Joint SOE Drafting Group and Eionet Workshop

13 - 14 November 2006

Conference Room

EEA, Kongens Nytorv 6, Copenhagen,

Workshop Report

Final Draft

Prepared by Tim Lack Manager ETC Water and Beate Werner, EEA

1 Access to Documentation This workshop report and all presentations and other documentation can be found on the WFD CIS CIRCA system (password protected access for SOER network participants) at: https://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/env/Home/main? f=login&from_prompt=1&port=80&uri=%2FMembers%2Firc%2Fenv%2Fwfd %2Flibrary%3Fl%3D%2Fworking_groups%2Fnew_wg_reporting %2Fstate_environment%26vm%3Ddetailed%26sb%3DTitle%2F and on the EEA CIRCA system (unrestricted access for Eionet network participants) at: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/water/library

Workshop Agenda The agenda of the workshop is given in Annex 1.

Participants There were 50 participants from 29 countries (and DG ENV, EEA, JRC and ETC Water) representing both networks (EEA’s Eionet and WFD CIS SOE Drafting Group). The list of participants and their contact details are given in Annex 2.

The meeting was co-chaired by Beate Werner (EEA) and Tim Lack (ETC Water). Presentations were made by Beate Werner and Stefan Jensen (EEA), Jorge Rodriguez-Romero (DG ENV WFD Team), Steve Nixon (ETC Water), Susanne Boutrop (NERI DK), Volker Mohaupt (Federal Ministry of the Environment, DE) and Rene Lalement (Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development, FR).

2 Workshop Proceedings

The first Day of the joint workshop was dedicated to the discussions of outputs of the SOE Drafting Group so far:

 Task 1 Clarification of Reporting Streams  Task 2 Updated Guidance on Reporting  Task 3 Guidance on the Scope of the SOE Parameters

The text of Task 3 Guidance paper was available on line and on screen and many textual amendments were made by Steve Nixon in answer of the comments made before the meeting and during the session on Task 3.

The guidance notes for Task 4 Data Processing, Handling and Reporting and Task 5 Technical Integration are less developed, although the software tools are reasonably well developed, and these were discussed in a more general way on Day 2.

Day 2 began with an unscheduled discussion on the relationship between Compliance and SOE data at the request of some participants.

DAY 1; Session 1; Welcome and Introduction

Tim Lack welcomed participants and reminded them this was the first joint meeting of the SOER and Eionet-Water networks of the Commission and EEA although there was a back–to-back meeting of the two groups when the last Eionet-water Workshop was held in November 2005.

Beate Werner welcomed the participants on behalf of the EEA and gave an overview of the history and the development of Eionet-Water in the light of the implementation of the WFD. The Eionet priority data flows have been endorsed by EEA Management Board to feed the development of the EEA’s Core Set of Indicators.. The conceptual approach of the WFD relating to hydrographical units (Water Body and River Basin) and the type specific assessment made the updating of Eionet water possible and necessary. (Slides are available on Circa)

Jorge Rodriguez-Romero (JRR) gave a presentation on the development of the national monitoring networks, largely based on the outcome of the workshop held in Brussels, April 2006. (Slides are available on Circa).

In the discussion questions were raised on the criteria of establishment of the monitoring sites, in particular the geographical spread and the distribution between surveillance and operational sites. This would influence also the selection of Eionet – water sites. Depending on member States interpretation surveillance and operational sites might reflect a different range of statuses and different monitoring frequencies. DG ENV together with EEA stressed, that indeed there might be different approaches to surveillance and operational monitoring in the Member States, but for the SOE assessments and the Eionet – water stations it is important to choose a sub-set of representative sites covering all statuses and all types of Water Bodies in the River basin district/country. Some countries have indicated that Eionet stations will be included in their surveillance networks

Session 2: to communicate the ongoing processes, activites and outputs of the SOE- Reporting Drafting Group

3 Beate Werner presented the outcomes of the work under Task 1, “clarification of reporting streams” and Task 2 “Overview of existing reporting guidance”. Both tasks provided papers, which will be part of the later Guidance document. There were no further discussion of the documents all participants were satisfied with the final versions of Tasks 1 and 2.

