April 2005
HARMONISATION AND STREAMLINING THE
ICPDR REPORTING AND INFORMATION
COLLECTION NEEDS IN LINE WITH EU
DIRECTIVES AND NATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
AUTHORS
PREPARED BY:
WRc PLC
AUTHORS:
Dr Tim Lack
Steve Nixon
WRc PLC
Frankland Road, Blagrove, Swindon Wiltshire
SN5 8YF United Kingdom
Phone Number +44 (0) 1793 865 000 5538
PREFACE
The work described in this report is aimed at providing a critical review of the ICPDR's future
reporting and information requirements leading to the preparation of an agreed paper for
discussion at a meeting with Danube Country representatives. This review reflects the reporting
and information systems available within the ICPDR and its Expert Groups and the current and
forthcoming requirements of the European Commission's and the European Environment
Agency's reporting needs and the movement towards a shared water information system for
Europe (WISE). Recommendations are made and the benefits of these are explained.
This restructuring of how data flows are organised at a European level presents an opportunity
for the ICPDR to assess its current and future data, information and reporting needs. This
review of the ICPDR's reporting requirements is aimed at satisfying a number of objectives,
including:
> Ensuring that the ICPDR states are also not over burdened by reporting, and that all
information provided by the Danube countries are utilised;
> To identify means to present the state of and pressures on the Danube River in a clear
and effective method. (Currently, despite significant financial investment in pollution
reduction within the DRB, any improvements to the environment are hard to show in a
simple format).
> Developing of suitable indicators (ideally consistent with indicators developed
elsewhere e.g. EEA) to show the performance of the ICPDR and the improvements of
the environmental quality of the DRB. Agreement of these high level indicators will
enable the data to be collected by the Danube countries to be specified and agreed.
This paper is aimed at assisting discussions at the Heads of Delegation meeting (April 2005) on
the future role of the ICPDR and its Expert Groups
Streamlining the ICPDR Reporting and Information Collection Needs
page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive summary........................................................................................................3
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................5
2. REPORTING
AT
A
EUROPEAN LEVEL .......................................................................5
3. REPORTING
TO
AND BY THE ICPDR .......................................................................7
4.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE IN THE
DANUBE RIVER BASIN .........................................................................................9
5.
USE OF INDICATORS......................................................................................... 11
6.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HARMONISING AND STREAMLINING THE ICPDR
REPORTING AND INFORMATION NEEDS ............................................................... 13
ANNEXES
Annex 1
Comparison of river stations included in TNMN and Waterbase .......................... 17
Annex 2
Water (rivers) Indicators developed by ETC Water and used by the EEA for its
assessment reports .................................................................................... 19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Comparison between sizes of TNMN and Eionet-Water stations.............................8
Table 2
Comparison of TNMN monitoring stations with those collected by Eionet Water ..17
LIST OF PICTURES AND GRAPHS
Figure 1
Location of TNMN stations..............................................................................7
Figure 2
River monitoring stations in the Danube river basins that are part of Eionet-
Water .........................................................................................................8
Figure 3
Trend in orthophosphate concentrations between 1992 and 2002 in Danube
countries country level.............................................................................. 11
Figure 4
Trends in nitrate and phosphate concentrations at river monitoring stations
between 1992 and 2002 station level.......................................................... 12
Figure 5
Map of TNMN and Eionet-Water (Waterbase) river monitoring stations................ 18
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
page 2
ABBREVIATIONS
DRB
Danube River Basin
DRP
Danube Regional Project
EC European
Commission
EEA Expert
Group
Eionet
European Environmental Information and Observation Network (of the EEA)
EPER
European Polluting Emissions Register (of the IPPC Directive)
EU European
Union
Eurostat
Statistical Office of the European Communities
GEF
Global Environment Facility
ICPDR
International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
IPPC
EU Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
JRC
Joint Research Centre (for the European Union, based at ISPRA IT)
SOE
State of the Environment (Reporting system or data flows)
TNMN
Trans National Monitoring Network (of the ICPDR and Signatory Countries)
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UWWTD
EU Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment
WFD
EU Water Framework Directive
WISE
Water Information System for Europe (being developed by EC, EEA JRC and
Eurostat)
WRC PLC / LACK AND NIXON
Streamlining the ICPDR Reporting and Information Collection Needs
page 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It is now recognised by Member States, the European Commission, the EEA and other bodies
with a stake in reporting procedures that there is a need for "streamlining" the reporting
process and making the exchange process as efficient as possible using modern technology.
