27th Plenary Meeting of WG ‘Groundwater’, Rome, 2nd–3rd October 2014
/ EUROPEAN COMMISSIONDIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D–Water, ChemicalsBiotechnology
ENV.D.1 – Protection of Water Environment /
19thOctober 2014
27thMeeting of the Groundwater Working Groupfor the WFD Common Implementation Strategy
2october 2014from 1400–1700hrs
3october 2014from 0900–1600hrs
Ministero dell'Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare
Via Cristoforo Colombo 44
00147 Rome, Italy
Draft Minutes
The Commission, DG EnvironmentUnit C.1 (hereafterreferred as DG ENV) invitedmembers of Working Groupon Groundwater (WGGW)to the 27thmeeting of the Working Group in Rome held under the umbrella of the ItalianEU Presidency.
The meeting aimed to exchange experiences about implementation issues related to the Groundwater Directive 2006/118/EC linked to activities under the WGGW work programme. This meeting alsoaimed at sharing information and knowledge on groundwater (gw) issues within the Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) of the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
Co-Chairs:Johannes Grath (JG), Umweltbundesamt, Austria,Balázs Horváth (BH) DG ENVandIan Davey (ID), Environment Agency of England, United Kingdom.
Participants: A full list of meeting participants is provided in Annex 1.
Agenda: Attached in Annex 2, but note the changes to order noted in the minutes.
Access to presentations: All documents are available for download at[1]CIRCABC (via following path - Browse Categories/European Commission/Environment/Public Access-WFD CIRCA/Library/F-Working groups/b – WG Groundwater). The presentations are numbered below, as they appear on CIRCABC.
Day 1 – 2OCTOBER2014
JG opened the meeting by thanking the Italian hosts, then noted the changes to the Agenda, bringing forward the item on GWAAE to the afternoon session on Day 1, before the Threshold Values Questionnaire presentation.
One minor amendmentfor the minutes of the last meeting in Athens was noted by Tony Marsland (p.3 - Annemarie van Wezel was representing SOLUTIONS). With this change the minutes were adopted and the final version is now available on CIRCABC.
Session 1 :REPORT FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION (COM) :Balázs Horváth, DG-Env – Slides A1
1.1Amendment of Annex II of the Groundwater Directive
BH noted this had now been accepted and published in the Official Journal as Commission Directive 2014/80/EU, with a transposition deadline of 11July 2016.
1.2Reporting Guidance
Has now been adopted by Water Directors, but 3 MS have been given the possibility of making technical comments, which COM will try to incorporate. After checks for consistency and compliance with INSPIRE, v5 will be produced for WG DIS discussion on 23-24 Oct. BH encouraged MS representatives to get in contact with WG DIS representatives to make sure their comments are taken into account. Testing will take place in Jan-March 2015 and BH requested volunteers to take part in these tests. Final guidance due June 2015.
1.3Priority Substances 1st Watch List
JRC draft technical report will shortly be available on CIRCABC[now available under WG Chemicals meeting 2014-10-16-17]¸ based on which COM will draft a proposal, with consultations Nov/Dec14, an Article 21 committee vote scheduled for 12/2/15 with adoption by end Feb 15.
1.4Pharmaceuticals workshop, Sept 2014
A background document on environmental risks from these products has been produced:
The workshop results will soon be placed on CIRCABC under the Chemicals WG.
1.5Water re-use public consultation
Water re-use is thought to be limited by the absence of common environmental/health standards. The consultation is open until 7 Nov.; COM intends to put forward a proposal in 2015.
BH summarized the work to date and noted that the JRC report on water reuse is now on CIRCABC under the POM WG (comments by 24 Oct). Potential EU measures were described. Next steps: Stakeholders meeting in November 2014 (details on CIRCABC/WG POMs), and impact assessment work, leading up to a COM proposal, if justified, end 2015.
1.6Water balances
Water accounts WG meeting (21 Oct) will discuss 1st draft guidance document – need to ensure this is in line with CIS gw guidance. BH requested volunteers from WGGW to review between Nov 14 – Jan 15.
