Towards a Shared Water Information System for Europe (WISE)

WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT

Reporting for water

Towards a shared water information system for Europe (WISE)

State of the Environment and Trends Reporting

1. Introduction

The concept report on reporting for water (version 7.0) was adopted by the Water Directors’ meeting in Rome on 24/25 November 2003. It describes three distinct, but overlapping, requirements for information to be gathered from Member States to EU and International Organisations. These are:

1. Checking compliance and implementation of EU legislation at a national level.

2. Assessing and comparing state and trends for the environment and the associated pressures, impacts and socio-economic driving forces that either cause or result from changes.

3. Use information on implementation and trends to assess the effects and effectiveness (including cost-efficiency) of policy, both before and after measures have been introduced.

The Commission and Member States are developing guidance for reporting under the Water Framework Directive (WFD). This is seen as one of the first operational steps in implementing the concept paper on reporting for water. The guidance document will encompass not only the reporting requirements for the WFD but also other, related Directives, where information supplied under those Directives is of direct relevance to the implementation of the WFD. One of the reasons the Commission requires information to be reported by Members States is to check compliance with the requirements of specific articles of the Directive.

This paper deals with state of the environment and trends reporting. This type of information is required by the European Environment Agency (EEA), the Commission, EUROSTAT and other international organisations undertaking Europe- wide or regional assessments.

The proposal is for a shared pool of common and timely data and information on the state of, and pressures on, Europe’s water (WISE = Water Information System for Europe) that meets the needs of all those organisations requiring to report and make assessments at a European level. Agreement between countries will have to be reached on many aspects such as the determinands (e.g. physico-chemical (nitrate, phosphate, etc.), biological (benthic invertebrates, fish etc.) and hydromorphological (habitat features, river flow etc.) quality elements), level of data aggregation, spatial and temporal resolution, and on the meta data held within WISE. Appropriate tools are available (e.g. Reportnet) to facilitate the process of populating and developing WISE.

1 of 10 WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT

2. What is meant by State of the Environment (SOE) data in general, and in particular for water?

All SOE reporting stems from a common set of activities and objectives, aimed at the assessment of present states and future trends in environmental conditions. However, the forms that individual SOE reports take are highly variable, both within and between countries. Typical outputs vary from comprehensive published reviews, containing detailed analyses of cause, effect and outlook, to statistical compendia and compilations of environmental datasets and indicators, which may form a basic reference source for future assessment and appraisal. Nevertheless, it is clear that the primary output from most SOE is some form of technical reference document.

SOE data arise from the measurement of defined environmental determinands which have been selected to provide information on the aspect of the environment being assessed. The determinands will relate to both the state of, impacts and pressures on, the environment. The selected determinands will be measured at spatial and temporal scales appropriate to the objectives of the SOE reporting, and ideally to give an adequate level of confidence in the results in terms of present state, pressures and trends.

In terms of water, relevant determinands would include:

Physicochemical quality Biological quality elements Hydromorphological quality elements elements  Nutrients  Benthic (macro)  Flow invertebrates  Organic pollution  Phytoplankton  Habitat features indicators (e.g. BOD)  Salinity  Other aquatic flora  Depth (variation)  Hardness  Fish  Alkalinity  pH  Pollutants (including priority substances)

Once data have been collected, they may be compiled statistically or otherwise into indicators which are then reported to the target audience or users of the SOE report. This latter process often requires the collection of other supportive information (i.e. processed data) to aid the interpretation of the collected data.

Most often there will be a large number of organisations collecting SOE data at local, regional, national and international level. There will be a number of policy drivers or business needs that introduce the requirement on these organisations to collect, report and disseminate such data. As the concept paper describes these drivers may either be mandatory or voluntary.

3. Why is SOE data/information needed?

Irrespective of the legal or institutional background of the producers and users of SOE reports, the main motivation is to provide advice to environmental policy-makers and to serve as an objective basis against which to assess the effectiveness of those policies. SOE data must also be capable of detecting unforeseen problems, and in some cases provide early, real-time, warning such as in the case of accidental pollution and flooding. Other important reasons for carrying out SOE data collection

2 of 10 WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT are to report back to elected representatives on the government's performance in achieving its environmental goals and to educate and inform the general public.

