EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL ENVIRONMENT Directorate В - Nature ENV.B.1 - Agriculture, Forests and Soil Directorate D - Water, Chemicals and Biotechnology ENV.D.1 - Water

Brussels, Bl/AR/cvi/Ares(2010)

NOTE FOR THE ATTENTION OF WATER DIRECTORS

Subject: Streamlining of monitoring and reporting under the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Nitrates Directive (NiD) and the EEA's State of the Environment (SoE): summary of questionnaire outcomes

Firstly, we would like to thank all the Member States that replied to our questionnaire on streamlining of monitoring and reporting under the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the Nitrates Directive (NiD) and the EEA's State of the Environment (SoE).

As aimounced at the Water Directors meeting the results of the questionnaire were processed by DG ENV and the EEA, and presented and discussed in each of the three groups related to reporting under NiD, WFD and SoE. The results show that streamlining of monitoring and reporting should be further explored. Therefore, at our next meeting in Spa on 2-3 December we would like to discuss the results and the best way forward on this issue. The final outcome of this analysis along with the suggested further steps are outlined and enclosed as an annex to this letter.

Michael Hameii Peter Gammeltoft

Contact: DG ENV B.l : Agnieszka Romanowicz (Agnieszka.ROMANOWICZfgec.europa.eu) DG ENV D.l : Ursula Schmedtje (Ursula.Sclmiedtiefgļec.europa.eu) EEA: Robert Collins (robert.petercollins@eea.europa.eu)

C.c: J. Rodriguez Romero (ENV D.l), Beate Werner (EEA)

P:\71-34 nitratesYZ 1-34-2.7 internal technical support\streamlining work\WD meeting\note for the Water Directors on the streamlining.doc Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111

Ref. Ares(2010)835550 - 18/11/2010

Annex Streamlining of monitoring and reporting under the Water Framework Directive

(WFD), the Nitrates Directive (NiD) and the EEA's State of the Environment (SoE): summary of the questionnaire outcomes

In April 2010 a questionnaire on the streamlining of monitoring and reporting under the Vyater Framework Directive (WFD), the Nitrates Directive (NiD) and the EEA State of the Environment (SoE) was launched. Until today the Commission has received 24 replies from MS and One from an EFTA county

Thie replies were analyzed by the Commission and the EEA from the technical as well as the policy perspective. The^re^ discussed in each of the three groups related to reporting under thè NiD, the WFD and thè SdĘ; Fóilowihg this discussion the Commission and the EEA prepared this dobümènt to inforni Water Directors on thè outcomes of the analysis as well as on the

1. Summary of the questionnaire results

The questionnaire was divided into three main sections: 1) institutional setup, 2) streamlining, and 3) monitoring setup. All Member States (of the 24) provided detailed replies to the questions. The results can be summarized as follows:

institutional set-up

® In more than half of the MS (61% values given for all 3 streams) monitoring is undertaken by one organization; in the remaining MS the monitoring is divided between different organizations with different monitoring streams/networks.

• In half of the MS the data collection and data handling is carried out by several organizations, less than half of the MS have centralized data collection.

® In only 32% of the MS one organization is responsible for reporting for all three streams, in the remaining MS responsibility is divided between different organizations and/or regions.

Streamlining

• 96% of the MS supports streamlining efforts. However, a number of MS expressed reservations or pointed out some practical issues that would have to be considered.

Monitoring setup

• All MS have monitoring networks in place. In case of 17% of the MS this is only one monitoring network. Most of the MS are currently revising their monitoring networks to better harmonise the monitoring requirements under NiD and WFD.

• The frequency of monitoring for all three streams and for rivers, lakes, groundwater and transitional & coastal waters is generally very similar but in some cases MS need to cover specific needs.

Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË -Tel. +32 22991111

• The provided data to a large extent are aggregated data following different reporting guidelines documents. Some MS provided raw data instead of aggregated data.

• With regard to reporting 'raw data' MS indicated that the main advantage would be the possibility to obtain more comparable data between MS which could facilitate evaluation, but MS would have to provide larger datasets which is more time consuming. At the same time comparing raw data entails the risk of misinterpretation due to a lack of regional knowledge.

More detailed account of the questionnaire responses is available as a presentation in Appendix 1. A detailed report produced by ETC-Water analysing the Member States' monitoring networks for WFD, NiD and SoE is attached as Appendix 2.

2. Conclusions/Further steps

It is clear that the objectives of the monitoring programmes under the WFD, NiD and SoE are partially overlapping. On the other hand the reporting processes serve different purposes and have different cycles and levels of detail. The WFD monitoring programmes are aimed at establishing a comprehensive view of the status of the water bodies across the river basin districts and at monitoring the progress in achieving the environmental objectives as a consequence of the implementation of the measures. The reporting is done once every six years and includes information on the design of the monitoring programmes and on the overall status of the water bodies. The SoE monitoring is designed to provide Europe wide (beyond EU) information on state of the water environment and trends. Annual reporting of SoE data is agreed with Eionet. The SoE dataset is to be understood (at the least) as a subset of the WFD. The NiD monitoring is targeted to water bodies affected by pollution from nitrates coming from agriculture. Compliance is checked against the standards of 50 mg/L and therefore reporting requires monitoring data, which is delivered every 4 years.