1.7Natural Water Retention Measures (NWRM)
BH reviewed progress to date and noted that a draft policy document was sent to WGs PoM and Floods in July (comments due by Sept). Aim is to stimulate uptake of NWRMs, by explaining their policy relevance and facilitating co-ordination with other policy makers. The structure of the document was presented, together with Next Steps, including discussions in the POMs and Floods WGs before a final version is sent to SCG for their meeting on 5/6 Nov., with Water Directors to consider at their 24/25 Nov meeting.
1.8Workshop on nature, biodiversity marine and water
SCG level workshop on implementation issues on 2-3 Dec in Brussels. Background paper due in November. BH noted the potential link with the WGGW GWDE work.
1.9Water Services Case
BH noted ECJ judgement in COM vs DE case concerning the issue of what can be considered as water services. (
1.10Cohesion Policy - Partnership Agreements and Operational Programmes
COM is examining MS investment plans for Structural and Investment Funds for 2014-20 period and compliance with ex-ante conditionalities for water. Major projects in other sectors must be compliant with WFD. MS financial allocations should be sufficient to avoid non-compliance and NWRM should be a priority in terms of the Floods Directive.
1.11Innovation Partnerships (EIP Water)
The EIP Water Market Place is an opportunity to demonstrate innovative groundwater solutions. New call to form Action Groups open on 5 Nov. The Horizon 2020 call for the water innovation focus area opens on 10 Dec with a 45M Euro budget. There is also an EIP water conference in Barcelona on 5 Nov 14 (details on slide).
1.122015 COM interim report on POMs
POMs were reported by end 2012. Proposed COM Communication, based on these and findings of bilateral meetings, planned to be published before EU Water Conference (23/24 March 2015). BH outlined document structure (see slides), noting that 5 COM Staff Working documents will focus on RBMPs not assessed in 2012 under the Blueprint (for BE, EL, ES, HU and PT) and another on the achievement in the implementation of the Floods Directive.
1.134th European Water Conference (23/24 March 2015, Brussels)
Focus on 2nddraft RBMPs and 1stFRMPs and on PoMs – more details available in November.
Discussion.
Barry Van der Glind (NL): Will COM double check the PoMs report with MS?
BH : the factual information will be checked with MS around November.
Session 2 – WGGW activities
2.1 Joint DWD – WFD Workshop (1-2 Oct): summary. Tom Schaul - Slides A2
TS outlined the background, preparatory work leading up to and the aims of the workshop, the focus being on the improved integration of drinking water aspects in RBMPs. In the first of 3 sessions there were a number of presentations from COM, WHO, stakeholders, experts and case studies from MS. Session 2 comprised 4 parallel themed workshops:
Theme 1 : Safety planning in DW management, integration of resource;
Theme 2: Risk assessment and monitoring;
Theme 3 : Safeguard Zones;
Theme 4 : Catchment Measures.
The outcomes from these were discussed in Session 3, which TS then described (see slides), followed by the overall conclusions which included:need for improved stakeholder involvement, integration of planning between regimes, streamlining of monitoring, sharing of good practice, and more transparency in information. It was felt that mandatory measures were necessary at least in the most vulnerable areas, whilst for all measures the key to effectiveimplementation was enforcement/monitoring/control.
TS thanked the Chairs and Rapporteurs for the workshop sessions. The presentations from the workshop and the minutes will be on CIRCABC(via following path - Browse Categories/European Commission/Environment/Public Access – WFD CIRCA/Library/F-Working groups/b – WG Groundwater/04 Workshops/x10 Joint workshop on Better Integration of Drinking Water Resources..). In due course a short summary report will also be prepared.
2.2Groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems.Klaus Hinsby/ Hans Schutten - Slides A3
KH noted that when the report on Groundwater Dependent Terrestrial Ecosystems (GWDTE) was produced in 2011 there were insufficient resources to include Groundwater Associated Aquatic Ecosystems (GWAAE). Resources are now available and a draft report has been produced. There are no clear WFD definitions of these systems and no general agreement on terminology; the report needs to address this. KH reviewed the references to and requirements for GWAAE both in the WFD and the GWD, then gave an example from Australia of descriptions of these systems outside Europe.
