WFD Characterisation
Dr Tom Leatherland, Manager of EQRAD,
SEPA
General introduction
Article 5 of the EC Water Framework
Directive requires the characterisation of all waters
within each river basin district and the production of a
report on the results of this process.
Scotland will therefore have to produce a
report for the bulk of Scottish waters in the Scotland RBD,
and work with the Environment Agency to report on the
cross-border RBD covering the Tweed and Solway catchments.
SEPA plans to consult on a draft report
covering the characterisation of all Scottish waters in
late summer 2004.
Water bodies at risk
For WFD purposes, all waters (fresh, ground, coastal
and transitional) are divided into identified units called
"water bodies". Water bodies are the units which
will be described, monitored and managed to ensure that
objectives of the WFD are attained.
Characterisation is the process of
identifying the type, and all significant pressures on
every individual water body, and assessing the impact of
these pressures on the ecological, chemical, and
hydrological quality of each water body.
Where the pressures are found to be such
that the water body is clearly not of good status as
defined by the directive, or such that it may not be of
this quality in 2015 unless action is taken, then it is
deemed to be "at risk".
The report must also include an economic
analysis of water use
A later phase of WFD, river basin
management planning, will tackle and report on the
management measures which will be put in place to ensure
that all water bodies meet their quality objectives by
2015.
Characterisation is not a once and for all
activity, but must be reviewed by late 2013, and every 6
years thereafter.
The WFD default quality objective, "good status", is
defined as no more than slight departure from undisturbed
natural conditions. It is seen as important that good
status is equivalently interpreted by all member states,
and with this objective an intercalibration exercise for
some biological elements is underway, and is due to be
completed in 2006. Until this is completed, Member
States must make assumptions about the probable level of
good status, in order that water bodies "at risk" of not
attaining it can be identified for characterisation
purposes.
The characterisation process is well underway
in Scotland . Scottish waters have been provisionally
divided into ~3400 water bodies, of which 350 are lakes,
and 2360 are riverine.
Presently, over 50% of these have been
provisionally identified as "at risk", with this incidence
lowest for coastal waters, and highest for lakes.
SEPA current classification schemes identifies under
20% of the water environment as polluted. These schemes
focus predominantly on the effects of organic enrichment
and toxic substances. The pressure types under
consideration for the WFD are:
- Point source discharges
- Pollution from diffuse sources
- Abstraction
- Flow regulation and river continuity
- Morphological alterations (such as
"canalisation")
- Artificial recharge (groundwater only)
Consideration of additional new pressures is
inevitably leading to the finding that a much higher
proportion of Scottish waters are not of "good" status, in
comparison with current classifications. Thus of
the lakes so far assessed, 23% are classed as at risk of
point and diffuse source pollution, but 34% are subject to
morphological change and 65% to abstraction or flow
regulation significant pressures.
The WFD also requires consideration of
possible impacts on a wider range of biological elements
than are currently routinely monitored, ie, including fish,
phytobenthos and macrophytes.
This also has the effect of increasing the
proportion of waters found to be "at risk".
Over the next five years, it is expected that further
investigations into impacts upon the water environment will
lead to a reduction in the total numbers considered to be
at risk. The current view is that by 2009, the
proportion of the water environment which will risk failing
the Directive's objectives may be of the order of 30%.
The characterisation report is also required to list
all "protected areas" within the RBD. These are
defined by the directive as comprising all areas
"designated as requiring special protection under specific
Community legislation for the protection of their surface
water or groundwater or for the conservation of habitats
and species directly depending upon water".
This includes bathing waters, Natura 2000
sites and drinking water sources.
Information regarding pressures on groundwaters,
affecting both quality and quantity, is currently being
gathered.
Suggested issues for discussion
1. SEPA is identifying three levels of certainty in
identifying a water body at risk: low, medium and high
confidence. SEPA is identifying three levels of certainty in
identifying a water body at risk: low, medium and high
confidence. SEPA will only identify a water body as
being at risk if it is at medium or high confidence.
Low confidence sites will be left until the
next round of characterisation (in six years time).
Is this an acceptable approach?
2. Currently SEPA is using the best available
information to assess whether a water body is "at risk".
This could use numeric data or it could be based upon
expert judgement? Currently SEPA is using the best available
information to assess whether a water body is "at risk".
This could use numeric data or it could be based upon
expert judgement? What level of proof should SEPA
require to identify a water body as being at risk?
3. Over the next two years there will be negotiations at
the UK and EU level which will confirm the meaning of good
status. Over the next two years there will be negotiations at
the UK and EU level which will confirm the meaning of good
status. At the moment the Environment Agency, SEPA
and the Environment & Heritage Service of Northern
Ireland are suggesting that the current definition of good
in their classification schemes is an appropriate target
for the next 20+ years. How ambitious should
Scotland be in its input to the development of the EU
interpretation of good status?