The workshop discussed in detail the draft of the paper under Task 3, the description of the future SOE/ Eionet-water parameter section by section

Steve Nixon presented an overview of comments made at and after the last SOE Drafting Group meeting and how they are taken into account in the new version of the paper. (Slides on Circa on the significant changes to the draft).

Task 3 paper, Section1: Introduction and Table 1 Overview of the Reporting Sheets Changes have been agreed to the text regarding clarifying that typology information is needed for contextual/comparative reasons (type specific assessments). The rest of the section was agreed.

Section 2:Monitoring Sites to obtain representative Information for SOE assessments Section 2.1 and 2.2 on EEA assessments and the information needed were largely agreed with minor editorial changes. In section 2.3 on the relation between monitoring sites, determinands and water bodies, figure 2 needed some clarification regarding the cases displayed. It was stressed that this is only explanatory and not all cases appear necessarily equally often.

In section 2.4, Options for the treatment of data before reporting, the horizontal and vertical disaggregation needed to be clarified. Horizontally several sub-sites could well be aggregated without losing information relevant for the EU assessment, whereas the vertical disaggregation need to be kept to take into account cases of hypoxia also in lakes. Maximum values are not needed in addition to the annual mean, as they don’t give added value to the high percentiles.

In section 2.5, criteria for the monitoring sites to be used for EEA/SOE assessments, it was discussed for which sizes and types of water bodies the site should be representative. It was clarified that not all countries have all types of WBs but should represent the types in their national part of the River basin, the reference to the comparable sub-unit (e.g. a certain national or regional part of a larger transboundary river Basin) could help. With respect to the size, small upstream as well as larger down stream water bodies should be represented.

Section 2.6 Additional information to specify criteria, was agreed without discussion

For the Criteria for the monitoring sites for Groundwater (section 2.7) again the resulting amount of SOE monitoring sites was discussed. Germany asked for more specific criteria to be used for the communication to the “Bundesländer”. EEA answered that the criteria outlined in section 2.5 for surface waters generally apply also to groundwater, even if the representativity is less clear as the delineation of groundwater bodies is not as clear defined.

4 Steve Nixon presented a paper on “Estimation of ability of the present number of Eionet-water stations to determine national mean concentrations of different determinands. (Slides available on Circa) Member States asked for time to comment on the paper. It is not the number of stations that is important, it is the number of water bodies that are covered.

To finalise the discussion on the criteria and the representative set of SOE stations a tour de table with all representatives was made to obtain a European-wide view on the development of the national monitoring networks and the possible future selection of Eionet-Water. The participants were requested to answer the following questions:

1. How many Eionet-Water stations will you have in your 2007 monitoring network? 2. How does this compare with the previous monitoring network? 3. What will you deliver (in terms of parameters/determinands) in the 2007 water priority data flows to SOE-WISE? 4. How well does this cover all water categories and types of water body of all statuses? It was emphasised that all responses would be treated as for information only and not binding commitments on the countries.

The responses were summarised in tabular form, and the participants checked the details during the workshop. The table is given in Annex 3

DAY 2 The second day’s discussion started with an unscheduled discussion on the relation between SOE and compliance reporting. This was discussed earlier in connection to the task 1 paper but it was felt that more clarification is needed.

Participants (e.g. IE, NL; DE) expressed their concern about the use and interpretation of the data send to EEA, if it will be directly used in the process of compliance checking and when will it go to the public. This uncertainty might make member States reluctant to make their data available. Local issues have to be fully understood when developing assessments and interpret the data respective the state of environment they should describe. One of the major fears is the possibility of different outcomes on the national and the EU level assessment and this would irritated the relationships with the Commission or the public. Communication is important between Commission and the country directly before taking infringement procedures (NL), this might lead then to the EEA data anyhow, but the country is informed about the open questions. France proposed to establish clear business roles for the use of data in WISE.