HS (Slides A4)then introduced the GWAAE technical concept report that had been prepared by the drafting group and circulated to WGGW two weeks before the meeting.Comments were needed within the next 3 weeks with the aim of presenting a final report to the next WGGW meeting in April 2015. Based on a review of the WFD’s references to GWAAE, the drafting group has derived a definition of these systems for comment by WGGW. HS noted that groundwater ecosystems are out of scope of the report.
After describing the two failure criteria for GWAAEs outlined in the definition of good groundwater status, HS asked for views on whether these criteria are significantly different.
HS described the categories of GWAAE from the report and raised some questions about how to determine gw need/dependency and how MS had included GWAAE in the first RBMP cycle.
A number of questions had been raised in the report and the original intention had been to produce a GWAAE questionnaire. However, the proposal was now instead to include a selection of these questions in the Threshold Values questionnaire – HS described the key questions and data that were needed (see slides) and in conclusion asked whether WGGW felt that a workshop was needed.
Discussion on definition.
“Groundwater associated aquatic ecosystems are surface water bodies or part of surface water bodies (rivers, lakes, transitional WB or coastal WB), which status or potential (ecological or chemical) could be affected by alterations of groundwater level or pollutant concentrations of groundwater”
Lena Maxe (SW) – the definition should include flow as well as level. GWAAE are affected by flow as well as level and changes in natural concentrations of substances as well as pollutants.
Wilko Verweij (NL) - in terms of potential we only have ecological potential and “significantly” should be used to qualify “affected”
Johannes Grath (AT) –the term pollutant is OK as it is already defined in the WFD.
Hans Peter Broers (Eurogeosurveys) –in response to JG, surface water may be dependent on a particular natural chemistry – by changing levels you can change fluxes.
Rob Ward (UK) – we should be focusing on anthropogenic changes for the purposes of the WFD. Remove the first WB from the definition.
Elisabetta Preziosi (IT) - why are groundwater ecosystems not included – not just present in caves but also in karst/fissures.
HS- whilst groundwater ecosystems are important, do not think that they should be included here. Invited EP to send in a note to the drafting group.
Wilko Verweij (NL) – A recital in the GWD effectively excludes gw ecosystems from consideration.
Discussion on level of protection
•Failure to achieve environmental objective of the surface water body
•Significant diminution of the ecological or chemical quality of the surface water bodies
Jonathan Smith (CONCAWE) – note that diminution could occur on part of a surface water body.
Wilko Verweij (NL) – this is more complex than you suggest, as the WFD refers to surface waters not just water bodies. This is a difficult issue for RBMPs - we need to try to make it simple e.g. by only considering a drop in status class.
Sarah Bonneville (FR) – noted that there used to be two options in the 2010 Reporting but under the new reporting guidance there is only one reason – the surface water test in Guidance Note 18.
Discussion on categories of GWAAE (see GWAAE Report table 2.1)
HS: noted that this needs to be practical and linked to Natura2000 etc. A simple system is proposed based on whether the system is standing/flowing/saline, temporary/permanent. Hyporheic zone is considered to be part of the surface water system.
Hans Peter Broers (Eurogeosurveys): support table, but some concerns about relying on baseflow index alone – also need gw info and time series data.
HS agreed that baseflow index was not universally accepted and does not necessarily fully reflect the groundwater aspects.
Rob Ward (UK): noted that the report’s questions need to be refined.
HS: we have already refined these down to 4 main questions to go in the TV questionnaire.
2.3Threshold Value questionnaire.Tony Marsland (AMEC– consultant to the Commission) - Slides A5
In reviewing the background to and purpose of the questionnaire, TM noted that there was a need to understand both how TVs were derived in RBMP1 as a baseline and how approaches are being revised in RBMP2. The focus is on methods and illustrating on how these are used.
It was proposed to add a few questions on GWAAE (see previous presentation) to the Word questionnaire and Excel workbook that had been circulated to WGGW 2 weeks before the meeting. These documents may seem complex but they need to be comprehensive to deal with the variety of MS approaches and collect the necessary data – not all fields will need to be filled in by a MS and wherever possible responses from earlier submissions will be used to pre-fill the questionnaire and workbook – but MS will need to check these. TM then described the questionnaire and workbook in more detail, together with the timetable for comments, revisions, distribution to and completion by MS.
Note: after discussion later in the meeting the timetable was revised (see Next Steps). An updated questionnaire and workbook containing the GWAAE questions were distributed on 16 Oct, with comments requested by 31st Oct 2014.