This has resulted in a common approach towards a shared pool of common and timely data and
information on the state of, and pressures on, Europe's water (WISE = Water Information
System for Europe) that meets the needs of all those organisations required to report and make
assessments at a European level.
The ICPDR has, for the basis of its assessments and reports, data that comes from the Trans
National Monitoring Network (TNMN). This was established to support a reliable and consistent
trend analysis for concentrations and loads for priority pollutants, support the assessment of
water quality, and assist in identification of major pollution sources on the main channel of the
Danube and some of its larger tributaries.
The EEA has designed and developed a process of priority data flows (Eionet-Water, formerly
known as Eurowaternet) by which it obtains information on the state of, and trends in, Europe's
water resources. Eionet-Water gives a representative assessment of water types and variations
in anthropogenic pressures across the EEA area. There is a wider geographic spread of Eionet-
Water stations compared to the TNMN because many of the tributary rivers are included. There
is also a greater spread of river sizes (sensu Water Framework Directive) with the inclusion of
many small, medium and large rivers. This provides a sound basis for more representative
reporting of the Danube river basin than the TNMN alone.
The EEA has, for its major reports and assessments, developed a multi-thematic core set of
indicators including those for water, most of which are based on data arising from Eionet-water.
These are updated annually and form a stable basis for reporting which could be adapted for
ICPDR purposes.
The following recommendations are made:
> ICPDR undertakes a review of and clearly states: what data it needs; how it will be
collected and used in terms of reporting to the contracting parties and the public.
> ICPDR engages with the EC, EEA and JRC in identifying and specifying its data and
information needs within the development of WISE.
> The guiding principle is that ICPDR will seek to obtain all its data needs from WISE.
> As the starting point, Danube countries should include the data required/requested by
the ICPDR into the existing annual Eionet-Water data flows, at the latest, in the EEA's
annual update due in autumn 2006.
> ICPDR and the Danube countries take part in the development of reporting of
biological and hydromorphological quality.
> ICPDR should work together with EC and EEA to support the activities of Moldova and
Ukraine in providing data for Eionet-Water.
> ICPDR and EEA should consider a joint project to investigate the value and limitations
of the Danube emissions database for realising pressure indicators as an example of
good practice for other international river basins.
> ICPDR should consider the use of EEA-developed indicators for its own reports and
assessments and supplementing them with indicators on pressures (derived from the
emissions data base) and biological status (derived from the Danube surveys).
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
Executive Summary
page 4
The benefits of these recommendations are:
> Danube basin countries streamline their activities by reporting only once for multiple
purposes and users. This frees up resources to further enhance the quality of the
ICPDR data.
> ICPDR becomes more actively involved with other actors in the development of the
WISE.
> With access to Eionet-Water (WISE) the information base for Danube-wide
assessments is significantly enhanced in terms of geographic representativeness.
> The capacity for producing simple, easier to understand, timely, policy or issue-
relevant assessment reports is enhanced by the use of indicators.
> The potential for the involvement of the public and NGOs is therefore enhanced by
access to understandable information.
WRC PLC / LACK AND NIXON
Streamlining the ICPDR Reporting and Information Collection Needs
page 5
1. INTRODUCTION
Significant changes to the reporting of environmental data are being considered at the European
level. These discussions have been stimulated by the activities of the European Environment
Agency and the needs of the Water Framework Directive but they also reflect the desire to
streamline reporting obligations for other directives and to meet the needs of many
international organisations. It is now recognised that it would be more efficient to enable trend
and state of the environment to be investigated from a common, shared database. This
presents an opportunity for the ICPDR amongst others to assess its current and future data,
information and reporting needs.