The Commission expressed understanding for the fear of the MSs that conclusions from EEA will be different from their own. This would be quite natural, because there are different ways of interpreting the data. The EEA analysis is a European-wide approach, so it is more focusing on comparison between regions and River Basins then the national assessments. The analyses are different and the purposes are different. Regarding the nature of the SOE-reporting under the WISE, the Commission clarified that the data discussed here are definitely voluntary as are the reporting sheets that are developed in the Working Group D. SOE data are in first instance not for compliance checking. The compliance checking is a process in several steps. If there appear no problems, then no in-depth analysis is necessary, if there are ambiguities, then the commission will use different sources of information anyhow, between them SOE data also from national level as available on most

5 websites. The information on results from monitoring stations will not be asked in the RBMP reporting when it is reported to EEA. The focus should be on work based on a transparent basis, from both sides, Commission and Member States.

These steps of compliance checking are explained in a figure (see below) showed and discussed in the SOE-group earlier (showed here again). This together with more conceptual background on the use of obligatory and mandatory data will be put also to the Working Group D and Steering Coordination Group for endorsement.

EEA stressed that the purpose of SOE assessments is a wider European view, providing a broader picture e.g. on the transboundary aspects of agriculture, and not the replication of assessments done on national level. It is also not intended to use the SOE data for direct compliance checking for the Commission. The SOE data flow towards EEA is and stays a voluntary data flow, the assessments will be consulted with the countries as EEA is always doing country reviews for all assessments derived from Member State’s data. This counts for the reports as well as for the results of the core set indicators. The wider publication and dissemination of aggregated assessments to the wider public happens only after this country review. The direct involvement of the public on national level with more detailed information, also including plans of measures has to happen in the scope of the public participation anyway, but this is responsibility of the Member States. The availability of SOE data for all EU-level institutions should furthermore facilitate the good understanding and interpretation of the data, also between the Member States and the Commission. The Relationship between SOE and compliance data will also be further discussed and agreed in the Working Group D and the Steering Co-ordination Group. The Commission is preparing a paper on the use of data in WISE.

The meeting then reverted to the scheduled agenda.

Discussion on section 3

The Workshop discussed the reporting sheets listed in section 3 of the paper sheet by sheet. Steve Nixon (ETC) gave an overview of each of the sheets in Section 3

6 The discussion started with the two sheets on surface waters (1 and 2, Nutrients and hazardous substances) and turned then to the 3 general sheets 14, 15 and 16 to cover the more general aspects.

A general question was the level of detail for the sampling method to be reported. This is needed only as contextual information to ensure comparability between countries, so the reference to agreed quality standards would be sufficient. Another question the group agreed on after short discussions was the use of the half of the limit of detection value.

The sheet 14 shows site characteristic and proxy pressure information. The combination of these two in one sheet is a historical development, as the proxy pressure in Eionet water was understood as site characteristic. The proxy pressure calculation done on EU-level from EEA side as starting point to support the assessments will use the CORINE land cover information, but also the information available from the countries from article 5. Information from the UWWTD data and PRTR will also be used. Before further used in the assessments this will be given to the countries for validation.

The typology information should also be included here. The chemical typology factors need to be moved here. To reflect the results from the intercalibration typology factors the colour for rivers and lakes should be included as an average and as site characteristic. Again this is meant as contextual information and has not the aim to derive the typology. EEA also doesn’t ask for DO concentration to derive pictures of DO depletion (this would need to be related to the reference DO conditions). In the future development of assessments it might be worthwhile to think about including DO depletion in bottom water as own information in form of an indicator.

The frequency of reporting needs to be reported as contextual information for each quality element to support the timely aggregation and long term averages

The sheet 15 reflects only information asked for under Article 8, so this can not be changed here but needs to be used as it is reported by countries.

The information collected with Sheet 16 - DQ Data Quality is needed to reflect in EEA assessments what level of quality control is done at the national level. The DQI is reported to NFPs at Eionet meetings and allows comparisons to be made between countries. The information asked for in the sheet is highly aggregated and the answer for the 8 questions shouldn’t take to much time. However it was noted that the methodological quality information for the pressure information not reflects the same level of quality assurance.