Both SoE and NiD information are in principle relevant in the WFD context. WFD and NiD information is also relevant for the SoE assessments. There are clear overlaps on scope and purpose of the monitoring programmes, but the reporting processes are different as they target different purposes and obligations.

The questionnaire reflects a broad consensus that there is a clear scope for simplification and for exploiting the synergies between the different monitoring schemes and reporting streams in a more effective way. As a consequence, the Commission and the EEA would like to propose the following approach:

• The Water Directors are asked for support to elaborate in a step-wise approach firstly a general concept for streamlining followed by the development of integrated monitoring and reporting guidelines for WFD and NiD and clarifying the contribution of SoE. This guidance should promote integration and harmonisation of water monitoring activities as well as data reporting, while respecting the specific purposes of each of the reporting exercises. The proposed aim is to make recommendations to exploit synergies between the three monitoring processes, to reduce reporting burden and to promote integration between organisations. The work will be divided into a stepwise approach.

• In the first phase a small core group of experts appointed by Water Directors, should take care of drafting a concept paper exploring the possibilities of streamlining the monitoring and reporting commitments for WFD, NiD and SoE.. This will be consulted and coordinated with the Nitrates Committee, the WFD Strategic Coordination Group and the NFPs (National Focal Points). The concept paper will look into the technical and legal aspects of each of the streams to seek synergies between them. The design of the monitoring networks, the link between current datasets, the time lines and the various purposes of the monitoring and reporting processes (i.e. trend analysis of the NiD, indicators of the EEA CSI, surveillance, operational and investigative monitoring under WFD) will have to be considered. The concept paper should also take into account the needed flexibility under each of the reporting streams to cater for the different realities across the EU. It should also explore the expected consequences and impact of the integration work. Finally, the concept paper can include a detailed statement of purpose for further work and a draft table of contents for the possible integrated guidelines.

2

• Based on the discussion in the first phase and subject to the positive feedback from the Nitrates Committee, the WFD Strategic Coordination Group and the NFPs (EEA national focal points), support will be requested from the Water Directors for a second step of this work that should cover development of the final integrated guidelines. These will be developed by the core group of experts and will be presented to the three groups and to the Water Directors for final endorsement.

• The work will be supported by DG Environment consultants.

The Commission will investigate the possibility of aligning the reporting cycles between the WFD and the NiD. However, it needs to be stressed that a number of legal and compliance issues needs to be considered before any proposals will be made. The conclusion of this work could feed into the Commission Communication on the Blueprint to Safeguard European Waters envisaged for 2012.

Appendix 1: detailed results of the questionnaire

The below slides were presented during the meetings of WG D (13 October) and Strategic Co­ordination Group (10 November) and will be presented at the meeting of the Nitrates Committee on the 23 November. Slight changes between presentations occurred due to additional replies received.

Summary of replies to the streamlining questionnaire

Agnieszka Romanowicz DG ENV B1

General overview

Total replies received 24 MS+Switzerland Very detail replies that are helping understand complexity of monitoring at the MS level Except of one question all questions were replied

1. Institutional setup 1.1. As regards water monitoring under WFD, Nitrates Directive and SOE, please explain who is responsible for a) undertaking the monitoring b) data collection and preparation c) reporting

Who is responsible for undertaking the monitoring

Governmental institutions at national or regional level (including option of subcontracting) Other statutory organisations Research institutes Consultants -tendering

Who undertakes the trionitoring

la =Щ:eęri\eį-ufgafįsáffixi\ ? ï

]¥ЛШеЕ īļnararling ; v ШШШ

•One national monitoring programme vs. different national monitoring programmes

•Samples sent to other MS for analysis

Who is responsible for data collection and

preparation

One data centre

Regional laboratories,

different organisation

reporting raw data or

summary

Tender procedure for

data collection and

preparation

Who is responsible for reporting

Use of one database

does not guarantee

that the delivered

data are the same

under different

reporting

Lack of coordination

of data at national

level

Щ: ¡¿ геашпШ for reporting

ЕЗ.опе : orgañisati ιχι forali: reporting

Ďdifferent bodies;;: y

In case there are different organizations involved at each of the steps of the process is there a coordination mechanism in place? If yes, how is

the consistency between the reported data ensured?

The same protocols for sampling and analysis, certified labs. Checks of data at different steps Coordination between reporting if different organisations involved Coordination at the regional level but not at the MS level

йпоШлШоп ofrepprtiţiţjii

;Äc(ft)|tfhatiöri;i;me,bödy):

•No coordination

•Improvement is needed

•N/A ->no coordination?

2. Streamlining:

Ppyoii ЩрогШе í>roçèssqr şţreartiriing?

Would your Member State support the process of streamlining reporting falling under the three reporting

streams WFD, NiD and SOE , if not already in place?

