Guidance for the Analysis of Pressures and Impacts in Accordance with the Water Framework

Guidance for the analysis of Pressures and Impacts in accordance with the Water Framework Directive

0.1 Foreword

This is a document for use by those whose job it is to carry out the requirements of the Directive.

0.2 How to use this document?

Section 1 describes the implementation of the Directive as a whole. (5 pages) Section 2 describes the requirement to analyse pressures and impacts. It also provides a clarification of what is required, and defines key terms. This is seen as an introduction to pressure and impact analysis within the context of the WFD, i.e. it is the link between the WFD as described in Section 1, and the general approach to the analysis of pressures and impacts described in Section 3. (5 pages) Section 3 describes the general approach to be adopted in the analysis. (10 pages) Section 4 identifies the sources of information and data that will be required to undertake the analysis described in Section 3. (10 pages) Section 5 presents details of specific tools required by the analysis. (10 pages) Section 6 presents a number of examples that may be considered best practice in respect of at least one aspect of the analysis. (10 pages) Section 7 contains concluding remarks (2 pages) Annexes contain a Glossary and List of Participants (2 pages) (Note that page lengths of sections are suggested to limit the size of the guidance document in accordance with the 50 pages indicated in the generic guidance)

1. Introduction – Implementing the Water Framework Directive

This is a generic text to be supplied by the Strategic Implementation Group.

Version: 16 May 2002 at 13:00. 1 2. Analysis of Pressures and Impacts in the Water Framework Directive – Common Understanding

2.1 Recall of WFD requirements

2.1.1 Requirements in relation to pressure and impact analysis

Article 1 of the Water Framework Directive states that “The purpose of this Directive is to establish a framework…which: 1. prevents further deterioration and protects … the status of aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to their water needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlands directly depending on the aquatic ecosystems; 2. promotes sustainable water use based on long-term protection of available water resources; 3. aims at …inter alia, through specific measures for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of priority substances… 4. ensures a progressive reduction in pollution of groundwater and prevents its further pollution; 5. contributes to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts.” The integrated objectives of reducing pollution, protecting water-dependent ecosystems and managing water resources in a manner that is sustainable in the long-term have to be achieved. Article 5 of the Directive requires, for each river basin district:  an analysis of its characteristics,  a review of the impact of human activity on the status of surface waters and groundwater, and  an economic analysis of water use. This guidance addresses the second of these requirements, but clearly proceeds in close collaboration with the economic analysis, for which guidance is being prepared by the WATECO working group of the Strategic Implementation Group. The Directive requires the tasks specified under Article 5 to completed by 2004. They will then be reviewed by 2013, and subsequently every 6 years (2019, 2025…). A specification for the impact review is contained in Annex II Section 1 for surface waters, and Annex II Section 2 for groundwaters. Surface waters The review process is described in five parts corresponding to the sub-sections within Annex II Section 1, i.e. 1. characterisation, 2. defining eco-regions, 3. establishing reference conditions, 4. identifying pressures, and 5. assessment of impacts. This guidance document addresses the final two parts of this process, but clearly relates closely to both the characterisation and the establishing of reference conditions. Again there are two separate working groups of the Strategic Implementation Group providing guidance on reference conditions (REFCOND and Transitional and Coastal Waters). The Directive requires information to be collected and maintained on the type and magnitude of significant anthropogenic pressures, and indicates a broad categorisation of the pressures into:

Version: 16 May 2002 at 13:00. 2  point sources of pollution,  diffuse sources of pollution,  effects of modifying the flow regime through abstraction or regulation,  morphological alterations  land use patterns, and  other. The impact assessment should use both information from the review of pressures, and any other information, for example environmental monitoring data, to determine the likelihood that the surface water body will fail to meet its environmental quality objective. For bodies at risk of failing their specified objectives, it will be necessary to implement additional monitoring and a programme of measures. Groundwaters A different process is described within Annex II Section 2, but this again has five parts, i.e.: 1. initial characterisation, including identification of pressures and risk of failing to achieve objectives, 2. further characterisation for at risk groundwater bodies, 3. review of the impact of human activity on groundwaters for trans-boundary and at risk groundwater bodies, 4. review of the impact of changes in groundwater levels for groundwater bodies for which lower objectives are to be set, 5. review of the impact of pollution on groundwater quality for which lower objectives are to be set. This guidance addresses all parts of this process. The pressures identified in Annex II, sub-section 2.1 correspond to the first three of the categories identified for surface waters, i.e.:  point sources of pollution,  diffuse sources of pollution, and  changes in water levels and flow caused by abstraction or recharge.

