According to the WFD (Annex V), for a Groundwater body to be of good quantitative status the following criteria (objectives) must be met:
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
Figure 5.1 – Percent of Groundwater bodies in poor quantitative status in 2009
Data source:WISE-WFD database February 2012
Map 5.1 – Percent of Groundwater bodies in poor quantitative status in 2009 per RBD Data source:WISE-WFD database February 2012 |
Figure 5.2 – Percent of Groundwater bodies in poor quantitative status in 2009 per * Number in brackets indicate the number of Groundwater bodies 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
# of RBD |
Considered criteria |
106 |
C1. The available groundwater resource is not exceeded by the long term annual average rate of abstraction |
71 |
C2. Failure to achieve the environmental objectives specified under Article 4 for associated surface water bodies resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions |
61 |
C3. Significant diminution in the status of surface waters resulting from anthropogenic water level alteration or change in flow conditions |
84 |
C4. Significant damage to groundwater dependent terrestrial ecosystems resulting from an anthropogenic water level alteration |
82 |
C5. Saline or other intrusions resulting from anthropogenically induced sustained changes in flow direction |
6 |
U. Unclear |
4 |
C7. No criteria reported |
119 |
Total number of analyzed RBDs |
135 |
Total number of RBDs where data were uploaded to WISE |
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.
The potential groundwater quantitative status in 2015 was retrieved from the reported exemptions where Member states were required to indicate all bodies not achieving good status in 2015 after the necessary measures have been implemented, while justifying the request for and type of exemptions. All groundwater bodies without reported exemptions were considered to be in good status 2015.
The numbers of groundwater bodies with exemption(s) were compared with classified groundwater bodies and improved water bodies with water bodies in less than good status 2009 (rate of improvement). One water body can have more types and justifications of exemptions, but each water body was counted only once for the status results. Water bodies in good or unknown status in 2009 and with exemption in 2015 were excluded from the number of water bodies not achieving good status in 2015.
Overall, while 6% of the Groundwater bodies was reported to be in poor quantitative status in 2009, the analysis concluded that 4% of them will be in poor status in 2012, thus 2% of the Groundwater bodies are to improve their status from poor to good. In 11 RBDs total (in Italy, Spain, France) more than 10% of their Groundwater bodies is improving from poor status, in 5 RBDs (in Italy, Spain, France, Slovakia) 5-10% of their Groundwater bodies is improving from poor status, and in 11 RBDs (in Italy, France, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Ireland) less than 5% of their Groundwater bodies is improving from poor status in 2015. Significant improvement is expected in Quadalquivir, Andalusia Mediterranean Basins, Segura, Jucar, Catalan, Balearic Islands RBDs in Spain, Le Rhône, La Corse, L'Adour-Garonne-Dordogne RBDs in France, Po, North Appennines, Central Appennines in Italy, Danube in Slovakia, Scotland in United Kingdom and South Baltic Sea in Sweden.
Figure 5.4 – Comparison of the change of Groundwater bodies with poor quantitative status between 2009 and 2015
Data source:WISE-WFD database February 2012
Map 5.2 – Comparison of GWBs quantitative status between 2009 and 2015 Data source:WISE-WFD database February 2012 |
Figure 5.5 - Comparison of GWBs quantitative status between 2009 and 2015 per * Number in brackets indicate the number of Groundwater bodies Data source:WISE-WFD database February 2012 |
For one third of the RBDs (46 out of 135) Members States applied for exemptions for not reaching good quantitative status, either by extending the deadlines or by achieving less stringent objectives (Table 5.2). Out of the 46 RBDs, 50% applied for extension of deadline due to technical feasibility, 43% applied for extension of deadline due to disproportionate cost, 37% applied for extension of deadline due to natural conditions, 26% applied for less stringent objectives due to technical feasibility, and 17% applied for less stringent objectives due to disproportionate cost.
The Member States that applied almost exclusively for extended deadlines are
Table 5.2 - Exemptions applied for reaching good quantitative status (number of RBDs concerned).
# of RBD |
Exemptions |
23 |
Article4(4) – Extension of deadline – Technical feasibility |
20 |
Article4(4) – Extension of deadline – Disproportionate cost |
17 |
Article4(4) – Extension of deadline – Natural conditions |
12 |
Article4(5) – Less stringent objectives – Technical feasibility |
8 |
Article4(5) – Less stringent objectives – Disproportionate cost |
46 |
Total number of RBDs where exemptions were reported |
135 |
Total number of RBDs where data were uploaded to WISE |
Figure 5.6 – Type of exemptions per * Number in brackets indicate the number of GWBs Data source:WISE-WFD database February 2012 |
Figure 5.7 – Justification of exemptions per * Number in brackets indicate the number of GWBs
Data source:WISE-WFD database February 2012 |
Maybe just a "typo":
Overall, while 6% of the Groundwater bodies was reported to be in poor quantitative status in 2009, the analysis concluded that 4% of them will be in poor status in 2012 2015?,...