Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin 15, 2008, 81-84 The Water Framework Directive (WFD) of the European Union aims to achieve a ‘good’ status for all inland and coastal waters by the year 2015 (EC 2000). The directive defines how this should be achieved through the establish- ment of environmental objectives and ecological targets. Successful implementation of the WFD requires integra- tion into already existing national legislation and a sound combination of issues on technical feasibility, scientific knowledge and socio-economic aspects requiring intensive stakeholder involvement. This calls for appropriate tools such as models to support management of technical and social aspects of different phases of the implementation (Rekolainen et al. 2003; Quevauviller et al. 2005). It is therefore necessary to provide an overview of already existing methods and tools and develop new ones. Research programmes funded by the European Commission (EC) often address issues of current interest for practitioners, such as the Fifth Framework Programme, where a number of research projects to support the practical implementation of the WFD were initiated under the theme ‘Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development’. The funding part (the Directorate-General for Research, DG Research) and the responsible authority for the WFD at European level (Directorate-General of Environ - ment) saw the need to cluster these research projects and related activities, and initiated the Harmoni-CA project, a so- called ‘Concerted Action’ (i.e. Harmonised Modelling Tools for Integrated River Basin Management). The objectives of this paper are (a) to briefly describe the overall purpose of the Harmoni-CA project and some of its overarching outputs, and (b) to further illustrate how the implementation of the WFD can be enhanced by combining monitoring and modelling disciplines and by bringing prac- titioners and researchers together. Harmoni-CA The Harmoni-CA project started in October 2002 and con- cluded with a major conference in Brussels in September 2007. The main objectives of the project were: (1) to build a bridge from research to practice; (2) to create a forum for related research projects to exchange ideas, to optimise and co-ordinate activities in ongoing research projects, and to ini- tiate new spin-off projects; and (3) to gather already existing information, experience and research on both national and European levels that can support the implementation of the WFD (Arnold et al. 2005). Bridging research and practice A central activity of the project was to bring practitioners and researchers together at a large number of targeted workshops and open annual conferences. The main purpose was to open the floor for discussions on the needs of those working with integrated water management and the related outputs from the scientific community. Several opportunities and new ideas arose from the workshops. However, obstacles and bottle - necks were also recognised, such as insufficient dialogue be - tween the scientific and policy-making communities due to different interests and languages, lack of translation of scien- tific outputs into tools readily applicable to policy-makers, and the lack of a structure within which the groups respon - sible for the implementation of the WFD could be brought together with the scientists (Arnold et al. 2005). While the open annual conferences had broad themes, the workshops concentrated on the following tasks of Harmoni- CA: (1) establishment of a ‘tool box’ to provide easy and guided access to information and communication technolo- gies for the development of river basin management plans (van Griensven & Vanrolleghem 2006); (2) development of a generalised methodological framework for harmonised model support in integrated river basin management (Hat - termann & Kundzewicz 2006); (3) better integration be - tween monitoring and modelling in water management (Højberg et al. 2007a, Jørgensen et al. 2007); and (4) inves- tigation of how the science–policy interface can be bridged in current water management (Borowski & Hare 2007). More than 20 targeted workshops addressing these issues were held, resulting in workshop reports, synthesis reports and Har - moni-CA guidances. Forum for research projects The activities in Harmoni-CA and other related research pro- jects were integrated in a cluster called CatchMod. The pro- jects in this cluster produced outputs that could support the implementation of the WFD in different ways. This co-ordi- 81 From science to practice in implementing the European Union’s Water Framework Directive Lisbeth Flindt Jørgensen, Jens Christian Refsgaard and Anker Lajer Højberg © GEUS, 2008. Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland Bulletin 15, 81–84. Available at: www.geus.dk/publications/bull nation of research and technology development activities supported researchers in exchanging ideas on modelling tools to support the WFD. It aimed to increase the output and benefit of ongoing research, to speed up the (re-)use of devel- oped products, to avoid major overlaps between projects,and to reduce the risk of duplicating activities. Harmoni-CA achieved this by, amongst other things, organising two tech- nical CatchMod workshops for the projects involved, where a dialogue was established among the scientific communities and gaps were reduced between different research disciplines. The workshops were also often used as an instrument to pre- pare input to guidance documents and synthesis reports. Support to the implementation of the WFD Another important task of the project was to collect already existing knowledge on issues related to the different steps of the WFD. This was partly done by producing a number of reports and guidances and partly by establishing a web portal. Synthesis reports and guidances. A large number of synthesis reports and guidances was initiated by Harmoni-CA. The fol- lowing groups can be distinguished: (1) Reports supporting modelling activities and development, e.g. quality assurance, sensitivity analysis, and decision support development; (2) Reports supporting the collaboration between different scien- tific/policy fields such as monitoring, modelling, agriculture, economy and (3) Reports on the science–policy interface and end-user involvement. The reports harmonise available knowl- edge, provide added value by picking up recent insights and are essential in order to improve the quality of communication between science and practice. Most of the reports have been commissioned to small task groups consisting of both scientists and end-users and include outcomes of discussions held at var- ious workshops and conferences. Some reports will be pub- lished in the International Water Association publication series, improving the visibility of European research. Examples are: ‘Uncertainty Analysis’ (Refsgaard et al. 2005), ‘Model-sup- ported implementation of the Water Framework Directive – A water manager’s guide’ (Hattermann & Kundzewicz 2007), ‘Integration of the human dimension in model-supported water management’ (Bots et al. 2007) and ‘Good practice in joint use of monitoring and modelling’ (Højberg et al. 2007b). The WISE-RTD web portal. It is often a difficult task for practitioners dealing with new or challenging steps of the WFD, to find their way through the jungle of existing knowl- edge and experiences, when they look for assistance or good examples. Harmoni-CA has therefore developed a web portal (www.wise-rtd.info) that mainly acts as an entry to tools, experiences, guidances and research activities or results that can help water managers or others interested in finding infor- mation relevant to the WFD implementation. There are several ways to search for help in the portal. Users can enter in their capacity as water managers, scientists or stakeholders. Another option is to search by keywords de - rived from the ‘Common Implementation Strategy Guid ance Documents’ developed by the EC to support the implemen- tation of the WFD. Information on tests or pilot projects can also be found, such as the ‘Pilot River Basins’, where differ- ent steps of the WFD have been tested before final imple- mentation. The portal is hosted and supported by the Euro- pean Commission and is expected to become the support portal for WFD implementation. Joint use of monitoring and modelling While a combination of monitoring and modelling is often seen in research, there seems to be more hesitance to use modelling in practical water management where, on the other hand, a lot of data acquisition takes place. One of the tasks within Harmoni-CA was to try to integrate the moni- toring and modelling disciplines in water management to a higher degree than currently seen. For this purpose five workshops have been arranged over a period of three years. A total of more than 80 water man- agers, stakeholders, consultants, policy makers and scientists participated, representing 24 mainly European countries. The first three workshops investigated the status of monitor- ing programmes and the present use or knowledge of model- ling support to monitoring. It was recognised that monitoring programmes often date back several decades and have tradition- ally been considered an independent discipline. However, within 82 500 km Campania region Ezousas aquifer Ialomita river basin Nevesis river basin Pärnu river basin Hørup well field Fig. 1. Map of Europe showing the locations of the six case studies discussed. the last few decades modelling has entered the arena as a supplementary tool to help extract information from observation data. This is generally accepted in the research community. However, in practical water manage- ment there is considerable reluctance to employ models due to various ob - stacles such as lack of skill, lack of time, lack of awareness on what models can do and also lack of