2.1.2 Links to other relevant requirements and related timescale

The review of pressures and impacts is only one element of the planning process, with other elements feeding into the review, or dependent on its outcome (Figure 1). The objectives of the WFD, as expressed in Art. 1 and the reporting obligations, as mentioned in Art. 5, provide sound indications about the identification of the pressures and impacts to consider and on the time and space scales suitable to designing measures and reporting their efficiency. The achievement of the goals is assessed through monitoring of water bodies chemical and ecological state. The most important goal of the first review in 2004 is to scope towards the major issues (the major pressures including i.e. the survey for inputs from dangerous substances & the major impacts with respect to the objective of good ecological status) at stake for the involved river basins. The first review is a screening step with the possibility for an additional description if necessary with more detailed data in the second step (s. Annex II No. 1.5 last paragraph). In this way it designates the prime aspects to be addressed in the drawing up of the river basin management plan. It may also reveal a number of gaps in data or knowledge. Relevant gaps should be filled in the next steps of the process of drawing up the RBMP.

Version: 16 May 2002 at 13:00. 3 Impact analysis

Objectives Review pressures Review and impacts monitoring programme

Existing information Economic analysis and data Programme of measures

Figure 1 Elements of the planning process.

One of the most fundamental elements of this process is the setting of the environmental objectives (Article 4) since the review of pressures and impacts must identify water bodies at risk of failing to meet the specified objective. The objectives depend on both the overall objective to reach the good status probably with additional specific objectives that apply to protected areas as defined from other legislation and the current status, since member states must, in general, prevent any deterioration in the status. Article 6 requires that a register of protected areas is established by 2004, but this information is required at an earlier date to enable the review of pressures and impacts. Another factor that can affect the setting of objectives concerns the designation of a water body as artificial or heavily modified (Article 4): guidance on such designation is in preparation by Heavily Modified Water Body working group of the Strategic Implementation Group. The natural scientific basis of that guidance will be used by IMPRESS. Since Heavily Modified Water Bodies will be firstly designated in 2009 their objective, the “good ecological potential” will not have to be included into the first review of pressures and impacts. To summarise, the review of the impact of human activities has to include all environmental objectives of Art. 4 WFD, which are:  achievement of good ecological status and good surface water chemical status;  achievement of good groundwater status; and, if they lead to more stringent objectives:  prevention of deterioration in status of surface waters and groundwater;  achievement of objectives and standards for Protected Areas;  reversal of any significant and sustained upward trends in pollutant concentrations in groundwater; and  cessation of discharges of Priority Hazardous Substances into surface waters and, for the second review in 2013 and any following:  achievement of good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status for heavily modified and artificial water bodies (HMWBs and AWBs); The over-riding objective of the Directive is that good status should be achieved by 2015 and therefore the assessment of status, and the review of pressures and impacts, should not just look at the current situation. For example, there may be a trend away from good status that may at present not have caused a failure of an objective, but which may lead to failure in the future if no action is taken. Similarly there may be changes in the pressures during the period to 2015, and these must be considered in assessing which water bodies are at risk of failing their objective at some date in the future. Such a change may result from an existing programme of measures, but may also result from changes in the economics of water use. The analysis of pressures and impacts must therefore run in parallel to the economic analysis required under Article 5, with guidance from the WATECO working group, and jointly establish with WATECO a baseline scenario of relevant activity for the period up to 2015. The review of the pressures and impacts is required in the design of monitoring programmes which must be operational by 2006 (Article 8), and also to help develop programmes of measures which must be established by 2009 and made operational by 2012 (Article 11). Public participation in the review of the impact of human activities is not legally required. Nevertheless water agencies and

Version: 16 May 2002 at 13:00. 4 authorities should make this work as transparent as possible in so far as this review forms one of the basis of the river basin management plan which has to be publicly consulted upon. Article 15 specifies the reporting requirements of the review undertaken under Article 5. Member states are required to provide summary reports of the reviews within three months of their completion (i.e. by March 2005). Subsequently, reporting on these reviews will be contained in the river basin management plans, which must be published first in 2009, and thereafter every six years (2015, 2021…). Therefore, from 2009 a schedule with a six year cycle is established, with the review of pressures and impacts occurring two years prior to the publishing of the river basin management plan. Summary of links and timescales Date Action Guidance on designation of heavily modified water bodies (HMWB working group) Development of baseline scenario (WATECO working group) 2002 Guidance on impact assessment complete (IMPRESS working group) 2004 Impact review complete (Article 5, Article 15, Annex II) 2005 Reporting of impact review (Article 15) 2006 Register of protected areas established (Article 6) 2006 Monitoring programme operational (Article 8) 2009 First River Basin Management Plan completed (Article 15) 2009 Programme of measures established (Article 11) 2012 Programme of measures operational (Article 11)

