Member State: The Netherlands (NL)

Transcription

1 Screening of drafts of the second River Basin Management Plans for evidence of action on Commission's recommendations for improvements in Member States implementation of the WFD Member State: The Netherlands (NL) Disclaimer The views expressed are purely those of the assessors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission 1

2 1. River Basin District: Rhine 1.1 Headlines The following passage summarises the main changes made in the draft second RBMP compared to the first RBMPs, for example, as required in annex VII B. In the 1st RBMP, there were reports with analyses per River Basin District (RBD), which led to different reporting styles between the RBDs. In the 2nd drbmp, per waterbody a factsheet will be developed to provide consistency, with all relevant information: description of waterbody; objectives; status; pressures; measures and motivations. There are some new parts in the 2nd cycle drbmp compared to the 1st cycle RBMP: Summary of changes and updates and revisions of Articles 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7. Assessment of the progress of objectives. Summary of the measures that were not done in first RBMP. Summary of additional temporary measures. A comprehensive text in relation to climate change. A description of the approaches and methodologies applied to define mixing zones for priority substances (Article 4.2 Priority Substances Directive) Progress made in reaching the environmental objectives: Surface water: Chemical status: Implementation of Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) Directive: change in EQS for following substances: anthracene, fluoranthene, lead (and compounds), naphtalene, nickel (and compounds), bromated diphenylether. New substances on the prioritisation list are measured, although the objectives are in place starting from Chemical status: 91.2% have good chemical status in comparison with 83% in Taking into account the ubiquitous substances 51% have good chemical status in

3 No increase in concentration of substances however results of 2009 and 2010 are not comparable because of: the new EQS; 12 new priority substances; a change in treatment of the watersamples and analysing techniques; and a change in the methodology to determine metal EQSs (taking into account background concentrations). Ecological status: Change in objectives of biological and physico-chemical status. Increase in number (%) of waterbodies that have reached good (or very good) status for the 4 biological quality elements. Increase in number (%) of waterbodies that have less good ecological status (from 2.5% to 5.7%). In general classifications are not comparable with 2009 because of: adjustment in the characterisation of water bodies; more accurate measurements; and adjustment and natural variation in some metrics. The differences in methodology have a small impact on outcome of results, except for fish. Physico-chemical parameters: Improvement. Decrease in concentrations of N and P, however the status has not changed because of the lower EQSs applied for N and P. Specific pollutants: Decrease in number of waterbodies (23% to 14%) that meet objectives. However results cannot be compared because of differing analysis techniques and change in EQSs. Although in 2014, part of the assessment has not been done correctly; this will be redone in 2015 Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWBs) designation: there are still a high number of HWMBs. Groundwater: An overview of the comparison of the assessment of ground water status can be found in the figure below. Green indicates good status, red indicates inadequate. Waterquantity ( waterbalans in figure below) is assessed as good (cfr 2009). The chemical status ( chemistry ) has been achieved for all water bodies, except for Duin (exceedance of phosphorus). In the regional assessement of the effect of groundwater quantity on terrrestrial systems ( terrestrische natuur kwantiteit ), the status in the second RBMP has deteriorated in comparison with

4 Progress made in elaboration of the Programme of Measures % of the measures are in progress or are finalised, although for most of the measures the forecast of the measures is not in line with what is stated in the first cycle RBMP (eg increase in number of fish passages, decrease in number of water treatment plants where an additional treatment is applied). In 2009, there were 30 Natura 2000 areas appointed, the progress has been evaluated in

5 Exemptions: The number of exemptions decreased from 86% to 83% for surface waters, but increased for groundwaters from 27% to 82% The increase on the number of exemptions for groundwater is related to a different assessment methodology to determine the status of a groundwater body. In cases where the expectations of the first plan have not been achieved or are not expected to be achieved, there is a description of what expectations have not been achieved and an explanation of why not. No specific summary was found. However in general it is indicated that results of 2009 cannot be compared with 2014 because of changes in methodology (development of new metrics for ecological status, new EQSs, and new sampling techniques). Please see in the table above detail on the changes in quality for both surface and groundwaters The main reasons in not achieving the good ecological status are (p 12 drbmp): irreversible changes in waterbalance; flood protection; waste water discharge; and navigation and recreation. 1.2 Screening of progress on recommendations made in the Commission Staff Working Document (2015) For each of the recommendations made in the Commission Staff Working Document (CSWD), which was published in, Table 2 shows: A baseline against which to assess progress, and the ; An evaluation (key provided in Table 1); and Justification for the evaluation of progress. 5