confidence in models (Brugnach et al. 2007). It was therefore decided to use the last two workshops to discuss six case studies from different areas of Europe (Fig. 1), in order to explore the possibility of developing an outline for a common approach in implementing the WFD and com- bining monitoring and modelling activities. These case stud- ies are briefly presented here: Hørup well field (Denmark). Groundwater extraction for drinking water results in low base flows in nearby streams in dry seasons. There are threats to the groundwater quality from diffuse pesticide pollution and from point sources (con- taminated sites in a nearby city). The challenges in this case study were to ensure sustainable extraction without unac- ceptably affecting nearby streams and to protect the ground- water against pollution. Ezousas aquifer (Cyprus). Heavy abstraction for irrigation causes saline intrusion into the aquifer. Groundwater recharge is low due to a decline in precipitation and damming of the river that previously supplied most of the recharge. The chal- lenges were to convince stakeholders of the positive effects of a planned artificial recharge programme using cleaned waste- water, to optimise this programme to avoid saline intrusion and to evaluate the present monitoring programme. Pärnu River Basin (Estonia). Threats to wetland and ground- water quality due to agricultural activities with both diffuse and point sources of pollution. Peat mining in the area leads to local acidification of surface waters. The challenges were to differen- tiate diffuse and point source contamination in surface water and groundwater and to address the acidification problem. Nevesis River Basin (Lithuania). Surface waters are threat- ened by high nutrient loads from diffuse agricultural sources and from sewage from small villages without waste water treatment. The challenge was to differentiate between diffuse and point source contamination in surface water. Campania (Italy). The groundwater, and thus the drinking water, is polluted by agriculture and horticulture, and outlets of untreated waste water from small villages contribute to poor groundwater quality. The challenge was to differentiate between diffuse and point source pollution. Ialomita River Basin (Romania). High levels of nutrients, especially nitrate, in both surface and groundwater, caused by aerial deposition from neighbouring areas with agricultural activities as well as by diffuse pollution from the local agri- culture. In addition, a special problem arises from high nitrate levels in the groundwater due to extensive use of nutrients in the past. The challenges were to differentiate between contamination caused by aerial deposition, local sources, and the inherited high nitrate concentrations from earlier agricultural activities. Each case study was elaborated by a small group of partic- ipants, and flowcharts were prepared showing how to imple- ment the WFD, with special reference to combining models and monitoring. The groups working on the six cases fo - cussed on different aspects. In spite of this, their flowcharts showed many similarities in their approaches, which allowed the construction of a common flowchart representing the key 83 Modelling Process understanding Modelling Scenario analyses cost-effectiveness Modelling Assess effects of PoM Modelling Assess impacts Modelling QA of data Modelling Inter/Extrapolation Modelling Design of moni- toring programmes Surveillance monitoring Problem indentification Steps according to the WFD Monitoring according to the WFD Suggested modelling support Investigative monitoring Operational monitoring Programme of measures Need for more data? Conceptual model Baseline scenario no Required confidence? RBMP Implementation Goals achieved? no yes St ak eh ol de r co ns ul ta tio ns an d in vo lv em en t yes Fig. 2. Flowchart for integrating monitoring and modelling activities when implementing the European Union’s Water Framework Directive. The chart is a result of workshops on six case studies from different parts of Europe. The workshops addressed diverse challenges and problems of current interest. RMBP, River Basin Management Plans; PoM, Programme of Measures; QA, Quality Assurance. aspects of all the six cases (Fig. 2). This flowchart may be applicable in most areas of Europe that face different chal- lenges in the implementation of the WFD. As shown in Fig. 2, models can support a variety of differ- ent tasks. A numerical model can be used to test different conceptual models and to check whether these are consistent with all available data. A model can be used to evaluate the effects of already implemented or planned measures, and by undertaking analyses of different scenarios help to choose the best programme of future measures to improve the status of the environment. Incorporation of data in models provides an additional check of the consistency and quality of the data, and since such data are