2.2 Key terms

While it is clear from the Directive that the impacts are the result of pressures, neither term is explicitly defined. For this reason a common understanding of the terms and the most effective approach has to be developed. In this guidance the widely-used DPSIR (Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, Response) analytical framework is used with the following meanings. Driver: an anthropogenic activity that may have an environmental effect (e.g. agriculture, industry). Pressure: the direct effect of the driver (e.g. a change in flow, a change in the water chemistry) State: the condition of the water body resulting from both natural and anthropogenic factors (i.e. physical, chemical and biological characteristics). Impact: the environmental effect of the pressure (e.g. fish killed, ecosystem modified) Response: the measures taken to improve the state of the water body (e.g. restricting abstraction, limiting point source discharges, developing best practice guidance for agriculture.) It is clear from these definitions that in the analysis of pressures and impacts, it is necessary to include information on drivers, and changes in the state, but that responses need not be considered. The distinction made here between state and impact separates effects that are sometimes combined, or confused. One reason for this is that because many of the impacts are not easily measurable, state is often used as a surrogate for impact. This is seen in many existing methodologies (e.g. quality targets and classification systems) in which physico-chemical parameters are used to quantify ecological status. While such methods imply a well-understood relationship between state and impact, in practice this is not the case, and is the subject of on-going scientific research. In addition to this uncertainty, the parameters defining ecological status will not be finally established, until after the first pressure and impact review has to be completed. The approach adopted in this guidance, therefore, provides a framework for analysis that reflects current understanding of how aquatic ecosystems function, and enables future integration of specific ecological criteria.

Version: 16 May 2002 at 13:00. 5 In general, therefore, the pressure and impacts assessment will be a four-step process, leading to the identification of those water bodies at risk of failing to meet the specified objective. 1. Describing the “driving forces”, especially land use, urban development, industry, agriculture and other activities which lead to pressures. 2. Identifying pressures with possible impacts on the water body and on water uses. Assessing the significance of the pressures by considering the magnitude of the pressure and the size of the water body. 3. Assessing the impacts resulting of the pressure (the impact being primarily related to the risk of failing the environmental quality objectives and therefore maintaining the water resource in good status for sustainable use). 4. Analysing the relationship between impacts and pressures; connecting and checking pressures and impacts where possible It is worth noting in the context of the DPSIR framework as described above, that objectives defined by the Directive relate to both the state and the impact, since, standards from other European water quality objective legislation relate to the concentration of pollutants in the water body (i.e. its state), while the biological elements of the Water Framework Directive clearly indicate impacts. Despite this problem of nomenclature, the meaning of the Directive is clear. If the water body fails to meet its objective, or is at risk of failing to meet its objective, then the cause of this failure (i.e. the pressure or combination of pressures) must be investigated. Thus when the Directive states that significant pressures must be identified, this can be taken to mean any pressure that on its own, or in combination with other pressures, may lead to a failure to achieve the specified objective. Such an interpretation introduces a scale dependence which is again referred to in Section 2.3. The actual criterion used to assess significant pressures for both surface and ground waters is that they are at risk of failing to meet objectives. Guidance on this risk assessment is contained in Section 3. Significant pressures (on surface water bodies) are nevertheless surveyed without regard to their actual impacts in a first step. In the first instance the list of significant pressures on a water body shall ensure the identification of all of the potentially important problems. Screening the likely impacts arising from each of the significant pressures will produce a list that can be used to identify points where further monitoring is necessary to decide if the water body is at risk of failing to achieve good status. This list then becomes a basis for developing a programme of measures which might be undertaken in order to achieve good status. For an EU-wide comparable stocktaking chiefly fundamental pressures shall be considered, which have a supraregional effects on uniform and essential water bodies. To allow summary reporting to the commission by March 2005 (as required by Art. 5(1) and 15 (2)), available data have to be used in the first step. Therefore existing data on key indicator parameters are likely to be most valuable. The identification of significant pressures could involve a combined approach of data, model usage and expert judgement. These pressures and furthermore those water bodies at risk of failing the environmental objectives shall be identified and reported in an adequate manner. This reporting process must be practicable for Member States, but also demonstrate transparency of Member States’ decision-making processes (e.g. in exercising its expert judgement). Simply using set thresholds is unlikely to pick up all pressures which may lead to an impact in a specific water body and it may therefore be necessary to consider pressures below any thresholds used. Therefore the guidance will develop simple, general rules and approaches rather than specify a list of numeric threshold criteria. Especially, for topics where no figures can be agreed, rules with examples from Member States shall visualise the possible range of values. Nevertheless usage of some fundamental normative thresholds (e.g. water quality targets, analytical determination limits) should be agreed. An example of good practice could be, to assure that identification of a kind of pressures covers a substantial part [indicative scale = i.e. 90%] of this kind. I.e. the considered waste water treatment plants should cover a substantial part of the population in the watershed or the investigated sources of an hazardous substance should cover a substantial part of the load. Note, that the calculated flux calculated on the basis of monitoring data usually is much lower than the sum of the loads of all sources due to pollutant degradation and retardation processes.