6 Table 1 Description of the evaluation criteria used in the screening of progress? Description Strong evidence that actions taken are likely to address the COM recommendation. All the actions relating to the recommendation have clearly been taken in the second plans. The actions are defined in relation to the baseline situation in the first RBMPs. Evidence found that good progress has/is being made There has been good progress on the actions associated with the recommendation but not all actions have been taken, some may be on-going with a clear timetable which will solve issues in a reasonable timeframe (1 year for simple things, 2-3 years for more complex issues). Some evidence of progress. Some (but not all) of the actions proposed in the recommendations are mentioned and described but not in enough detail to be certain that they have been fully taken. Some of the actions required by the recommendation may not have been taken or mentioned at all. No information could be found on the actions associated with the recommendation. There is no information in the plan that any of the actions associated with the recommendation have been considered or taken. The justification must describe the documents that have been screened. No progress, or implementation of the WFD has worsened The same inadequate processes, approaches and/or methods used in the first plan have been reported in the second plan, and/or implementation has worsened in relation to the subject of the recommendation. Table 2 Assessment of progress on recommendations made in the CSWD (2015) () Provide an inventory of the different sources of pressures in the 2nd RBMPs and define ambitious measures based on the pressures and impacts analysis and status assessment of water bodies. The first cycle RBMP provides information on the different pressure types and the categories for reporting. An overall percentage of water bodies subject to pressures are given (no numerical values). 1. Inventory of different sources of pressures There is an inventory of the number of WBs that are significantly impacted by the different pressure types: point sources, diffuse 6

7 () The choice of measures should reflect the significance of the pressure. Meeting this recommendation would mean that in the drbmp the different sources and pressures have been quantified in a first step whereby it is clear what the significance of the pressure is on the different waterbodies. Therefore, significant point and diffuse sources, water abstraction, waterflow regulation, and morphological alterations have to be estimated and identified. This can be done by collecting environmental monitoring data, use of modelling techniques, etc. Then in a second step, the different measures can be identified, whereby a clear link with the significance of the pressure should be established. sources, waterflow regulation, water abstractions and other pressures. In the drmbp only the significant pressures are considered. Significant has been defined as a pressure type that leads to no achievement of the good status (ecological and chemical) in A significant diffuse and point source has been defined if this source contributes for more than 10% of the total load of substances that exceeds the standards. To assess the impact of different substances, an analysis has been done based on the current status of the substances and the knowledge (via a model) of the emissions of the substances. In the background document of the drbmp ( tgeving-beleid/kaderrichtlijn-water/ /aanvullende-pagina'/gebiedsprocessen) emissions of substances to the different waterbodies are given, together with the significance level of the source per substance. For example, for the waterbody Linde and Noordwoldervaart, 99% of the Zn load is related to sewage treatment plants, whereas for Cd 99% originates from agriculture sources. For the other pressure types, the level of significance has been determined by the water managers. To estimate the impact of the pressure on the waterbodies, models and expert judgment have been used. 2. Defining measures based on pressures, impact analysis and status assessment of WB: 7

8 () Develop a clear link between the measures identified in the PoMs and their contribution to the achievement of the WFD objectives. Fully meeting this recommendation, would mean that the measures lead to an achievement of the WFD objectives of Therefore the impact/effect of the different types of measures have to be quantified. In the drmbp, the type of the measures are given whereby also the progress of the measure is given for 2014 and The measures are given per pressure type (point sources, diffuse sources, water regulation and hydromorphology). In the factsheets, the following information is also given: the analysis of the pressures are mainly based on a system analysis. In total 9 key ecological factors are identified, that have to be addressed for the realization of a good ecological system. Measures are identified for each key ecological factor. Thus there is a link between measures and identified pressures, however it is not clear if there is a link between the choice of measure and the significance of the pressure. In the summary document of the PoM for Rhine, there is no link between the measures identified in PoM and the contribution to the achievement of the WFD objectives. In the factsheets of the different waterbodies, different measures are given, although in not all factsheets the measures of the 1st cycle drbmp are indicated. It is however not clear how they will contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the WFD. As stated above, there is a link between the measures and the pressures, although there is no clear description or identification of the contribution of those measures to achieve a good status. In addition, it is also not clear what the impact is of the measure on reduction of the different pollutants. It is only clear what the progress is of the different measures, however the impact to meet the good status is not clear (see later 8