As next the two sheets on groundwater were discussed. For both nutrient and hazardous substances the vertical stratification of the reported values needs to be carefully considered. Only in cases were countries prefer to deliver more disaggregated values, EEA would do the aggregation. The countries should do the aggregation using the local knowledge, but comparable methods. The sheets 9 should use the term “hazardous substances” throughout instead of priority substances.

Session 3: Review of the reporting sheets under development

7 The data asked for in the Sheet 3 on State and quantity of water resources was agreed to be largely from a separate system based on the national hydrological and meteorological networks. The subset consists of daily data. The sits should be ideally liked to quality sites, but seldom are. The data should be reported by hydrological calendar year not EEA is in contact with link with ESTAT because they ask for water quantity information in the biennial ESTAT/OECD Joint Questionnaire. Another contact is WMO, which too will be ask for their feedback on this. Beate Werner asks the participants to hand this sheet to their national hydrological experts for a view. (There are or should be the Eionet NRCs on Water Quantity).

On Sheet 4, Loads, discharges and emissions of pollutants to surface waters it was agreed to Delete the section on p30 on helping to elaborate the national programmes of measures as this is not a EEA responsibility. France proposal to use the comparable sub units instead of NUTS as spatial aggregation unit was agreed. Germany raised the question to rather use 5 year means for the calculation of the diffuse loads as the annually calculation is not feasible because quite time consuming.

On sheets 5, 6 and 7 Benthic invertebrates in rivers, Phytoplankton in lakes and other aquatic flora in lakes few editorial changes have been made, the main part of this sheets will need to take into account the further development in theinercalibration exercise. This will then clarify also the questions about aggregation on the national level.

EEA thanked the participants for their input and agreement on the reporting sheets. MSs may still make written comments with the deadline of 31. January, then the sheets 1,2, 8,9, and 14,15, 16 are to be regarded as virtually completed.

The sheets on Transitional, Coastal and Marine data have not considered by this group yet. Marine experts will deal with them through the EMMA process (European Marine Monitoring and Assessment under the marine strategy directive).

It was further agreed that the priority for further development should be on the water quantity (also for groundwater) as this in particular important in S Europe. The further development of biological elements is another priority, but needs to take further account of the results of the intercalibration exercise

Session 4: Member States presentations on data processing, quality control, and interoperability in relation to Eionet-Water

The next session summarised experiences from selected Member States on data processing, quality control, and interoperability in relation to Eionet-Water, and future reporting to WISE. It was kicked off by a Presentation by Susanne Boutrup (NERI DK) on Eionet Data handling in Denmark (slides available on CIRCA). The Danish system will in future rely on national Topic Centres, which host the joint databases and take care of quality assurance, method developments, data processing, national and international reporting, their interface to EEA and WISE is not defined yet.

Volker Mohaupt, (Umweltbundesamt DE) gave an oral presentation (no slides) on Eionet data handling in Germany DE has annually reported data on 150 river sites, (aggregated data on hazardous substances), 18 lakes (mostly eutrophication issues) and 800 GW sites with about 50

8 parameters. Main problem is waiting for the 16 Lände to report to the federal level. This is slow so the delivery date for end of October is not possible. There is not enough time for quality control of the data. Data flow for biological elements is neither structured nor quality assured. Article 8 reporting is needed soon and the aim is to deliver one homogenous dataset that is suitable for all compliance and SOE reporting. Many more sites will be involved but DE will have less information on each water body. It will be a challenging future regarding data deliveries. There is also still work to do on the national data base “Wasserblick”, especially regarding the man power to do the quality assurance for about 10 000 Water bodies. Wasserblick is not fully structured yet to reflect information by water bodies. The sampling site is an attribute of the database. But DE would like to change it to being water body oriented.

