1 ICM- Marine Team WFD Ecological status and pressures in coastal and transitional waters Prepared...

1

ICM- Marine TeamICM- Marine Team

WFD Ecological status and WFD Ecological status and pressures in coastal and pressures in coastal and

transitional waterstransitional waters

Prepared by/compiled by: Peter Kristensen (EEA), Anne Lyche Solheim (NIVA), Monika

Peterlin (IWRS), Kari Austnes (NIVA), Hana Prchalova (CENIA), Claudette Spiteri (Deltares)

Eionet workshop 29-30 March 2012Author: Monika Peterlin, IWRS, ETC-ICM

2

TRANSITIONAL AND COASTAL WATERS

GOING DOWNSTREAM

RIVER’s ESTUARIES

SOČA (ISONZO)


3

From: National Geographic

Photo and caption by giorgio battigelli

LAGOONSCOASTAL WETLANDS

VENICE LAGOON


http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/2011/users/924341/

4

COASTAL WATERS


5

Content

• Reporting• Methodology: Basis for classification (Chapter 3)• European overview of ecological status, pressures

and impacts (Chapter 5)• Ecological status, pressures and impact in different

countries (Chapter 4)• Key messages• Additional questions


6

Reporting

Transitional waters

• 15 MS• 77 RBDs• Number of WBs: 953• Average area: 18 km2• Overall area: 17.275 km2

Coastal waters

• 19 MS• 99 RBDs• Number of WBs: 2742• Average area: 97 km2• Overall area: 265.036 km2


7

Methodology: Confidence in classification of TC waters

(24%)

(18%)

(30%) (26%)

(26%)


8

Methodology: Use of quality elements

Coastal watersCoastal watersTransitional watersTransitional waters


BQE BQE

9

Non- priority specific pollutants=

Catchment Basin Specific Pollutants


Transitional waters•220 substances were recorded•LV for 30 substances could be compared•For 190 substances only one MS reported limit values

Coastal waters•202 substances were recorded. •LV for 23 substances could be compared•For 179 substances only one MS reported limit values

For transitional and coastal waters the relative difference between Min and Max LV in (%) is from 0 – 500000% (i.e.5000x)

Analysis by: Jens Arle, Ulrich Claussen & Patrick Müller (Federal Environment Agency, Section of the Marine Environment, Wörlitzer Platz 1, D-06844 Dessau-Roßlau, Germany), data from: http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/

http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/

10

EU overview of ecological status, pressures and impacts


11

EU overview of Ecological status


12

EU overview of Ecological status% of WBs in less than good status


•The worst status for TC waters is in the Baltic sea and North-east Atlantic (Sweden, Finland, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Germany, Netherlands and Belgium);

• Romania and Bulgaria in the Black sea also reported large share of waters in less than good status

•Reporting is still not complete

13

EU main pressures and impacts


14

EU overview of point and diffuse pollution pressures


Member states which have reported pressures, but where certain RBDs are marked as “no data reported” should indicate

•whether this particular pressure has not been reported in this RBD or

•whether no water bodies in this RBD are affected by this particular pressure.

15

EU overview of HyMo pressures


Member states which have reported pressures, but where certain RBDs are marked as “no data reported” should indicate •whether this particular pressure has not been reported in this RBD or•whether no water bodies in this RBD are affected by this particular pressure.

16

TC waters grouping for the countries overview

Based on regional seas delineation of land areas draining into the five different seas


17

Countries overview: transitional waters

Ecological statusEcological status HyMoHyMo pressures pressuresPollution pressuresPollution pressures


18

Countries overview: Coastal waters

Ecological statusEcological status Pollution pressuresPollution pressures


19

Case studies

• Link catchment to

transitional and coastal waters– Rein– Danube– Po catchment - Northern Adriatic– Baltic sea

• Specific cases– Long term trends in status of TC

waters in North Spain (Basque) – Lagoons ?– Other ideas, contributions from MS?


Key messages

•Data from 99 RBDs, 3695 WBs were reported; 76% classified, 43% H/G confidence;

Results:• Transitional waters are in worst status than CW (~69% less than good),

main pressures point and diffuse sources and HyMo, causing altered habitats, organic and nutrient enrichment;

• ~48% of coastal waters is not reaching good status, main pressures point and diffuse sources, nutrient enrichment reported in more than 42%;

•All elements were not used for classification equally, many WBs were classified based on expert judgement; •IC for BQEs was not finished at the time of classification, low level of comparability expected also for nutrients, HyMo and NP-pollutants;•Status, impacts and pressures were not reported consistently by some countries;


21

Thank you Thank you for your attention !for your attention !


1 ICM- Marine Team WFD Ecological status and pressures in coastal and transitional waters Prepared...

Documents

Transcript of 1 ICM- Marine Team WFD Ecological status and pressures in coastal and transitional waters Prepared...