For example, the EEA has the mandate to publish a report on the state of, trends in and prospects for the environment every five years, supplemented by indicator reports focusing upon specific issues (Article 2.vi of the Council Regulation establishing the EEA). This obligation requires the collection, collation and analysis of appropriate data and information from its member countries and other international organisations. The EEA has agreed priority data flows with its Management Board and member countries, and these include the annual update of data from rivers, lakes, groundwaters, transitional, coastal and marine waters. In addition, Article 2.xi requires the EEA to ensure the broad dissemination of reliable and comparable environmental information, in particular on the state of the environment, to the general public, and to this end, to promote the use of new telematics technology for this purpose.

4. The collection and use of SOE data and information

The requirements for the collection of SOE data (e.g. through monitoring) will depend upon the business needs of, and policy drivers on, those instigating and undertaking the data collection. These will vary from organisation to organisation and from country to country. Organisations such as the EEA and the Commission are dependent on the data produced by countries, as they do not undertake monitoring themselves.

There are, however, commonalities between policies and objectives (i.e. the policy drivers) established at a national level with those established at an international level i.e. countries have common problems and issues that need action nationally as well as at an international level. Progress with the policy objectives has to be assessed and reported to interested parties. A common dissemination method is the use of indicators, the formulation of which will require data on the state and trends of environmental quality often arising from monitoring. It is therefore likely that data collected at a national level (for example, on nitrate and ammonium concentrations) will to some extent go towards addressing the same issue at an international level. The main problem is the spatial scale and temporal extent of the data and comparability between countries. Problems such as these are overcome by common reporting tools such as Harp-Nut for OSPAR and Eurowaternet for the EEA.

In short, it is of obvious benefit to countries to have multiple uses of the same data as far as possible. The key for this will be whether the collected data (in terms of location, determinand, frequency etc) will meet the requirements of the different policy drivers and those requesting the data.

Figure 1 attempts to illustrate the levels of comparability of information and data at different stages of the monitoring/reporting process at the national level. It is hoped that this will serve to highlight the issues and potential problems associated with the establishment of a shared data and information system for Europe’s waters.

The Figure starts with national and European policy drivers which may have monitoring requirements, for example, to assess, spatially and temporally, the nutrient status of water bodies. For example, in Denmark, nitrate/total oxidised nitrogen concentrations are monitored at approximately 192 stations by the local Counties (funded by central government). Data are reported annually to a National Topic Centre in an annually aggregated and standardised form for each station. In

England and Wales, around 7 000 stations are sampled by the regional staff of the Environment Agency (EA) of EW and the disaggregated data reported to the EA’s data centre. The nitrate/total oxidised nitrogen concentrations may then be manipulated and treated in different ways (e.g. as annual averages, as 3-yearly average or in the calculation of an index) before being reported nationally. For example, in Denmark compliance with quality objectives at the station level are reported whereas in EW lengths of river of different quality classes are used in ‘headline’ indicators.

Figure 1 Illustration of levels of comparability of data and information at different stages of the monitoring/reporting process

National and European policy drivers/objectives

Decreasing comparability and Possible Monitoring of Differences in commonality between countries differences in primary number and types and organisations analytical determinands of monitoring methods (e.g. nitrate, 12 station times a year at stations in rivers etc.)

Disaggregated data held locally or nationally

Aggregation for

reporting

3-yearly averages Calculation of Annual averages indices

Reporting

nationally

Comparison Classification Indicators against standards schemes or objectives

In general because of the different ways that the raw, disaggregated monitoring data are subsequently aggregated, manipulated, and reported, the level of comparability between countries decreases through the monitoring to reporting process. The aim of reporting tools, such as the European Environment Agency’s Eurowaternet, is to sample national data sets in a consistent way so that data and information comparable across Europe can be obtained. The key to the establishment of a European common information pool is to have the data and information at the most comparable and common level possible considering the policy drivers in each country.