Already in place Technical comments, but positive Depending on the final proposal How the differences will be dealt with? No to streamlining of monitoring programmes but yes to data reporting streamlining

Eyes, : iii.yeş;;but

^Reporting should be kept separately

3. Monitoring networks

What is the overlap of monitoring stations under WFD, NiD and SOE? One monitoring network A mixed setup - with some overlap or no overlap Monitoring at regional level Specific monitoring programmes used for some reporting or used during specific year Changes to the network in progress

Щ; ii;/

ЩШЩ:::НШ.

Siįiiį^^^^^^^i^i^^e^^^kiEį^Mį^įį;

ìmm ̂ BIllSllli l^^^^^ | l l ¡ l l l l i i l i : : i l i

ШЕШЕЕИШ ЩЕШЕШЕШЕШ^^ЗШШШШ

yS ^^^^^^^^^шШЕШ0ШМШ

IBIilll ilįj^^AiSiillSI

ШМШШШШ

ilíllllll· tìore:netwài:i? Иа;ткеа:Шир

Dna ;tìoncìùa\e ХШШШШ:-

Overall conclusion: large overlap

of most monitoring points.

What is the current status of monitoring network(s)

used for reporting under WFD, NiD and SOE?

Monitoring

networks/programmes in

place

Revisions/changes due to:

technical rezones, new

programme in place

Changes to one

monitoring network, two,

all

Changes to specific

network (GW, SW, costal)

■$^геШ;1каШ!:1Щ$М

ouridoř:d^loprrierrtv^;/í:%:

QUnţief 'ïeyis ¡¿niJS'ï

Note: figure represents monitoring network(s) not MS

10

If monitonng network(s) has been changed recently, could you briefly inform when and what

was the main change?

Monitoring networks were changed to the requirements of the WFD. Coordination and harmonization of WFD and NiD networks. Spatial coverage improved. Number of monitoring stations reduced (not representative stations removed, in case of overlap with other monitoring network(s) creation of one station and optimization of data collection) Development of a national monitoring network Increase number of stations for operational monitoring (i.e. to obtain information about the newly designated water bodies.) More representative monitoring in marine waters.

If there are any changes envisaged in the future, could you indicate what type of

changes are planned? Harmonization/streamlining of WFD, NiD, and SOE Coastal networks: compliance with WFD Better compliance with WFD Possible changes after completion of River Basin management plans in WFD More representative monitoring stations for surface waters and groundwater for NiD Integration and decrease of monitoring points because of budgetary reason Change due to Marine Directive implementation Possible changes due to external factors: technical development, land ownership

11

What is the frequency (no. of samples per year) of monitoring from which data is provided under

reporting for WFD, NiD and SOE? fffVers:

most countries 4-12 times per year (some countries up to 24) For most countries frequencies for WFD, NiD and SOE are similar (only slight differences). Some countries have higher frequency for NiD than in WFD.

Lakes: Most countries 4 times per year. 1 MS up to 24 times per year. 5 MS up to 12 times per year. For most countries similar frequencies for WFD, NiD and SOE (only slight differences).

Groundwater: Most countries 1-4 times per year For most countries similar frequencies for WFD, NiD and SOE.

• 1 MS: 2-1688 per year for WFD and 2-1276 times per year for NiD Transitional & coastal waters

Generally, 4-12 times per year For most countries similar frequencies for WFD, NiD and SOE (only slight differences).

Surface waters 6 MS provided information 4-12 times per year

• 1 MS: 1-365 times per year for WFD and 4-365 for Ni D

If the data are later aggregated for reporting under WFD, NiD and SOE, could you inform what type of

aggregation is made in addition to the one specified in reporting guidelines?

Raw data are provided for all 3 streams Some are aggregated following guidelines, some are raw data Mixture of aggregated/disaggregated data are provided Provision of aggregated data following guidelines Pre-processing of data: - spatial and temporal aggregation (NiD) - groundwater and surface water: aggregation of parameters

(WFD) and temporal aggregation (NiD and SOE)

12

Are the aggregation techniques used the same for each of the reporting streams? Please explain what exactly you are

doing to follow the different guidance documents.

Guidelines documents are follow If no guidelines, raw data are reported - In some MS different institute are involved in the analysis which

creates additional difference in data reported - In some MS data aggregation techniques for NiD take into

account soil and seasonal characteristic specific for Nitrate diffusion, while for SOE and WFD aquatic ecosystem is considered more closely.

Do you see advantage of providing raw data that are later

aggregated at the EU level by using the same techniques?

- 'raw data' -understood differently

Disadvantages: * High risk of errors or

misinterpretation, because of lack of knowledge of local conditions (loss of background information)

* Huge amount of data hasto be processed -> slows down the reporting system

Advantages: » All the data from all countries will

be more comparable, if aggregated at the EU level by using the same techniques.

* Facilitates the comparison and evaluation of the monitoring results between the EU countries.

Mvaitage/disativaitage of provīcļtrig raw data :':.

л/1о«(У.Г::;.)3'..::.;

:·'

□ advantages;

B not riear/neiittal

ad'Eaííŕantages; □W/Ä '■-■■:

13

Appendix 2: Report by ETC-Water

(See separate file)

14