2. REPORTING AT A EUROPEAN LEVEL
There are a number of obligations on countries to report to European Institutions and
organisations such as the European Commission, European Environment Agency (EEA) and
International River and Regional Sea Commissions. Some reporting obligations are mandatory
(e.g. to the European Commission) others are moral or voluntary (e.g. the EEA).
It is now recognised by Member States, the European Commission, the EEA and other bodies
with a stake in reporting procedures that there is a need for "streamlining" the reporting
process; gathering more useful and policy relevant information and making the exchange
process as efficient as possible using modern technology.
A new concept on reporting for water was adopted by the Water Directors' meeting in Rome on
24/25 November 2003. It recognised three distinct, but overlapping, requirements for
information to be gathered from Member States to EU and International Organisations. These
are:
> Checking compliance and implementation of EU legislation at a national level.
> Assessing and comparing state and trends for the environment and the associated
pressures, impacts and socio-economic driving forces.
> Use information on implementation and trends to assess the effects and effectiveness
(including cost-efficiency) of policy, before and after measures have been introduced.
The Commission and Member States are developing guidance for reporting under the Water
Framework Directive (WFD). This is seen as one of the first operational steps in implementing
the new concept on reporting for water. The Commission requires information to be reported by
Members States to check compliance with the requirements of specific articles of the Directive.
The EEA, with its network of 31 member and participating member countries (known as the
Eionet) has designed and developed a process of priority data flows (e.g. Eionet-Water, formerly
known as Eurowaternet) by which it obtains information on the state of, and trends in, Europe's
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
2. Reporting at a European Level
page 6
water resources. Eionet-Water was designed to give a representative assessment of water types
(e.g. all water body sizes) and variations in anthropogenic pressures within a country and also
across the EEA area.
Eionet-Water is based on national monitoring networks. As these change (for example to meet
the requirements of the WFD) then it is likely that Eionet-Water station selection might also
have to change.
The data arising from Eionet-Water is stored in Waterbase and is disseminated on line via the
EEA's web page:
http://dataservice.eea.eu.int/dataservice/available2.asp?type=findkeyword&theme=w
aterbase
The second operational step in implementing the new concept for water reporting is led by the
EEA which is developing State of the Environment (SOE) data flows at a European level that
meets the needs of all users.
The concept is for a shared pool of common and timely data and information on the state of,
and pressures on, Europe's water (WISE = Water Information System for Europe) that meets
the needs of all those organisations required to report and make assessments at a European
level. Agreement between countries will have to be reached on many aspects such as the
determinands (e.g. physico-chemical (nitrate, phosphate, etc.), biological (benthic
invertebrates, fish etc.) and hydromorphological (habitat features, river flow etc.) quality
elements), level of data aggregation, spatial and temporal resolution, and on the meta data held
within WISE. Appropriate tools are available (e.g. Reportnet) to facilitate the process of
populating and developing WISE.
WRC PLC / LACK AND NIXON
Streamlining the ICPDR Reporting and Information Collection Needs
page 7
3. REPORTING TO AND BY THE ICPDR
The Statute of the ICPDR states in Article 9 that: "The International Commission submits to the
Contracting Parties an annual report on its activities as well as further reports as required,
which in particular also include the results of monitoring and assessment".
Article 12 (Exchange of Information) of the Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and
Sustainable Use of the Danube River (Danube River Protection Convention) states that "As
determined by the International Commission the Contracting Parties shall exchange reasonably
available data on: c) emission and monitoring data". Such reported data are used to formulate
the TNMN-Yearbooks (most recent based on 2001 data) on the water quality in the Danube
River Basin. The reported data are derived from the Trans National Monitoring Network (TNMN).