9 () Ensure that the RBMPs clearly identify the gap to good status, and that the PoMs are designed and implemented to close that gap. It should be assessed, how much of the pressures (and their corresponding sources) have to be reduced to achieve the WFD objectives. The NL should clearly define gaps for individual pressures and water bodies. Exemptions should be adequately justified at water body level. Fully meeting this recommendation would mean that the gap that needs be filled for the achievement of WFD objectives by 2021 (or later) has been quantified in terms of the reductions needed in the pressures causing water bodies to be failing, or being at risk of failing, objectives at the start of the second plan. Quantification of reductions in pressure consistent with the achievement of WFD objectives may be given in terms of: loads of pollutants/contaminants to be reduced; number of barriers to continuity to be removed or adapted; length/area of water bodies to be remediated or restored; volume of abstracted water to be reduced. Fully calibrated and validated mathematical models may have been used in the gap analysis. In particularly for the Netherlands, gaps needs to be defined for individual pressures and water bodies. A large number of exemptions have been applied in the 1st cycle of RBMPs. However, the application of the exemptions needs to be more transparent and justified (especially those based on technical infeasibility and disproportionate costs). To fully meet this recommendation would mean that the Netherlands should perform an analysis for applying exemptions (see also last question). In the bilateral document (presentation), it was stated that the motivation of exemptions will question). In addition, as stated in the drbmp, there are a lot of monitoring programmes, but these do not give sufficient information to have an idea of the effect of the taken measure (pg 42). In the factsheets of the Rhine drbmp, for a water body (however not for all waterbodies), there is an indication of the prognosis of the status of 2021, together with status of 2009 and Next to the measures that are given in the factsheets, there is no clear link to how much the pressures have to be reduced to achieve the objectives. In the drbmp, it is stated that there are a lot of monitoring programmes, but these give not sufficient information to have an idea of the effect of the taken measure (pg 42). (see also above). In the drbmps, an overview is given of the number of exemptions. In comparison with 2009, for surface water there is a decrease of 3%, however for groundwater bodies there is an increase from 27% to 82%, because of the use of a different assessment technique to determine the status of a groundwater body. Technical infeasibility has been given as a motivation in 60% of the cases, disproportionate costs 65% of the exemptions. The justification of the exemption due to disproportionate costs has been given in the 9

10 () Include in its 2nd RBMPs substancespecific measures to reduce chemical pollution. be more transparent due to use of factsheets, although decision making takes place both on a national and a regional level. There is an (not exhaustive) inventory of the sources of chemical pollution. In addition, in the first RBMPs, only basic specific measures were described, whereby the measures were only generally. programme of action of the Nitrate Directive and the 2nd note on durable crop protection. The European Commission did agree with this policy. In 2016 and 2018, this policy will be evaluated by the status of the waterbodies. The increase of the burdens for the agricultural sector have also been seen as disproportionate. This can also be said for the wastewater treatment works (WWTWs). In the factsheets, a motivation or justification is given for the exemptions, however there is no adequate justification. For example a proper assessment and alternative solutions. For some factsheets, a reference has been made to regional documents, although within these documents, no justification could found back for exemptions. For the other factsheets, no justification or motivation to apply for exemption could be found. In comparison with the motivation found in the factsheets of the first RBMP, in the factsheets of the drbmp, there are more specific motivations/justification related to each waterbody instead of the standard phrasing as seen in the first RBMP (see also last question), although this is not the case for all factsheets. In the PoM of Rhine document, an overview is given of the PoM in general. For chemical pollution, these are the general measures: Directive priority substances (2008/15/EC), Nitrate Directive (91/676/EEG), Emission Directive (2010/75/EG), Plant Protection substances (1107/2009/EG), Biocides (528/2012/EG), pesticides (2009/128/EG). Other basic measures are related to point 10

