Guidance for reporting under the WFD - CIRCABC - Europa

Guidance Document No: 21Guidance for reporting under the Water Framework Directive5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE WATER BODIES5.1 IntroductionIdentification and Characterisation of Water BodiesArticle 5 of the WFD requires Member States (MS) to identify surface water bodiesthat will be used for assessing progress with, and achievement of the WFDsenvironmental objectives. In addition, under certain conditions, Article 4(3) of theWFD permits MS to identify and designate artificial water bodies (AWB) and heavilymodified water bodies (HMWB). HMWB and AWB are required to achieve GoodEcological Potential by 2015.Identifying the size of water bodies was an important parameter that had implicationson the design of the monitoring programmes and on the development of appropriateprogrammes of measures. A stepwise process for the identification of HMWBresulted in a provisional identification by 2004. Full identification should becompleted by 2010 for publication in the RBMP.Article 5 of the WFD also requires MS to analyse the characteristics of surface waterbodies and provide a summary report on surface water characterisation includinggeneral information on their typology.Article 6 of the WFD requires that a register of the water-related protected areas lyingwithin each RBD be established. This will help to ensure that the management of therelevant water bodies also ensures the objectives of these protected areas areachieved. Annex IV of the WFD specifies what types of protected areas should beincluded in the register and specifies what the summary of the register, which shouldbe part of the RBMP should include.Classification and Monitoring of Water BodiesAnnex V of the WFD specifies how MS are to monitor and present "status"classification. The Commission needs to ensure that "good status/potential" has beendefined according to the provisions of the Directive, and in a consistent andcomparable way throughout the EU. The status requirements refer to all QEs in theDirective, chemical and biological. The normative provisions of Annex V provide astarting point. However, interpretation and application of these definitions may differ,which may lead to a wide range of variation between the MS. In this respect, it isimportant to compare the criteria and thresholds that MS have set. Whilst it isrecognised that the intercalibration exercise has set out to ensure that the definition ofhigh and good ecological status is consistent, the intercalibration exercise will notresult in the findings of whether the Member States have followed the results ofintercalibration or whether class boundaries have been established for all requiredwater body types and quality elements. However, the intercalibration exercise hasprovided a useful template for the collection of such information which has been usedin the development of this reporting guidance.Article 8 of the WFD requires MS to ensure the establishment of programmes for themonitoring of water status in order to establish a coherent and comprehensive19