Version: 16 May 2002 at 13:00. 6 An impact basically is the environmental effect of a pressure (e.g. fish killed, ecosystem modified). In the assessment of impacts Annex II refers to the environmental quality objectives and urges to judge, if the impact is in a manner, that the water body is likely to fail its objective. A outstanding problem is that at present there is an incomplete definition of status, i.e. the difference between high, good, and moderate status. Developing this definition is the role of the REFCOND Working Group of the WFD Strategic Implementation Group. In the meantime, the estimation and identification of significant pressures will rely on expert judgement. Other terms are defined in the glossary in an annex this guidance document.

2.3 Relevant considerations

Water Body Definition The requirements described above all relate to a body of surface water, or a body of groundwater. The Directive defines both of these terms, and as part of the definition notes that surface water bodies should be discrete but need not, for example, be a whole river, while groundwater bodies should be distinct. Further guidance is expected from the Strategic Implementation Group on the identification of discrete and distinct water bodies. Concerns exist that the size of the water body may introduce spatial and temporal scale issues which will need to be addressed within the guidance. In the meantime the guidance addresses the process of pressure and impact analysis which should be independent of these issues. Scale Issues Scaling issues are especially meaningful in the case of pressures and impact assessment - time and spatial scale do not apply equally to all pressures and impacts. Moreover, the scaling issues must be addressed considering: 1. the reporting scales at which the information must be provided (for example, the calendar year and the river basin district); 2. the analytical scale at which data must be obtained to capture the relevant information and, hence assess the status in a timely and accurate manner. 3. the possibility to relate the pressures to the impacts. Considering that most impacts cannot be directly monitored or assessed, thus making it compulsory to assess the impacts through changes in the state, time and space scales and duration of monitoring must be compatible between impact assessment and state assessment. This double scaling is easily understood by the following example: to report about water shortages for one year in one river basin district, yearly total resource and total abstraction would yield to an insufficient assessment. The very concept of pressure suggests that a load is exerted over a certain target, having an area, during a certain time. Since the loads are not input instantaneously at a single point in space, but rather over an area and duration of time, correct time and space scales must be defined. Analogous The definition of the ad hoc time and spatial scales arises from a compromise between relevance (correct identification of pressures and potential impacts), accuracy (is a significant pressure actually identified) and sustainability (shall the assessment be carried out on the long term with the same accuracy). Hence, the time and spatial scales of observation strongly depend on both the pressure itself and its impact on a relevant target. This has practical incidence on the definition of pressures and on impacts. Time scale Since the normal reporting time scale is the year, the monitoring frequencies must be sufficient to provide data for yearly assessment. The choice of appropriate frequencies is often more important than the space scale is. This is because most pressures can be expressed as densities, thus making the area (as a separate consideration) of lesser importance. For example, if a certain population density makes a certain load, it is of little importance if the reference area is 20 or 100km 2, provided this does not change the impact. On the contrary, time related event cannot be expressed as densities and must therefore be adequately identified. For example, an annual load of 1000 tons of BOD5 does not have

