Post a comment on the text below

5.1.    Overview of the groundwater quantitative status

According to the WFD (Annex V), for a Groundwater body to be of good quantitative status the following criteria (objectives) must be met:

1. available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long term annual average rate of abstraction;
2. no significant diminution of surface water chemistry and/or ecology resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions that would lead to failure of relevant Article 4 objectives for any associated surface water bodies;
3. no significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems resulting from an anthropogenic water level alteration;
4. no saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced sustained changes in flow direction

From the total number of Groundwater bodies assessed only 6% (672 Groundwater bodies) are classified as being in poor quantitative status in 2009, as depicted in

Figure 5.1. Only a few countries, namely Spain, United Kingdom, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Malta, have groundwater quantitative problems which are though mainly found in specific RBDs and not in the whole country, with the exception of Cyprus where approximately 70% of its Groundwater bodies are in poor status (Figure 5.2). More specifically, the RBDs of Thames and South East in United Kingdom and Segura in Spain have more than 50% of their Groundwater bodies in poor status. The RBDs of Humber, North West and Anglian in United Kingdom, Quadalquivir, Jucar, and Andalusia Mediterranean Basins in Spain, Scheldt in Belgium, Elbe in Czech Republic and finally Maas in Germany have 30-50% of their Groundwater bodies in poor status. The RBDs of Severn in United Kingdom, Balearic Islands, Guadalete and Barbate in Spain, Danube and Oder in Czech Republic, Oder in Germany, Serchio, and North Appennines in Italy, and Malta have 20-30% of their Groundwater bodies in poor status. Finally, the RBDs of Dee, South West, North Eastern, Scotland and Northumbria in United Kingdom, Catalan in Spain, Central Appennines in Italy, national part of Danube in Hungary, national part of Danube in Bulgaria, and Meuse in Belgium have 10-20% of their Groundwater bodies in poor status (Map 5.1).

Figure 5.1 – Percent of Groundwater bodies in poor quantitative status in 2009

Data source:WISE-WFD database February 2012

Complementarily to the classification of the status, an analysis of how the groundwater quantitative status assessment was performed by the Member States has been undertaken by comparing the criteria which were reported to be considered in the status assessment. It is noteworthy how key elements like ‘available groundwater resource’ or the assessment of the balance between recharge and abstraction’ have been considered in the Member states assessments.

Regarding the considered criteria (for status assessment), most commonly the balance between recharge and abstraction (in 89% RBDs), significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems (in 71% RBDs) and saline or other intrusion (in 69% RBDs) were reported as considered in the assessment. 

 gives an overview of how often these criteria were explicitly reported to be considered in the status assessment (119 of 135 RBDs have been included in this assessment)

Table 5.1 Criteria (reported to be) considered within the assessment of groundwater quantitative status

Figure 5.3 – Percent of RBDs considering each of the criteria of WFD for assessing their groundwater quantitative status

Data source:WISE-WFD database February 2012

Regarding the application of the ‘Available groundwater resource’ this is defined in WFD Article 2.27 as the long-term annual average rate of overall recharge of the body of groundwater less the long-term annual rate of flow required to achieve the ecological quality objectives for associated surface waters specified under Article 4, to avoid any significant diminution in the ecological status of such waters and to avoid any significant damage to associated terrestrial ecosystems. Half of the RBDs applied the term fully in line with the WFD requirement, 8% applied it partly, and for 42% of the RBDs (43 of 103) it was not clear or information was not given in the RBMPs. Furthermore, regarding the assessment of balance between recharge and abstraction, 33% of the RBDs reported that a comparison of annual average groundwater abstraction against ‘available groundwater resource’ has been calculated for every groundwater body, 24% reported that the comparison was made for a subset of Groundwater bodies, while for the majority of RBDs (43%) it was unclear or no such information was described in the RBMPs.