Navigation
Notifications
Post a comment on the text below
Please provide your comments on the draft document on Floods which can be found at http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-eionet-water-interest-group/library/public-section/2012-state-water-thematic-assessments/thematic-assessment-vulnerability/background-document-water-scarcity-and-droughts
You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.
Previous comments
Same things as in general comments :
Page 74, a lot of difference is pointed out between the figures transmitted to Eurostat and Wise SoE for water abstractions at RBD scale. We check our reports and in fact, the problems comes from that the figures reported here for Eurostat is only the total gross abstractions in Fresh surface water. The figures reported here for WISE SoE are correct and correspond to the total gross abstractions, from fresh groundwater and surface water. For France, we confirm that the abstractions reported to Eurostat and WISE are the same, the reports have been made at the same time with the same raw data. In the Eurostat regional questionnaire, the abstractions had to be reported separately from surface water and groundwater but there was no line for the total hence the problem, from our point of view.
Page 83-84, there are some differences in the water availibility but it is not the same year (2007 and 2008).
Figure 8.7 and 8.8:
Assuming that streamlining between SoE and Eurostat has been respected, the numbers for ETa/P (latest available year) should be equal in both figures.
If this is not the case, then the most recent data (i.e. most recent year in either of the two databases) should be looked at. In the case of Switzerland, for those data which were equal and had already been reported via WISE SoE, we did not report these again in the EUROSTAT Questionnaire (as this would have been a double-reporting excercise). That will also be thre reason for the mismatching numbers in the Swiss case. => for Switzerland, the most recent and complete database will be found on WISE SoE.
Table 8.3: Abstraction for Hydropower has not been and will also in future not be reported. The reason for this is that it makes absolutely no sense do report this; and respective figures can also not be quantified in a meaningful correct way, due to e.g. multiple use of cascading and trans-basin connected river systems, or hydropeaking of pump-storage hydropower plants (please see also comments made by Switzerland, Norway and Germany, during the EIONET workshop end of March in Copenhagen).
The difference between the two parameters in Table 8.3. is not due to the lack of hydropower information (that gap would be much larger).
The first gap (Total Abstraction): The gap is equal to the amount of water abstracted for self supply (industries, private households; but NOT cooling). In the WISE SoE reporting tool, the category of self supply could be distinguished for reporting. In the Eurostat Questionnaire, this category cannot be clearly distinguished; all figures reported by Switzerland (with the exception of the cooling water abstraction figure (1682)) are public water supply figures. So: the remaining amount of 1261 is equal to the amount abstracted by self supply NOT used for cooling.
The second gap (Abstraction for cooling): is due to rounding errors. I would propose to use the (rounded) figure of 1680 as is done in the Eurostat questionnaire.
Table 8.4.: The differences in the two data sets is due to yearly differences. The method used to calculate water availabilities in these two years were the same.
Cooling water abstraction: the figures reported here (1680) are returned to the surface water after use.
Evapotranspiration is the actual ET, calculated as: ETa = Precip. - Internal Flow - Change in Glacier mass balance
Annex II: Please add the year 2003 for Switzerland (see comment to the main text main part of this document)
In this context I would once more like to emphasize our request for improved streamlining of reporting between EEA and Eurostat (especially what concerns water quantity). As the present analysis here shows again, water quantity data are so complex and interlinked, on various spatial, temporal and sectoral scales, which makes it very time-intensive to report such data carefully and without errors. Such work CANNOT be done twice per reporting cycle, we simply do not have these resources available. That is also the reason why Switzerland has not reported water quantity data to Eurostat for the last reporting (2010). Instead, we indicated there, that the requested data could be retrieved in WISE SoE. This however hast not been done, as is clear when reading the Envrionmental Statistics graphs and reports by Eurostat on water: There, Switzerland is famous for its gap, even though the data would be available for many variables, and was indeed also reported (but to EEA.
We would again propose to increase the collaboration between Eurostat and EEA so that member states only have to report water quantity data once (preferably to EEA).
Table 8.5, Lithuania.
Significant difference of data when comparing water abstractions between years 2009 and 2010 in the LT4500 Dauguva river basin district is due to closure of Ignalina power plant.
Figure 8.13, Lithuania
In 2009 out of 1907 mio m3 of water that was used in Ignalina power plant for cooling purposes, 1865 mio m3 was released back into the environment (LT4500 Dauguva river basin district, Druksiai lake) which among with the rest of the water in the lake is later reused in the same plant.