11 () Take measures to remove pollution from N and P at a reasonable economic level because the main source of the diffuse pressures in the Netherlands is agriculture. In the 1st cycle RBMP agriculture has been identified as an important driver leading to a significant pressure in all RBDs. The basic measures were given in the PoM, although it was not clear what the supplementary measures were to reduce pollution from N and P. It was already stated in the bilateral document that it was not clear how much nutrient load reduction should be needed from agriculture to reach the standard (because of sources (Article 11.3.g), diffuse sources, priority substances, and releases in groundwater. For point sources, the Water Law prohibits the discharge of substances, contaminated and hazardous substances in surface water. For each waterbody, the water manager can determine which substances/sources need to be prioritized. For Diffuse sources measures related to diffuse sources are integrated in the implementation programme for diffuse sources. This programme aims to reduce following substances: nutrients, emission from metals, biocides and medicines. Additional measures: There are a number of national initiatives aimed to improve the water quality. It is noted in the PoM, that there is also a focus to improve the purification of waste water with a focus on new substances, like medicines. In general, the measures related to specific substances are still described under general basic measures. In additional measures, no substance specific measures could be identified. In the PoM, basic measures related to the removal of N and P pollution are given, related to N and P originating from WWTWs (thus not only related to agricultural sources). There are additional measures (Article 11.5) designed for the agricultural sector (Deltaplan agricultural water management) to reduce emissions from agriculture (not only focus on N and P). An example is the Nutrient project Rijn-West, whereby 13 measures take place 11

12 () Assess the effectiveness of the existing measures and identify which additional measures are needed to close the gap in the implementation of the Nitrates Directive (ND) and the WFD. Develop a clear strategy in the RBMPs for pollution from agriculture (mainly nutrients but also pesticides) and define the basic/mandatory measures besides the 5th National Action Programme that all farmers should adhere to, and the additional supplementary measures that can be financed. This should be developed in cooperation with the farming community to ensure technical feasibility and acceptance. multiple nutrient sources, most agricultural nutrient loads are diffuse emission from historic loading of the soil). NL to send to the Commission in advance of the signing off of the National Adaptation Programme (NAP), - an estimation of the progress in the 5th NAP (and voluntary phosphate measures) - An estimation of the additional gap to be filled, types of possible measures and level of funding needed for this (e.g. through rural development programmes). If all measures are not possible in the second cycle, scenarios should be developed, so it is clear what efforts are being focussed and what is likely to be achieved. - Information on how progress on voluntary action will be tracked and reviewed and whether voluntary action will become mandatory if there isn t sufficient progress. - What steps NL will take to secure better compliance with existing and future mandatory measures. Agriculture is indicated as exerting a significant pressure on the water resources in the Netherlands. to reduce the emissions from nutrients to surface water. The results of the monitoring programmes under the ND and WFD are the basis for additional measures. At this moment, there is no indication to have additional basic measures, although regional problems have to be addressed with adjusted solutions. The effects of the local and area focused measures will be evaluated beginning To combine local measures with additional area focused measures it is expected to achieve the objectives for nutrients in In the drbmp, it is stated that there are a number of monitoring programmes, although these give not sufficient information to have an idea of the effect of the taken measure (pg 42). In the PoM of the Rhine, additional measures are given related to agriculture pressure (pg 31-35). First of all, there are area focused measures (based on Article 11.4). Those measures related to agriculture are: lowering the emissions of plant protection products and pesticides and extent the manure- and sprayfree zone. Other measures are: natural bank meandering of streams, and purification marshes. Next to this there are also additional measures taken (based on Article 11.5) (see above), whereby the Deltaplan agricultural 12