Many countries also report trends in their water (river) quality often in terms of national classification schemes. Whilst national classification schemes are not

4 of 10 WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT directly comparable between countries, the trend information can be aggregated/formulated into an indicator of general European river quality (Figure 2).

Figure 2 Rate of change in rivers classified as less than good as a percentage of the total rivers classified

UK - Northern Ireland Albania Ireland Bosnia and Herzegovina Latvia Czech Rep.   UK - Scotland Czech Rep. Slovenia Luxembourg Biological Poland Physico-chemical France Combined Latvia UK - England and Wales Poland Czech Rep. UK - England and Wales Romania Austria

Germany UK - Northern Ireland Spain

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 % change per year of reporting period

Note: Data shown are for different types of classification scheme (biological, physico-chemical and combined) by country. Source: EEA 2003

There are, however, significant limitations to the information for European policy makers provided by this approach including:

 River water quality is not directly comparable between countries;  The scale and locations of water quality problem areas (e.g. in terms of relatively high nitrate and ammonium concentrations), and which may require further European action or measures (e.g. structural funds for improvements), cannot be identified;  National classifications and/or reported trends can be based on relatively few rivers/stations perhaps focusing on the poorer quality rivers and therefore do not give a representative view of quality in countries and hence Europe;  National classifications are expressed as either river lengths or by number of stations in each class, again making the comparison between countries difficult.  Reporting periods and lengths between classifications vary greatly, and therefore timely, reliable and comparable trends cannot be obtained;  Relatively few countries have national classification schemes or report trends for lakes, transitional and coastal waters.

Figures 2 represents the situation as it largely is now between countries. The aim of the Water Framework Directive is to achieve comparable classifications of high, good and moderate ecological status between EU Member States. Ecological status is a highly aggregated measure of quality that should give comparable and available information across Europe by the time of the first River Basin Management Plans in 2009. However, there will still be a need for the disaggregated data behind ecological status if more detailed analyses and assessments are to be undertaken,

5 of 10 WORKING DRAFT DOCUMENT for example on the impacts of socioeconomic sectors on water quality and ecological status.

5. Possible structure of a shared pool of information on Europe’s waters

The objective is to achieve a shared pool of common and timely data and information on the state of, and pressures on, Europe’s water (WISE = Water Information System for Europe) that meets the needs of all those organisations requiring to report and make assessments at a European level. It is possible that not all the users will require all the information contained in WISE but will require a subset of its contents. Figure 3 attempts to illustrate the issues, options and process by which this might be achieved.

As the earlier sections of this paper have demonstrated there are likely to be common issues/problems relating to water at the national level between European countries. These are likely to give rise to common national policy drivers which will have monitoring and reporting requirements. For EU countries there are also common policy drivers in terms of Directives which also generally have monitoring and reporting requirements. Even though there may be methodological and/or analytical differences, it is also likely that there will be commonalities in the chemical determinands monitored to meet the needs of the policy drivers, and in many cases relatively comparable raw data produced.

Potentially there will be more differences and incomparability when it comes to monitoring biological and hydromorphological quality elements, though the WFD CIS Working Group 2A is considering the use of common metrics (e.g. number of taxa) in the intercalibration of national biological assessment systems.

Additional differences will be introduced between countries once the basic data are subsequently aggregated in different statistical ways and/or are combined into different metrics or indices. It is therefore likely that the data held within WISE will have to be at a relatively disaggregated form (e.g. actual sample data) to achieve maximum comparability or in an agreed aggregated form common to all countries (e.g. annual average values). There are also options for the location of WISE: it can be a central data repository or it can be held in geographically dispersed (national) data repositories to which all data users have access. In both cases the repository(ies) would hold data and information validated by national authorities.