often discrete in time and space, mod- els are more applicable for interpolation and extrapolation than statistical methods. Models can also help to achieve an optimal design of monitoring programmes by providing input on when and how often to monitor. They can also help to find a predefined confidence level, taking uncertainty into consideration. Thus models can support data acquisition in many ways, and this support may go much further than the traditional prediction of effects of various alternative initiatives. Although the six case studies were real-life situations addressing topics of current interest, a major limitation was the fact that the participants did not have to consider politi- cal or economic constraints. Nevertheless, people with differ- ent backgrounds – scientists, practitioners, monitoring, modellers and experts – could easily work together in com- bining monitoring and modelling in an effective manner. All participants found the use of models to be beneficial in most of the situations mentioned above. Concluding remarks Different professional communities have different interests, traditions and working cultures. This constrains the uptake and acceptance of research results by practitioners and hin- ders the interaction of different disciplines such as monitor- ing and modelling. Experience from Harmoni-CA workshops on monitoring and modelling shows that when researchers and practitioners are brought together to elaborate on real life cases, they can easily work together in a very inspiring and constructive way. A key conclusion from the project is that it is possible to bridge some of the gaps between research and practice and between different disciplines, but that this re - quires continuous attention and positive co-operation from all parties involved. Acknowledgement The present work was carried out within the Concerted Action Harmoni- CA, which was funded under the European Commission’s 5th Framework Programme (Contract EVK1-CT2001-00192). References Arnold, G.E., de Lange, W.J. & Blind, M.W. 2005: The concerted action Harmoni-CA: Facilitating the dialogue and bridging the gap between research and WFD implementation. Environmental Science and Policy 8, 213–218. Borowski, I. & Hare, M. 2007: Exploring the gap between water managers and researchers: difficulties of model-based tools to support practical water management. Water Resources Management 21, 1049–1074. Bots, P., Gooch, G., McIntosh, B.S. & Pahl-Wostl, C. 2007: Integration of the human dimension in model supported water management. A Harmoni-CA Guiding document. Available on: www.harmoni-ca.info. Brugnach, M., Tagg, A., Keil F. & de Lange, W.J. 2007: Uncertainty mat- ters: computer models in the science-policy interface. Water Resources Management 21, 1075–1090. EC 2000: European Commission, Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 23, 2000 establishing a frame- work for Community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities 2000, 22.12.2000, L327/1–L327/72. Hattermann, F.F. & Kundzewicz, Z.W. 2006: Model-supported integrated river basin management – methodological framework. In: Kundze - wicz, Z.W. & F.F. Hattermann (eds): Natural systems and global change. Poznan: RCAFE PAS, 65–74. Hattermann, F.F. & Kundzewicz, Z.W. (eds) 2007: Model-supported implementation of the Water Framework Directive – a water man- ager’s guide. A Harmoni-CA Guideline. Available on: www.harmoni- ca.info. Højberg, A.L., Refsgaard, J.C., van Geer, F., Jørgensen, L.F. & Zsuffa, I. 2007a: Use of models to support the monitoring requirements in the Water Framework Directive. Water Resources Management 21, 1649–1672. Højberg, A.L., Refsgaard, J.C., Jørgensen, L.F., van Geer, F. & Zsuffa, I. 2007b: Good practice in joint use of monitoring and modelling. A catchment modelling guidance. Available on: www.harmoni-ca.info. Jørgensen, L.F., Refsgaard, J.C. & Højberg, A.L. 2007: The inadequacy of monitoring without modelling. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 9, 931–942. Quevauviller, P. et al. 2005: Science-policy integration needs in support of the implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive. Environmental Science & Policy 8, 203–211. Refsgaard, J.C., van der Sluijs, J.P., Højberg, A.L. & Vanrolleghem, P.A. 2005: Uncertainty analysis. A catchment modelling guidance. Available on: www.harmoni-ca.info. Rekolainen, S., Kämäri, J. & Hiltunen, M. 2003: A conceptual framework for identifying the need and role of models in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. International Journal on River Basin Management 1, 347–352. van Griensven, A. & Vanrolleghem, P.A. 2006: The CatchMod toolbox: easy and guided access to ICT tools for Water Framework Directive Implementation. Water Science & Technology 53, 285–292. 84 Authors’ address Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, Øster Voldgade 10, DK-1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark. E-mail: lfj@geus.dk