5. Groundwater quantitative status

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

 

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 Member State

* 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.    

submit comment

 

5.2.    Comparison of the groundwater status in 2009 and 2015

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 Member State

* Number in brackets indicate the number of Groundwater bodies

Data source:WISE-WFD database February 2012

  • duboiaur (Aurelie Dubois) 25 Apr 2012 16:46:24

    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?,...

submit comment

        

5.3.    Exemptions applied for reaching good groundwater quantitative status

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 Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Spain, France, Sweden, Hungary and the United Kingdom. The MSs that applied almost exclusively for less stringent objectives are Bulgaria, Estonia and Poland. Finally, Germany, Italy and Malta applied almost equally for both types of exemptions (Figure 5.6). Regarding the justification of the exemptions, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Malta and Poland claimed technical feasibility issues, Belgium and Sweden referred to natural prevailing conditions, United Kingdom claimed disproportional costs, while Germany, Spain, France, Italy and Hungary claimed of mixture of the three justifications (Figure 5.7). 

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 Member State

* Number in brackets indicate the number of GWBs

Data source:WISE-WFD database February 2012

Figure 5.7 – Justification of exemptions per Member State

* Number in brackets indicate the number of GWBs

 

Data source:WISE-WFD database February 2012

 

submit comment