The last presentation was given by Rene Lalement (Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development FR) on Data Management for SOE in France. (Slides available on Circa). The advanced system of the FR (Sandre) in terms of its interoperability is a good example. EEA stated it would be the challenge to develop this at the international level. The Technical Group of WISE is open to national inputs. If any participants would like to contribute to the work of the Technical Group they should contact EEA (Stefan Jensen)

Summarising remarks and conclusions

Beate Werner thanked the participants for a fruitful and positive two days. It was especially valuable to be able to go into the fine details especially on the Task 3 paper with both groups of national experts, the Eionet experts as well as the WFD related community (as far as both are not represented by the same person). The interrelation between SOE and compliance data was well discussed today and it is clear now that COM and EEA have to do more transparent communication on this. The detailed review of the reporting sheets was very satisfying. The set of sheets covering the Nutrients and hazardous substance in surface and groundwater are well agreed now and could be forwarded to the Working Group D, the SCG and the EEA NFPs. The future focus of the SOE-drafting will then be on the technical tools to perform the data exchanges.

Beate Werner closed the meeting by thanking the ETC Water (Steve Nixon, Tim Lack and others) for their support to the SOE Drafting Group as this would be their last meeting as the ETC Water contract has been placed with a new consortium from January 2007 onwards.

9 ANNEX 1 WORKSHOP AGENDA

10 Joint SOE Drafting Group and Eionet Workshop 13 - 14 November 2006 EEA, Kongens Nytorv 6, Copenhagen, Conference Room Draft Agenda

DAY 1 Chair: Tim Lack ETC Water

1030-1100 Welcome and introduction. Beate Werner, EEA The need to change and adapt the Eionet-water data flow to meet the changes in monitoring and reporting under the CIS WFD and further fulfilling the needs of the EEA.

1100-1130 What do we know about the new national Jorge Rodriguez-Romero, networks? Strengths and weaknesses – DG ENV building on the Workshop on Surface Waters Monitoring Networks and Classification Systems, Brussels, April 2006.

1130-1200 Discussion

1200-1215 Communicate the ongoing processes – Beate Werner activities and outputs of the SOE Reporting Drafting Group:  Task 1, Clarification of reporting streams (finalised)  Task 2, Update Guidance on Reporting (finalised).

1215-1230 Discussion

1230-1300  Task 3, Scope of the SOE Beate Werner parameters (Overview)

Lunch in EEA canteen

1400-1500 Task 3 (continued) Steve Nixon, ETC Water Monitoring sites to obtain representative information for SOE assessments  Representativity  Treatment of data before reporting  Criteria for the monitoring sites to be used for EEA/SOE assessments 1500-1700 Plenary discussion: All Including participants’ views on the continuation and revision of Eionet-Water sites in light of changes in national monitoring networks, and the reporting of representative information. How well do national networks cover all water bodies of all statuses? How well can that be reflected in what is reported to SOE- WISE?

11 1700-1800 Task 3 (continued) Steve Nixon Presentation and discussion of the content of the SOE reporting sheets End of day 1: Joint Dinner

DAY 2 Chair: Beate Werner EEA

0900-1030 Task 3 (continued) Steve Nixon Presentation and discussion of the content of the SOE reporting sheets

1030-1045 Coffee break

1045-1115 Discussion All

1115-1215 Overview on: Data processing, quality Hermann Peifer control and interoperability (relevant to Tasks 4 and 5)

1215-1315 Lunch

1315-1445 Experiences from selected Member tbc States on data processing, quality control and interoperability in relation to Eionet- Water, and future reporting to WISE