6. Content and quality assurance of WISE

A fundamental decision to be taken by countries and agreed with data users, is the content of WISE. Agreement will have to be reached on aspects such as the determinands (e.g. physico-chemical (nitrate, phosphate, etc.), biological (benthic invertebrates, fish etc.) and hydromorphological (habitat features, river flow etc.) quality elements), spatial and temporal resolution, and on meta data held within WISE. Meta data might include, for example, details of the monitoring station’s physical characteristics and analytical and sampling methodologies

Figure 3 Issues, options and process for developing WISE

Compliance checking State of the environment and trend analysis

Meets the needs and reporting Assessment of policy requirments of all effectiveness international organisations

National Data Centres (collection of data from national Shared pool of common regional authorities) and timely data and Sub-national Country agreement on: information on state of, National monitoring and data - determinands for state and pressures and pressures on, validation of collection - spatial disaggregation (stations, water Europe's water in national bodies, river basins) dispersed or centralised data - temporal aggregation (e.g. sample data/ data repositories annually aggregated - statistical elements - AQC/QC details - Meta data on stations (location, Monitoring of geographic coordinates, type, physical common or similar characteristics, proxy pressures) determinands -geographically referenced data (e.g. Common or similar policy drivers arising (methodological INSPIRE from common water-related and/or analytical - business rules on validation, use and problems/issues such as: differences?) dissemination of data - ecological status - schedule for updating data (annual) - human health - eutrophication - hazardous substances - water stress - fisheries

Appropriate tools would facilitate the process of populating and developing WISE in a systematic and quality assured way. One such tool is Reportnet, developed by the EEA to obtain the data and information it requires from EIONET (its member and participating countries). Reportnet could be further developed to facilitate the establishment of WISE. A Data Dictionary will be required in which definitions of the agreed common data and information items will be given: this will ensure a common understanding of what has been agreed and required. A Data Exchange Module for use between national data providers and national data repositories (or between national data providers and a central data repository if that option is chosen) will facilitate the provision of the agreed data and information in common formats and structures. Reportnet also contains the Reporting Obligations Database (ROD) with details of what, when and to whom data and information are to be reported. ROD could become the electronic driver, prompting Member States in advance of when a reporting obligation is due.

7. The next steps

In terms of reporting for the WFD, the Commission has prepared a series of data sheets with the detailed information to be reported under the appropriate Articles. These are being drafted with a long-term view and with the goal that they will be the basis for further developing an electronic reporting tool. A prototype electronic reporting tool has been developed and tested for the reporting aspects required for 2004. In addition an electronic web interface has been implemented for the submission of information needed to compile the draft register of the intercalibration network.

Examples of equivalent draft data sheets for reporting state and trends are under development. Agreed versions of these could form the basis of future reporting on the state of, and trends in, the water environment. If needed additional appropriate electronic tools could then be developed as part of WISE.

As already stated in this paper Eurowaternet has been developed and implemented to provide much of the data and information on the state and trends of Europe’s waters needed by the EEA. Eurowaternet is one of the EEA’s Reportnet tools. In terms of further developing electronic reporting and data exchange tools, the Reportnet Data Dictionary has this year been implemented to facilitate the Eurowaternet annual data flow. The Data Dictionary is a centrally located store of information and definitions for EIONET data flows and data sets. It is now the only source for definitions relating to the water data sets. All information on the content, format and structure of each water data set: rivers, lakes, groundwater, transitional, coastal and marine waters, and water quantity (previously provided in the Eurowaternet Update Guidance Notes and data templates) are now available through the Data Dictionary. The Data Dictionary application allows data providers to: 1. Navigate to the appropriate data set for which the data will be provided;

2. Generate and download a technical specification for the data flow (PDF files);

3. Download template files for the data delivery (MS Excel files). The EEA is also currently developing a generic data exchange module (GDEM), an innovative solution to facilitate the delivery and validation of data. The GDEM is currently being trailed as an alternative method for providing data on groundwater body characterisation. The GDEM automatically generates web forms, pre-filled with data provided in previous years. Users can validate, edit and update existing information and add new groundwater bodies.

With the agreement of countries, Eurowaternet could be further developed and modified to provide the state and trends data and information consistent with the monitoring and reporting requirements of the Water Framework, Urban Waste Water Treatment and Nitrates Directives.

8 of 10