Discussion
Wilko Verweij (NL) – It will take much work to fill in the questionnaire. It does not have enough focus. It may be difficult to convince people to spare the time to fill in.
TM – It may look daunting but it is not as bad as you may think and needs to collect sufficient data to do the analysis required by COM. Referred to colleagues from BE who had already filled it in.
Didier D’hont/Ralf Eppinger(BE) – It took about 1 day to fill in, but Flanders only used 1 assessment method so it didn’t take so long. May take longer if more tests carried out; likewise if there were different approaches for different gwbs.
TM – Were different methods used within MS?
Rüdiger Wolter (DE)– Yes; different criteria were used across the federal states e.g. 30% of gwb vs 25km2 cut-off; or modelling approaches. It will be quite a lot of work to fill in for the different parameters if filled in thoroughly.
TM – Was that information included in the submission to Andi’s questionnaire?
RW – Not sure; probablyjust the general methodology. There may be different methods and different [base] information. He trusted the federal states to have done it properly.
TM – How does that affect TVs?
RW – The same TVs were applied across DE. New background levels have been identified for RBMP2, though these have not changed greatly from the first cycle.
TM – So you may need to put more information in the questionnaire rather than in the spreadsheet?
RW – didn’t know what the differences would be between new and old cycles (yet). RW had asked the Länder to inform him about changes. So far he considered that there would be only minor changes, but it would need quite a lot of time to describe these.
TM – To make significant changes to the questionnaire to simplify, we would need to review the aims of the exercise with Balázs.
Balázs Horváth –It seemed from cycle 1 that most of the problems were for surface water. It wasasked if it was correct that gw was mainly good but he was not able to explain as he didn’t have enough information to confirm. BH was not keen to lower the ambition of the questionnaire, otherwise there would be a need to keep asking the MS for additional information; it needs to be comprehensive. At present it is not known which elements [of the assessment] need to be improved without comprehensive information. BH is more flexible on the timetable than on the scope of the questionnaire.
Barry Van der Glind (NL) - if this information is needed for compliance it should be in the reporting guidance. In fact some of this information is requested in the reporting guidance so will be provided in 2016.
BH – It was agreed that onlylinks to the methods would be requested in the reporting requirements rather than the methods themselves. BH thought that it was agreed in the last meeting that we would have the questionnaire and then from this we could improve the method. Alternatively we could wait till 2016 and then find that the methods were still only partly available. In this case we would need to ask for this information then, but suffer a 2 year delay.
TM – Reporting in 2016 won’t provide all the information we need so itshould be requested now.
BH – There will be a review of the WFD (and annexes) in 2019. This exercise will inform the need for change, so needs to be in line with this timeline. BH was concerned that we will get to 2016 reporting and yet still cannot explain differences in TVs.
Hana Prchalova (CZ)– There is one approach across CZ but this has changed significantly for cycle 2. We should be focusing on cycle 2 - the changes can briefly be noted for cycle 2 in the questionnaire.
TM – There is a focus on cycle 2 but RBMP1 data are needed to set a baseline so that it is clear that changes in status between RBMP1 and 2 are real and not just due to a change in method. If there are changes then the questionnaire asks for this information.
FIRST DAY CLOSED.
Day 2 – 3 OCTOBER 2014
Session 2 (continued) – WGGW activities
2.4 Draft E-flow guidance – input from WGGW. Hans Schutten – Slides B1
HS described the drivers in the Blueprint for this guidance.Didier d’Hont had contributed the gw section to the June version of the report and HS added further information. These contributions stressed why gw was important and its use in monitoring. However, SCG decided to reduce the scope so that it is confined to ecological flows in natural rivers. A new skeleton report was released on 17th September, which WGGW representatives commented on quickly, setting out the key gw points (see slides). The latest version 3.1 was released on 25 Sept. It focuses on flows/quantitative issues in rivers, not quality, lakes, flows to estuaries or groundwater levels, but does cover the whole flow regime. Gw is included in relevant sections on concepts, pressures and monitoring, but is not noted in the policy summary or at the groundwater body level and needs better integration with the surface water material, in terms of the concept of surface water dependency on gw.