrelations to populationdensity and arable land PopulationdensityArable land Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  16. Rivers ecological status and pollutionpressures in different countries Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  17. Main pressures in rivers Point and diffuse pollutionHydromorphologicalpressures Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC/ICM

  18. Lakes ecological status and pollutionpressures in different countries Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  19. Main pressures in lakes Point and diffuse pollutionHydromorphologicalpressures Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC/ICM

  20. Case studies overview and request for additionalcontributions Large Lakes • Lago Maggiore, Italy • Lake Balaton, Hungary • Lake Vänern, Sweden Smaller lakes • Dutch lakes • Danish lakes Large Rivers • Rhine • Danube • Po Smaller rivers • German rivers • Swedish rivers Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  21. Rhine case study Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC/ICM

  22. Key messagesonEcological status and pressuresin rivers and lakes River waters are reported to be in worse status (58% < G) than lakes (43% < G), Main pressures reported are diffuse sources causing nutrient enrichment and Hydromorpho-logical pressures causing altered habitats The worst areas are RBDs in Central Europe, e.g. Northern Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author:Monika Peterlin, IWRS, ETC-ICM

  23. Major methodological problems • 85% of all water bodies are classified, but for 60% the classification was done with low or unknown confidence; • Most WBs were classified without biological quality elements, especially in lakes, causing low level of comparability between member states; • Pressures and impacts are missing for some countries Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC/ICM

  24. Issues to be clarified (1): Request for feedback • Data for someRBDswasmissing at the 1st February. Will these be reportedor not? • e.g. BelgiumWallonia,Italy: Sicily and Sardinia, Spain: one RBD • Principles for confidenceclassification: what is meant by low, medium and highconfidence? • Is classification for single QEsreportedonlywhenmonitored or alsoifassessedindirectly by grouping/expertjudgement? Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  25. Issues to be clarified (2): Request for feedback • Four MS (IE, LU, RO, SK) and certain RBDs have not reported significant pressures • Many MS have reported selected pressures only – are the others not reported or not regarded as significant? • Six MS (IE, LU, NL, PL, RO, SK) and certain RBDs have not reported impacts • Many MS have reported selected impacts only – are the others not reported or not regarded as a significant impact? Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  26. Issues to be clarified (3): Request for feedback • Swedenhas reported a verylargenumberof water bodies as affectedonly by diffuse pollution at theaggregatedlevel (pressure type 2) • Due to different methodology in measuringHg • The ETC has interpretedthis as water bodiesonlybeingexposed to airborneHg pollution, is thiscorrect? • For theEcological status and pressures report theETC have redefinedthese WBs to be withoutpressures and impacts, as Hg pollutionprobably has littleeffectonecologicalstatus • Done to allowcomparabilitywithothercountries (Otherwise SE would be oneoftheworstcountries in Europe in terms ofpressures) Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC-ICM

  27. Thankyoufor yourattention Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC/ICM

  28. Biological data delivery for rivers and lakes autumn 2011 • 21 countriesdelivered data onBQEs in rivers and/or lakes • 17 countriesdelivered river data • 16 countriesdelivered lake data • 12 countriesdeliveredboth rivers and lakes data • 4219 river stationsreported • 946 lake stationsreported • QA ongoing, • Draft bio-indicatorready in June and will be sent for consultation Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012 Author: Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA, ETC/ICM

More Related