The TNMN was established to support a reliable and consistent trend analysis for concentrations
and loads for priority pollutants, support the assessment of water quality for water use, and
assist in identification of major pollution sources. It should also provide a well-balanced overall
view of the situation and long-term development of quality and loads in terms of relevant
constituents for the major rivers in the Danube river basin. The locations of the monitoring
stations in the TNMN are shown in Figure 1. As would be expected from the purposes of the
TNMN, the stations are located mainly on the main channel of the Danube and some of its larger
tributaries.
Figure 1
Location of TNMN stations
##S
S
#
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S #S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S #S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S#S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S
#
S #S
D A N U B E C A T C H M E N T
#
S
T N M N
R iv ers
50 0
0
50 0 K ilo m e te r s
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
3. Reporting to and by the lCPDR
page 8
Waterbase (Eionet-Water) was searched for the presence of monitoring stations in the Danube
River Basin. These are plotted in Figure 2.
Figure 2
River monitoring stations in the Danube river basins that are part of
Eionet-Water
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú ÚÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú ÚÚ
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú Ú
Ú ÚÚÚ Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ Ú Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
ÚÚ Ú
ÚÚ
ÚÚÚ ÚÚ
Ú
ÚÚÚ Ú
Ú
ÚÚ Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú ÚÚ
Ú Ú Ú Ú ÚÚÚ
Ú
Ú Ú Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚÚ
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
ÚÚ Ú
Ú Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚÚ Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú ÚÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ Ú
Ú Ú
ÚÚ
ÚÚ Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú ÚÚ
Ú Ú
Ú Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
DANUBE CATCHMENT
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
WBASE
Rivers
500
0
500 Kilometers
It is apparent that there is a wider geographic spread of Eionet-Water stations compared to the
TNMN because many of the tributary rivers are included. There is also a greater spread of river
sizes (sensu Water Framework Directive) with the inclusion of many small, medium and large
rivers (see below). This provides a sound basis for more representative reporting of the Danube
river basin than the TNMN alone. Further comparison of river stations included in TNMN and
Waterbase is provided in Annex 1.
Table 1
Comparison between sizes of TNMN and Eionet-Water stations
River size1 Small Medium Large Very
large Total
Waterbase 33
247
256
94 630
(2)
TNMN 0 0 11 69 80
1
Size criteria according to WFD, Annex II, typology system A
2
Stations with catchment area information
WRC PLC / LACK AND NIXON
Streamlining the ICPDR Reporting and Information Collection Needs
page 9
4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATER FRAMEWORK
DIRECTIVE IN THE DANUBE RIVER BASIN
All Danube countries cooperating under the Danube River Protection Convention have given
their firm political commitment to support the implementation of the WFD in their countries, and
to cooperate in the framework of the ICPDR to achieve single, basin-wide coordinated Danube
River Basin Management Plan.
To that end the ICPDR has produced an Article 5 report on the characterisation of the river
basin district, the "Danube Basin Analysis (WFD Roof Report 2004)". One of the next tasks to be
undertaken by the Danube countries in terms of implementing the WFD will be the design and
implementation of appropriate monitoring networks by 22 December 2006. The monitoring
networks should be able to provide a coherent and comprehensive overview of ecological and
chemical status within the Danube river basin and permit classification of water bodies into five
classes consistent with the normative definitions given in the Directive
Countries will have to assess and re-design their monitoring networks to meet the requirement
of the WFD. Both the TNMN and Eionet-water are based on national monitoring networks, and
changes in these might be required to reflect changes in national networks. The objectives of
the TNMN appear to meet some of the requirements of the WFD, particularly in terms of
transboundary monitoring and monitoring of the larger water bodies. However, more
stations/water bodies would be required if the ICPDR wished to obtain a comprehensive
overview of the status of water bodies in the Danube catchment1. Eionet-water has a much
more geographically distributed network in terms of size of water body and may well give a
better overview of status than the TNMN stations alone. In terms of what determinands are to
be monitored, this is specified for Eionet-Water, which takes account of those required by the
WFD including the priority list of hazardous substances, although these may differ in different
river basins depending on the risk assessment carried out by each country for the WFD.