13 () Ensure that point and diffuse sources of pollution in the agricultural sector are controlled. Include additional measures for protected areas in the 2nd cycle RBMPs. Revise the designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWBs) in the 2nd cycle RBMPs to ensure that the restoration of water bodies is a strong driver for the improvement of the status of water bodies. Consider and prioritise the use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures that provide a range of environmental (improvements in water quality, flood protection, habitat conservation etc.), social and economic benefits which can be in many cases more cost-effective than grey infrastructure. water management has been established. The aim is towards a sustainable production at farm level. There are currently 40 projects running (see above). See questions above This is considered by NAP and additional measures (Deltaplan agricultural water management). See questions above. In the 1st cycle RBMP, there were only basic measures for protected areas, with exception of Natura 2000 area where additional measures were indicated in Annex P of the RBMP. In the 1st RBMP, a large number of HMWB are designated as most of the surface area of the Netherlands are regulated and impacted by human activities in some way. A stepwise approach for determining whether a waterbody should be designated as HMWB has been applied. The Netherlands has confirmed that they will review the designation and the reasons for it in the next RBMP cycle for each water body. The use of green infrastructure and/or natural water retention measures were not explicitly described in the first plan. The development of the second RBMPs should be coordinated with the development of flood risk management plans and the use of this type of measure is seen as a win-win situation in achieving both objectives. In the PoM of the Rhine, protected areas are only mentioned on the basic measures. No additional measures related to protected areas could be found. In the factsheets, a motivation for the designation of HMWB is given. In the drbmp (section ) the status to designate a waterbody as heavily modified is based on the European Directive. The motivation is also based on a co-operation between national and regional authorities. It is not possible to work with a general methodology, however there are discrepancies between higher and lower Netherlands. For the lower Netherlands, the designation of HMWB is mainly determined by flood protection, whereas for the higher Netherlands, this is mainly determined by flood protection and/or agriculture practices. In the summary of the report of the evaluation of water quality (Planbureau voor Leefomgeving), it is stated that measures like meandering and natural banks are effective and efficient. In the drbmp, a number of measures identified that can be considered as green infrastructure (e.g. removal of weirs, meandering. 13

14 () Make efforts to reduce the use of exemptions and maintain an ambitious approach to WFD implementation. The Netherlands should adequately justify the exemptions applied in the RBMPs including a proper assessment of alternative solutions and all necessary mitigation measures. A large number of exemptions have been applied in the first cycle of RBMPs. However, the application of the exemptions needs to be more transparent and justified (especially those based on technical infeasibility and disproportionate costs). To fully meet this recommendation would mean that the Netherlands should perform an analysis for applying exemptions. In the bilateral document (presentation), it was stated that the motivation of exemptions will be more transparent due to use of factsheets, although decision making takes place both on a national and a regional level (see also question above). In the drbmps, an overview is given of the exemptions. In comparison with 2009, for surface water 3% less of the waterbodies are exempted, however for groundwater bodies there is an increase from 27% to 82%, because of the use of a different assessment technique. Motivation is sometimes given in the factsheets, although a proper assessment of alternative solutions and all necessary mitigation measures could not be found. 1.3 Water services excluded from the requirement of WFD Article 9 Recovery of costs for water services Table 3 Water services explicitly included in/excluded from cost recovery and Article 9.4 exemptions applied Water service Explicitly included in cost recovery (yes/no/no information/not clear) Explicitly excluded from cost recovery (yes/no/no information/not clear) Article 9.4 exemptions applied (yes/no/no information/not clear) No information Drinking water abstraction (surface and/or groundwater), treatment Y and distribution Sewage collection and wastewater treatment Y No information Drinking water abstraction (surface and/or groundwater), treatment N No information and distribution AND sewage collection and wastewater treatment (when considered together) Irrigation water abstraction, treatment and distribution Y No information 14

15 Self-abstraction Y No information Impoundment and storage of water Not clear No information Impoundment for flood protection Not clear No information Impoundment for navigation N Y No information Other (please describe in text box below) No information In the drbmp, there are 5 water services noted: production and supply of water, collection and disposal of rain and waste water, wastewater treament, groundwater management, regional water system management. More information is given in PoM (section 2.1). Production and water supply: production and supply of drinking water, process water (including irrigation in agriculture) and cooling water. Mechanism: drinking water rate (100% cost recovery in 2012, 99% for period ). Collection and disposal of rainwater and waste water (sewage, including groundwater drainage in cities): collection and treatment of sewage and rainwater and taking measures to prevent and limit the adverse effects of the groundwater level Mechanism: sewage charges (96% cost recovery in 2012, 98% for period ) Waste water treatment: construction, acquisition, improvement, management, maintenance and operation of waste water treatment plants. Mechanism: purification charges (100% recovery in 2012, 88% for period ). Groundwater management: quantitative management of deep groundwater, in particular regulation and enforcement of groundwater abstractions. 15

16 Mechanism: groundwater charge/ water system charge (100% recovery 2012, 90% for period ). Regional water system management: management of regional waters, with an important task to prevent flooding. This includes also shallow groundwater management and drainage by agriculture Mechanism: water system charge (100% recovery in 2012, 92% for period ) Hydropower, flood protection for waters under national water management, navigation and recreation are not considered as water services. 16