Version: 16 May 2002 at 13:00. 7 the same impact when discharged evenly throughout the year as it would if it were released during a single month or even at a single accident. The different pressures can modify a stock of resource (length of artificialised river banks, cumulated damming height, etc.) and relate to equipments or a flux of resource (annual load of pollutant discharged, abstracted volume of water, number of water sluicing per day, etc.) that relate to works management. In the first case, the assessment on an annual basis is not appropriate for the type of pressure. In the second case, the short duration when the event occurs is the point at which the impact is significant, and averaging over an extended period would simply hide those effects. It is strongly suggested that management related pressures be computed monthly (optimum, considering possibility of data production) and at least comprise the baseline value, the peak value and its duration. For example: abstraction 1000 m3/day, 10000 m3/day July and August (2 months). Space scale For the identification of pressures and the assessment of impacts the spatial scale of the observation area can be derived from the management unit which is the elementary component of a river basin district. This analytical scale arises from the possible acceptations of the terms “water-body”, encompassing as well ecological areas and management perimeters. For example, a river water body, considered from the ecological assessment point of view, comprises a main channel and tributaries. The impact of pollution discharges or abstraction is not in the same order of magnitude in the main channel or in the tributaries. Hence, a minimum apportionment into two components of the water-body has to be done to allow relevant impact assessment. The estimation of the impacts from one or a number of significant pressures on the biological and physico-chemical attributes of the water body must take account of the specified areas and time periods, in order to reach a judgement as to the risks to the water body as a whole. The scale and intensity of the impacts from substantial entries as well as from other pressures (e. g. water abstraction, water flow regulation and alterations of the morphology in a catchment area) are strongly affected by:  The type of pressure, making the impact more or less closely related in time and space with the pressure: for example, discharge of P in a river system may result in eutrophication hundred of kilometres downstream; excess N application on land often results in groundwater nitrate concentration raising decades after application; overfishing results in stock measurable depletion years after, etc.  Specific boundary conditions and sensitivity of the water body (e. g. dependent on the type of water body, discharge, velocity of flow, depth, morphological status, hydrochemical attributes and ecological susceptibility of the biocoenosis).  Specific conditions of the particular area, that may superimpose other pressures masking the impacts of the considered pressure. For example, high turbidity or toxicity prevent algae from blooming following eutrophication of a watercourse. The estimation of the impacts, which result from less significant pressures, as well as the final assessment of the overall impacts on the status of the surface water bodies also needs to be referenced to a defined area. This is necessary to compare the environmental objectives and the quality components with existing environmental monitoring data. This area should be the defined water body. The following criteria should be recognised in the definition of the water body: - hydrological and hydrogeological criteria - special anthropogenic pressures However, specific precautions are required since impacts are not directly measurable. An impact is a worsening in state of a relevant part of the environment. Hence, a measurable impact can only be assessed when the change in state has reached a noticeable level. In many cases, both pressure and state are assessed through indirect monitoring, especially when considering effects on ecological systems. The data obtained must be considered very carefully, to avoid reaching misleading conclusions. For example, the number and cumulated height of dams in the range x to y metres height is an easily computed proxy for assessing the potential of postponing amphibiotic fish migration in a river catchment. The position of dams is also an important feature

Version: 16 May 2002 at 13:00. 8 which incidence must be considered balancing improvement in impact assessment and burden in data processing. An aggregation enables a regional view and, subsequently, comparison on a supraregional basis. The assessment of the impacts on the basis of state data or monitoring (Annex V, WFD) can potentially result in a water body / a group of water bodies that is at risk of failing the quality objectives. If - the water body is at risk of failing to achieve objectives under Art.4, or; - the planning of measures (Art. 13, WFD) needs a more detailed data basis or; - the reason for failing the quality objectives can not be the entries seized in the first inventory or; - the development in the specified parameters of the good ecological status highlight other kinds of pressures, a further characterisation with more detailed data shall be carried out. For this purpose suitable data have to be collected. If necessary additional pressures have to be considered that were previously below the threshold sizes included in the initial phase.

Version: 16 May 2002 at 13:00. 9 3. General approach for the analysis of pressures and impacts

Characterisation as a first “Audit” with deadline 2004 and repetitions Identify list of pressures (audit) driving forces (significant) pressures (threshold criteria ?) Problem of multiple pressures Fulfilment of reporting demands of WFD – (going apart ?) Refer to present status and include known trends (if relevant for particular problem (e. g. eutrophication)) Flowcharts connections between characterisation, definition of good status and monitoring connections between characterisation and River Basin Management Plan cycle