1445-1515 General Discussion

1515-1530 Coffee break

1530-1600 Progress on WISE development Stefan Jensen

1600-1615 The next steps Beate Werner

1615-1645 Summarising remarks and conclusions Beate Werner

End of Workshop

12 ANNEX 2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

13 Name Surname Country Workplace E-mail

Karin Weber Austria Federal Environment Agency [email protected] 1Eionet/SOE-DG Rudy Vannevel Belgium Flemish Environment Agency [email protected] 2Eionet Stéphanie Lange Belgium Ministère de la Région Wallonne [email protected] 3Eionet Bosnia and 4 Herzegovina Rossitza Gorova Bulgaria Ministry of Environment and Water [email protected] 5Eionet Christophe Joerin CH/Switzerland Federal Office for the Environment [email protected] 6Eionet Dejan Lekic Serbia Environmental Protection Agency [email protected] 7Eionet Anica Juren Croatia Croatian Environment Agency [email protected] 8Eionet Charalambos Demetriou Cyprus Water Development Department [email protected] 9Eionet Jan Mertl Czech Republic Czech Environmental Information Agency [email protected] 10Eionet Rüdiger Wolter Germany Federal Environment Agency [email protected] 11Eionet Volker Mohaupt Germany Federal Environment Agency [email protected] 12SOE-DG Lærke Thorling Denmark GEUS [email protected] ([email protected]) 13Eionet Susanne Boutrup Denmark National Environmental Research Institute [email protected] 14SOE-DG Karin Pachel Estonia Environment Information Center [email protected] 15Eionet Erki Endjärv Estonia Estonian Environment Information Centre [email protected] 16 Alberto Rodríguez Fontal Spain Ministry of Environment [email protected] 17Eionet

Laura Conde Ruiz Spain Ministry of Environment [email protected] 18 Elena Pérez Gallego Spain Ministry of Environment [email protected] 19 Miguel Ángel Bordás Spain Ministry of Environment 20 Ritva Britschgi Finland Finnish Environment Institute [email protected] 21Eionet Sari Mitikka Finland Finnish Environment Institute [email protected] 22SOE-DG Aurélie Dubois France IFEN [email protected] 23Eionet René Lalement France IFEN [email protected]

24SOE-DG Eionet Chrisoula Nikolarou Greece Ministry for the Environment [email protected] 26EXCUSED Mikus Dezső Hungary Ministry of Environment and Water [email protected]] 27Eionet/SOE-DG Tom Stafford Ireland Environmental Agency Ireland 28Eionet/SOE-DG Maria Giuseppina Italy APAT [email protected] 30Eionet Liechtenstein 31 Audrone Pumputyte Lithuania [email protected] 32Eionet Jean-Marie Ries Luxembourg Administration de la Gestion de l'Eau [email protected] 33Eionet Normund Kadikis Latvia Latvian environment [email protected] 34Eionet/SOE-DG Ljupka Dimoska Former Yugoslav Macedonian Information Centre - Ministry of [email protected] Republic of Environment & Physical Planning 35Eionet Macedonia

Malta 36 Jos Timmerman The Netherlands Institute for Inland Water Management and [email protected] Waste Water Treatment (RIZA) 37Eionet Dag Rosland Norway Norwegian Pollution Control Authority [email protected] 38Eionet Anne Lyche Solheim Norway NIVA '[email protected]' 39Eionet Monika Roszkowska Poland Ministry for the Environment/GIOS [email protected] 40Eionet Portugal 41 Teodor Lucian Constantinescu Romania Monitoring, Hydrology and Water Quality [email protected] 42Eionet Protection Office Georgiana Roncov Romania Water National Administration [email protected] 43Eionet Julia Obrovac Sweden Swedish Environmental Protection Agency [email protected] 44Eionet Slovenia 45Excused Andrea Májovská Slovakia Slovak Hydrometeorological Institute [email protected] 46Eionet Aylin Kubra Onur Turkey [email protected] 47Eionet Caroline Potter United Kingdom Environment Agency [email protected] 25Eionet SOE-DG Jorge Rodriguez-Romero DG Environment DG Environment [email protected] 49 Sandra Poikane JRC Joint Research Centre [email protected]

Tim Lack ETC Water ETC Water [email protected] 50

Steve Nixon ETC Water ETC Water [email protected] 51 Beate Werner EEA EEA [email protected] 52 Hermann Peifer EEA EEA [email protected] 53 Stefan Jensen EEA EEA [email protected] 54 Niels Thyssen EEA EEA [email protected] 55

17 ANNEX 3 FUTURE REPORTING TO EIONET-WATER (SOE- WISE)

Note: The information was provided by the participants on the basis that it is unofficial and non-binding.