Under the WFD, Member States are required to collect and maintain information on the type and
magnitude of the significant anthropogenic pressures to which the surface water bodies in each
river basin district are liable to be subject. This includes pressures/emissions arising from point
and diffuse sources. However, the Directive only requires countries to report on the risk of
failing to meet the water quality objectives, and not on the related level of each individual
pressure. Emissions data are thus not planned to be reported at the EU level at this stage
though they may be in the future as the WISE process develops. Once the WFD is in place, the
aggregated results of the pressures assessment will be provided to the Commission, with the
supporting datasets as defined in the reporting sheets available at the district and national level,
but no transmission of the data to the European level is foreseen. Exceptions will be emissions
from large installations to the EPER database (IPPC Directive) and discharges from municipal
waste water treatment plants (UWWT Directive). The emissions database managed and
maintained by ICPDR is recognised as a potentially valuable asset that, for the purposes of
reporting could be used to develop pressure indicators in a way that is not yet possible at the
1 It is not known whether or not this will be an objective of the ICPDR though such an overview would be
required in an integrated Danube River Basin Management Plan
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
4. Implementation of the Water Framework Directive in the Danube River Basin
page 10
European level. Initial discussions between ICPDR and EEA have indicated that the potential of
the Danube emissions database could be explored through a joint project that would investigate
the value and limitations of the database (e.g are there overlaps with EPER and UWWTD
databases) and its use as an example of good practice for other international river basins.
WRC PLC / LACK AND NIXON
Streamlining the ICPDR Reporting and Information Collection Needs
page 11
5. USE OF INDICATORS
In order to simplify the enormous complexity of the natural environment, the EEA has, for its
major reports and assessments, developed a multi-thematic core set of indicators which
includes indicators on water most of which are based on data arising from Eionet-water. These
are updated annually and are published on the EEA's web-page. (See also Annex 2)
(http://themes.eea.eu.int/indicators/all_indicators_box?sort_by=theme). There is also a
more comprehensive set of water indicators that are used in broader assessment reports such
as the Water Indicator Report published in 2003
(http://reports.eea.eu.int/topic_report_2003_1/en).
Examples of the river aspects of the "Nutrients in freshwater" core set indicator are given in
Figures 4 and 5 to demonstrate how the ICPDR might wish to present its information. The
examples have been based on the data obtained through Eionet-Water for Danube basin
countries. However, it should be noted that all stations from a country have been used not just
those stations located in the Danube basin.
Figure 3
Trend in orthophosphate concentrations between 1992 and 2002 in
Danube countries country level
Trend in orthophosphate concentrations between 1992 and 2002 in
Danube countries
450
400
350
AT (103)
300
DE (109)
250
BG (33)
µg P/l 200
HU (89)
150
SI (21)
100
50
0
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Note: Number of stations in brackets after country name abbreviation
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
5. Use of Indicators
page 12
Figure 4
Trends in nitrate and phosphate concentrations at river monitoring
stations between 1992 and 2002 station level
Trends in Nitrate and Phosphate concentrations in Danube countries
Phosphate
DE (148)
HU (60)
AT (199)
SK (8)
CZ (65)
BG (41)
Downward
SI (9)
No trend
Nitrate
Upward
CZ (65)
DE (148)
SK (26)
AT (239)
HU (60)
BG (43)
SI (10)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
% of stations
Note: Number of stations in brackets after country name abbreviation
WRC PLC / LACK AND NIXON
Streamlining the ICPDR Reporting and Information Collection Needs
page 13
6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HARMONISING AND
STREAMLINING THE ICPDR REPORTING AND
INFORMATION NEEDS
> It is recommended that the ICPDR undertakes a review of and clearly states:
o what data it needs on the trends, status of and pressures on water bodies in the
Danube basin;
o how the data will be collected and how the quality of the data will be assured,
o how this data will be used in terms of reporting to the contracting parties and
the public.
> It is recommended the ICPDR engages with the EC, EEA and JRC in identifying and
specifying its data and information needs within the development of WISE.
> The guiding principle is that ICPDR will seek to obtain all its data needs from WISE.