3.1 General process [description and flowcharts sw + gw including relevant products in the further WFD implementation] 3.2 Types of pressures and relation to impacts [driving forces?, 4 types of pressures in relation to list of pressures in Annex II WFD, overview table linking to relevant impacts] 3.3 Initial evidence of impact [Screening process on th basis of existing information, such as chemicla, ecological, morphological] 3.4 Relationship between impact and “status”/Art 4 WFD requirements [discussion on a practical approach to predict the “status” through the impact assessment and vice versa, relation to REFCOND, intercalibration, HMWB and others] 3.5 Practical considerations [timing issues, data availabilitiy, iterative process]

4. Information needs and data sources

Possible information sources from „water related“ issues: (EU- obligations, other international (OSPAR..., national databases (regional, local))) Extended by use of data from other administrations (e. g. agriculture)

4.1 Sources of information on pressures [each sub-chapter should reflect on the information needs and available data sources] [Integrate issues related to pressures but being driving forces after finalising glossary, such as land use patterns and other anthropogenic impacts, significant morphological alterations,...]. 4.1.1 Pressures common to surface and groundwater point sources diffuse sources water abstraction

Version: 16 May 2002 at 13:00. 10 accidents 4.1.2 Pressures relevant to surface water only a) List of information about water flow regulation b) List of information about morphology c) List of pressures on other anthropogenic impacts (such as living organism) e.t.c. 4.1.3 Pressures relevant to groundwater only 4.1.4 Interrelated pressures between surface and groundwaters 4.2 Sources of information on assessment of impacts 4.2.1 Assessment of impacts on surface waters [Assessment of the impacts of significant pressures on the status of surface water bodies according to Water Framework Directive Annex II 1.5] 4.2.2 Assessment of impacts on groundwaters 4.2.2.1 Chemical impacts 4.2.2.2 Quantative impacts 4.2.3 Interrelated impacts between surface and groundwaters

5. Toolbox

Monitoring data most important Balances based on use of emission coefficients and transfer functions Estimates based on existing models (esp. diffuse sources, sources which may not properly be monitored) (summarized in Annex with recommendations for use (calibration, info from HARP guidelines, list of properties)) [available tools taking into account aspects related to monitoring, modelling, emission registers, coefficients, etc.] 5.1 Pressures 5.1.1 Point sources (Examples) 5.1.2 ..... 5.2 Impacts on Groundwater 5.3 Impacts on Surface Waters [Annex II, 1.5]

6. Examples of best practice

Subject-oriented examples on issues such as: point sources diffuse sources hydromorphology abstractions Pressures on “living organisms”

Version: 16 May 2002 at 13:00. 11 selection of relevant pollutants (river-basin substances) baseline scenario artificial recharge any others?

7. Summary and concluding remarks

Version: 16 May 2002 at 13:00. 12 Annexes

Annex I Glossary abstraction: the deliberate removal of water from a water body, either surface or groundwater. artificial recharge: the deliberate introduction by man of water into the subsurface, most usually to increase water available for subsequent abstraction. baseline scenario: an evaluation of the impact based on trends or social-economical forecasts in human activities, effects of policy or legislation implementation and natural changes etc. until 2015. diffuse source: not targeted discharge of polluted water, that enters a water bodies at various hydrological pathways, e.g. atmospheric deposition, run-off, erosion, drainage, groundwater flow and originates from a spatially extensive land use (e.g. agriculture, settlements, transport, industry). Examples are leaching of agrochemicals from a field and run-off of heavy metals and chemicals from urban areas. Occasionally also small point sources called diffuse, that are spatially distributed and not easily identified individually. DPSIR: the Driver, Pressure, State, Impact and Response framework for environmental analysis. driver: an anthropogenic activity that may have an environmental effect (e.g. agriculture, industry), also driving force. flux: a transfer of a substances through a medium. hydromorphology: the physical characteristics of the boundaries of a water body. impact: the environmental effect of a pressure (e.g. fish killed, ecosystem modified) load: the transfer of material, dissolved or particulate, associated with a flow of water. point source: an identifiable and discrete, source, usually referring to a polluting discharge, e.g. the discharge from a sewage treatment works. pressure: the direct effect of a driver (e.g. a change in flow, a change in the water chemistry). response: the measures taken to improve the state of the water body (e.g. restricting abstraction, limiting point source discharges, developing best practice guidance for agriculture). significant pressure: a pressure that is “worth mentioning” and contributes to failure or risk of failure to achieve the specified objective. state: the condition of the water body resulting from both natural and anthropogenic factors (i.e. physical, chemical and biological characteristics). status: the physical, chemical, biological, or ecological behaviour of a water body.

Annex II Participants in the group

Version: 16 May 2002 at 13:00. 13