18 Participants responses to questions on future reporting to Eionet-Water (SOE-WISE) 13 November 2006

Key: SW surface water TCM Transitional and coastal water GW Ground water WB Water body SWB Surface water body GWB Ground water body

Country Response CH Difficult to evaluate No network yet CY 40 Surface water stations, 60 Ground Water, TCM? Previous network quantity, now quality as well All determinands for Article 8 Will be a representative network and will cover all categories and statuses as much as possible Further details will be sent CS SW rivers 77 as per 1 per 1000km2 criterion. Also hoping to get 10 year time series. 15 determinands as in DD Lakes: 74 sites in 29 lakes with 17 determinands 68 sites for 10 GWB (not official delineation as yet), 3 determinands this year. Determinands, will increase, all network changing for WFD. Quantity: 27 rainfall stations, 121 Gauging Stations (all they have) LV Probably Reduce stations to Eionet, and leave only ones that monitored every year. Should be based on national ecological types for WFD taking account of intercalibration within GIG GW: same as now, >100 wells. Discussions ongoing ES 504 for river quality stations covering almost every status and all determinands and statuses 280 lakes GWB: 300, Quantity 164 sites FR Will report surveillance network, 1500 sites for rivers compared to 500 now. Hope to keep 2/3 of old stations in new network 235 lakes, 500 groundwater sites. Will report the same dataflows as now plus quantity, new WFD parameters monitored in 2007’ covers all sizes all types but not sure about pressures BG Groundwater: 220 sampling points till August 2006. From august 2006 416 GW sampling sites covering all GWBs. Changing GW and surface waters networks, parameters 2 or 4 times per year, for groundwaters others once per year (see slides). Some additional parameters from August 2006: Hg, tetrachloroethylene, trichlroethene. For surface waters, rivers, and marine network also changed BE- Flanders supplies data to Eionet water from 22 out of 42 river stations for BE, 202 WB Flanders defined, probably 200 sites for operational monitoring, 41 surveillance sites for ecology, 33 surveillance chemistry. Only 1 lake. All determinands in Data Dictionary covered, need to compare with WFD list, and as far as data are available equals about 30 determinands, cf 250 for WFD. Data flows for 2007 will be similar to 2006. From 2008 onwards a revised monitoring programme will be implemented. HR Network only compliant with Croatian legislation not WFD. But preparation work on implementation of WFD is in progress e.g. groundwater monitoring programme will be compliant next year. Next year, some data on groundwater quality for Zagreb area aquifer will be delivered. 45 rivers this year, should be more next year. 9 Lakes

19 Country Response 76 stations for water quantity (there are more stations but time series not long enough as data dictionary required) Data on sites next year, selecting a representative network Probably number of all stations will increase NO Report same stations as previous years. 150 lakes. Same rivers with more frequency. Still designing future network, Any changes will be implemented, step by step starting in 2008. UK England and Wales: surveillance network will replace Eionet: 50 lakes, 432 rivers, 32 TCMs Looking at all parameters except Priority substances. In Scotland the surveillance network will be an increase from current Eionet stations. Networks will cover all pressures and sizes. LU 4 surveillance sites – one site shared with DE. Will be Eionet sites. Not easy to do pressure analysis. 17 operational sites for international catchments, fixed if at risk All determinands including priority substances for the surveillance sites. GW: not yet fixed, 5-10 sites probably. AT GW: very similar as to Eionet-water 14 GWBs and several hundred sites 27 lakes and 70 river monitoring sites from surveillance monitoring network: rivers more or less sites from previous network. Some sites represent large areas. All statuses covered. LT More than 60 rivers stations covering all WB types, and pressure. Not time series for river monitoring stations of operational monitoring because operational monitoring will be performed before and after measures and not annually. 50% will be Eionet-stations. All parameters in WFD guidance (phytoplankton in limited number of stations) Pressure from agriculture will be shown. Lakes monitoring increased, all parameters. Representative stations will be selected GW: approximately the same as now. SK 2007 situation same in surface water and some possible changes in GW, 2008 will be monitoring sites selected reviewed for Eionet because of changes in surveillance and operational monitoring networks. Lakes: no natural lakes, but work probably underway on reservoirs. Information will be confirmed by email. Not all determinands in nutrients and organic pollution sheet for rivers and groundwater nutrients sheet are monitored FI Not decided yet. Dec/Jan will know more. Opinion: same level for rivers and lakes as earlier, more related to types, same for TCM. Coastal waters as least the same as earlier. All statuses, usual parameters plus phytoplankton (later). GW will cover better all statuses in a couple of years time EE Over 1000 WBs for WFD, but not all monitored. Will add more stations to existing network. New network will cover all types. 60 stations on 42 rivers, 25 rivers with biological monitoring. Current not all stations sent to EEA. In 2007 20 new rivers will be monitored for chemistry and biology. Lakes, GW and TCM need work. Number of sites reported to EEA could double. For Eionet will report surveillance monitoring MK Same as previous years in 2007. Then it will change for WFD It is possible some data from GW monitoring networks operated by republic health institute, regarding status of drinking bathing and irrigation water.

