Setting the scene for Session 1 — National information systems for managing water quality of rivers and lakes, reporting of water data: The value.
Download ReportTranscript Setting the scene for Session 1 — National information systems for managing water quality of rivers and lakes, reporting of water data: The value.
Setting the scene for Session 1 — National information systems for managing water quality of rivers and lakes, reporting of water data: The value of knowing the status of waters and of reporting on it Annukka Lipponen UNECE Water Convention secretariat Convention of the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes Promotion of information exchange between Riparian Parties under UNECE Water Convention Joint monitoring and assessment of transboundary waters for water quantity and quality is a core requirement Data exchange in transboundary basins among the obligations Scope includes data on e.g. on conditions of transboundary waters, experience on BAT and research results, emission and monitoring data, measures, permits or regulations for wastewater discharges, and national regulations Assessment data should be available to the public Water Convention encourages continuously expand the range of information to be exchanged >10 guidelines developed on monitoring and assessment Some conclusions on monitoring from UNECE’s pan-European Second Assessment (2011) - Different water quality classification systems did not allow forming a coherent picture - Basin level information commonly not available - Limited intersectoral cooperation (implications to data access) - Cost of and access to information is a major issue in many countries + Assessment preparation process promoted exchange, cooperation and capacity building + Common assessment a tool to harmonize approaches Distinct differences to water quality classification across the pan-European region Water quality classification is based on national assessment systems, which renders comparison difficult EU member States: classifications in accordance with the Water Framework Directive (WFD) In many countries in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia, a Water Pollution Index used (with differences by country), defined on the basis of the ratios of measured values and the “maximum allowable concentration of pollutants for a specific water use” (MAC) Despite the differences, some key parameters are relevant everywhere Why information on the status of water resources is necessary? Information basis for decision-making and policy development Helps to guide management efforts — accurate identification of pressure sources, determining suitability of waters for use etc. Verifying effectiveness of measures taken Increased efficiency in allocating funds In shared waters, comparable information across the basin is needed to form a comprehensive picture of the situation Provides evidence to inform inter-sectoral and transboundary dialogue (e.g. agricultural and energy policies impact on waters) Analysis of water management issues Information needs come from main water uses and functions, main issues, management objectives (measurable, time-bound) UNECE 2006 Information needs, data collection and priorities Definition and specification of information needs → basis for deriving design criteria for developing a monitoring and assessment system Linked to specific issues (scarcity, pollution etc.) Prioritization of issues → prioritization of information needs Continuity important in time series measurements for trend detection Assessments/reporting requirements related to the status of water resources and/or quality of waters at different levels National: according to the legislation and water management issues Basin level Sub-regional —European Commission, European Env. Agency (EEA) Water Framework Directive Bathing Water Directive etc. Regional/pan-European UNECE Water Convention Protocol on Water and Health Global, e.g. Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) Water , SDGs?, System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Water Beneficial to have the national information systems compatible and coherent with information requirements, making relevant information available at source Monitoring Cycle Information objectives evolve as water management develops, targets are met or policies change UNECE 2006 Water Framework Directive and water quality: an integrated planning process A major objective: a good quantitative and chemical status of groundwater, and a good ecological and chemical status of surface waters Selected key milestones of implementing WFD (updated every 6 years): complete analysis of characteristics of the surface and groundwaters, review the environmental impact of human activity and prepare economic analysis of water use (2004) Make operational monitoring programmes to ensure a comprehensive overview of water quality status (2006) Establish environmental quality standards for all surface water affected by discharges of priority pollutants (2006). Publish river basin management plans (2009) Main environmental objectives to be met, for example a good ecological and chemical status of surface waters attained (2015) State of surface water body Ecological state Composition and abundance Biological quality elements -Phytoplankton -Macrophytes and fytobentos -Benthic invertebrates -Fish Hydromorphologic al elements supporting the biological elements Chemical state -EU priority substances (harmful substances) 5 ecological status classes - High - Good Chemical and - Moderate physico-chemical - Poor elements - Bad supporting the biological elements SYKE Broader scope of water resources assessment — context of interpreting the results Quantity Quality Variability in time and space Trends Water uses Other pressures Bio-physical data Socio-economic data Some challenges Balancing ambition and resources A long-term process: importance of continuity, iterative improvement Harmonized information needed across transboundary basins Comparability and inter-calibration (notably with biological quality elements) Defining key indicators to keep the effort reasonable Reflecting the specificities of different waters (surface waters, groundwaters, coastal waters) Selecting representative results Establishing pressure-status-impact links Keeping information systems up to date and well suited vis-à-vis reporting needs Benefits of consistency approaches to water quality assessment and reporting across the region • • • • • • • • Comparability (across borders, notably) A common basis for identifying challenges and needs for action — nationally, at basin level and regionally Some pressures on water quality clearly (sub-)regional: air pollution, pollution of recipient seas from land-based sources Benefit from a wider exchange of good practices/international experience Promoting cooperation Making information available saves effort Increased public awareness & access to information (trust, legitimacy) Serves to inform, guide and stimulate further action by different actors (including donors and the research community)