> As the starting point for this process, Danube countries should include the data
required/requested by the ICPDR into the existing annual Eionet-Water data flows. The
TNMN stations not currently included in Eionet-Water could be included, at the latest,
in the EEA's annual update due in autumn 2006 (subject to confirmation by Heads of
Delegation and EEA). There are also additional determinands required for the TNMN
network and these should be included in this harmonised data flow. However, there is
an issue that in some countries, TNMN stations that are also Eionet-Water stations
may be monitored and reported by two separate organisations, giving rise to two data
sets. This duplication needs to be resolved at national level by achieving a single data
set serving both purposes.
> In Eionet-Water, all data must be nationally validated and transmitted through the
National Focal Points. It is recommended that the same procedure is applied to the
ICPDR data flows.
> There will also be a need for the reporting of the biological and hydromorphological
quality elements to be monitored under the Water Framework Directive. These data
flows will be developed through the WISE-SOER process and it is recommended that
the ICPDR and the Danube countries take part in this.
> It is recommended that the ICPDR should work together with EC and EEA to support
the activities of non-EU and non-EEA member states (Moldova and Ukraine) in
providing data for Eionet-Water. Should this not prove possible, the ICPDR will need to
continue present arrangements to collect data directly from Moldova and Ukraine.
> The ICPDR currently has a database on emissions to water in the Danube river basin.
This is potentially a valuable asset for the development of pressure indicators to be
used in the reporting process. It is recommended that ICPDR and EEA consider a joint
project to investigate the value and limitations of the data base (e.g. are there
overlaps with EPER and UWWTD databases?) and its use as an example of good
practice for other international river basins.
> The EEA has established a Core Set of Indicators that includes indicators on water
(rivers), and also a more comprehensive set of indicators for detailed analysis. It is
recommended that the ICPDR considers the use of these for its own reports and
assessments and
> supplementing them with indicators on pressures (derived from the emissions data
base) and biological status (derived from the Danube surveys).
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
6. Recommendations for Harmonising and Streamlining the ICPDR Reporting and Information Needs
page 14
> The benefits of these recommendations are:
o Danube basin countries streamline their activities by reporting only once for
multiple purposes and users and the concept of "what is needed is reported and
what is reported is used" is followed. This frees up resources to further enhance
the quality of the ICPDR data.
o ICPDR becomes more actively involved with other actors in the development of
the WISE.
o With access to EIONET-Water (WISE) the information base for Danube-wide
assessments is significantly enhanced in terms of geographic
representativeness.
o The capacity for producing simple, easier to understand, timely, policy or issue-
relevant assessment reports is enhanced by the use of indicators.
> The potential for the involvement of the public and NGOs is therefore enhanced by
access to understandable information
WRC PLC / LACK AND NIXON
Streamlining the ICPDR Reporting and Information Collection Needs - Annexes
page 15
ANNEXES
ANNEX 1
Comparison of river stations included in TNMN and Waterbase
ANNEX 2
Water (rivers) Indicators developed by ETC Water and used by the EEA
for its assessment reports
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
Streamlining the ICPDR Reporting and Information Collection Needs - Annexes
page 17
ANNEX 1: COMPARISON OF RIVER STATIONS
INCLUDED IN TNMN AND WATERBASE
Table 2 compares the TNMN stations with those stations included in the EEA's Eionet-Water
system. Of the 124 TNMN stations, 62 are also included in Eionet-Water, 31 are not, and there
are 31 stations where the location is included in Eionet-Water but not all the stations at that
location (e.g. where there are three stations across the river at a location, Eionet-Water may
only have one of the three). There are also 669 stations in the Danube catchment included in
Eionet-Water and potentially another 37 stations, which would need their exact location checked
against the geographic limits of the Danube catchment. Figure 5 shows a map with both the
TNMN and Eionet-Water stations located.