DK: GW: Keep at least the existing number of stations and determinands, 90 sites in three area, potentially 1000 sites Surface: Unchanged next year. 43 rivers, 23 lakes Parameters mostly unchanged. Hazardous substances may be excluded in 2007. All statuses and is fully representative NL Will decide at end of year about network but can’t say much. Changed network to WFD but have maintained a lot of stations with long time series – expects to be largely the same as present

20 Country Response BE- Same stations as previous year. Wallonia Approx 20 stations for rivers, approx 20 for GW and no lakes At least 10 lake stations next year. Will be the WFD network that is reported: 300 waterbodies so will need to increase monitoring. Wallonia won’t have 300 stations for the 2007 stations but probably will have more than 20 stations. Parameters almost all.

TR 1150 inland water stations: 20% on GW. 35% of sites on drinking water sites. 45 parameters being monitored since 1979. water data base included hydromorphological and physicochemical parameters is under modification and will be ready in 2 years Network will be ready as soon as possible RO We keep the existing number of sites and determinands. This year the same number: 126 stations on rivers. Some sites represent several Water Bodies. New sites will replace the old ones. 16 lakes but could be max 50 in future TCM: Approx 20 after WFD, Approx 5 to 10 to EEA. GW: no data at moment. 126 GWBs, could be 7 to 10 of which are the most transboundary WBs. Operational and surveillance stations in network. Problems with analysis of PSs, biological elements, hydromorphological pressures (assessment methods). All water bodies covered. We try to have the best representativeness of WBs DE SW: Design of monitoring programmes in the Lander not finalised. Probably about 210 to 230 surveillance sites on rivers, 30 to 40 for lakes. Not sure if monitoring of each parameter at each site every year, maybe some reduction in quantity of data. Biological data flow not sorted yet GW: 800 monitoring sites part of the actual German EEA groundwater monitoring network 50/52 parameters including pesticides as a group should be available. The actual network is representative for DE groundwaters but not for each GWB. An assessment at GWB level is not possible. Lander do not want information published at the point level in GWB, because this may lead to wrong conclusions that are not in line with EU reporting SE Lakes sites, will double in number from 100 to 200 in 2007. Plan to double GW sites and possibly rivers. Focus will be on chemistry and small rivers. All RBDs represented and all statuses. IT Same as for this year. New network still being designed. Maybe changes in 2008. CZ 77 SWB stations, 290 GW stations Covers 10 % of SWBS, 30% of GWB Is water-quantity required for next year? (Answer: Yes in 2008, 2007 on a voluntary basis.) HU Will try to harmonise with WFD requirements in 2007 but may be less stations (budget). Parameters may be change PL May change, not sure of numbers IE Not fully decided yet, but may expand Eionet to surveillance network. Want to know how data is to be used, before deciding and relationship with RBD/RBMPs.