Table 2
Comparison of TNMN monitoring stations with those collected by Eionet
Water
Location in
Waterbase
In
Waterbase stations
TNMN
TNMN
Waterbase but
stations in
Waterbase
potentially in
stations
only
not all station
Danube
and TNMN
Danube catchment
positions
catchment
Austria 4
4
230
0
Bosnia and
4 1 3
28
1
Herzegovina
Bulgaria 15
12
3
38
5
Croatia 10
1
7 2
10
15
Czech Republic
3 2
1 23
0
Germany 4
4
18
0
Hungary 17
9 8
96
0
Romania 27
4 9 14
126
1
Serbia and
18 2 16
38
0
Montenegro
Slovak
12 3 3
6 53
0
Republic
Slovenia 2
2
9
15
Moldova
6 6
0
0
Ukraine 2
2
0
0
Totals 124
31
62 31
669
37
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
Annex 1: Comparison of River Stations included in TNMN and Waterbase
page 18
Figure 5
Map of TNMN and Eionet-Water (Waterbase) river monitoring stations
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú ÚÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
S
#ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S Ú
Ú
#
S
#
S
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
#
S
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú Ú
Ú ÚÚÚ Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ Ú #
S#S
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
ÚÚ Ú
ÚÚ
Ú ÚÚÚ ÚÚ Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
ÚÚÚ Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú #
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
#
S
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú ÚÚ
Ú Ú Ú Ú ÚÚÚ
Ú
Ú Ú Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚÚ
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
ÚÚ Ú
Ú Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚÚ Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú ÚÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú Ú Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú Ú
Ú Ú
Ú Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
#
S
#
S
#
S
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
#
S
Ú
#
S
ÚÚ Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú #
S
Ú
Ú
#
S
#
S
#
S
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
SÚ
#
S #S
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
#
S
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú #
S
Ú #
SÚ
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
#
S
Ú
#
S
Ú
ÚÚ
Ú
#
S
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S#S
Ú
Ú
Ú
ÚÚ Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
#
S
ÚÚ
Ú
Ú
#
S Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
#
S
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
DANUBE C ATCHMEN T
Ú
Ú
Ú
Ú
WB ASE
#
S
TNMN
Rivers
500
0
500 Kilometers
WRC PLC / LACK AND NIXON
Streamlining the ICPDR Reporting and Information Collection Needs - Annexes
page 19
ANNEX 2: WATER (RIVERS) INDICATORS
DEVELOPED BY ETC WATER AND USED BY THE
EEA FOR ITS ASSESSMENT REPORTS
Nutrients in rivers. Annually aggregated data over as long a time period as possible Eionet-
Water concentrations of total oxidised nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, total
phosphorus, ortho-phosphate phosphorus. For the complete list of determinands please see the
Data Dictionary: http://dd.eionet.eu.int/data_element.jsp?mode=view&delem_id=14503
Oxygen consuming substances in rivers. Annually aggregated data over as long a time
period as possible Eionet-Water concentrations of dissolved oxygen, ammonium nitrogen,
nitrite nitrogen, kjeldahl nitrogen, biological oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand.
Hazardous substances (metals) in rivers. Disaggregated data over as long a time period as
possible Eionet-Water concentrations of mercury, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc.
Hazardous substances (organics) in rivers. Disaggregated data over as long a time period
as possible Eionet-Water concentrations of anthracene, benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, benzo-
b,k,-fluoranthene, benzo-g,h,i,-perylene, naphthalene etc. For the complete list of substances
reported please see the Data Dictionary:
http://dd.eionet.eu.int/data_element.jsp?mode=view&delem_id=14512
Hazardous substances (pesticides) in rivers. Disaggregated data over as long a time period
as possible Eionet-Water concentrations of lindane, simazine, alachlor, aldrin, alpha-
endosulfan, dieldrin, endrin.
Additional indicators (pressures/emissions)
Emissions of N and P from UWWT plants (sources Eurostat and EPER).
Emissions of organic matter from UWWT plants (sources Eurostat and EPER).
Emissions to water of hazardous substances from industries (sources Eurostat and EPER).
Emissions to water of hazardous substances from UWWT plants (sources Eurostat, EPER and
EU).
UNDP/GEF DANUBE REGIONAL PROJECT
