A comparison of national approaches to setting ecological status boundaries in phytobenthos assessment for the European Water Framework Directive: results of an intercalibration exercise

The European Union (EU)'s Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that all Member States participate in intercalibration exercises in order to ensure that ecological status concepts and assessment levels are consistent across the EU. This paper describes one such exercise, performed by the countries in the Central/Baltic Geographical Intercalibration Group stretching from Ireland in the west to Estonia in the east and from the southern parts of Scandinavia to the northern regions of Spain and Italy (but excluding alpine regions, which were intercalibrated separately). In this exercise, methods used to measure ecological status of rivers using benthic diatoms were compared. Ecological status is estimated as the ratio between the observed value of a biological element and the value expected in the absence of significant human impact. Approaches to defining the 'reference sites', from which these 'expected' values were derived, varied from country to country. Minimum criteria were established as part of the exercise but there was still considerable variation between national reference values, reflecting typological differences that could not be resolved during the exercise. A simple multimetric index was developed to compare boundary values using two widely used diatom metrics. Boundary values for high/good status and good/moderate status set by each participant were converted to their equivalent values of this intercalibration metric using linear regression. Variation of ±0.05 EQR units around the median value was considered to be acceptable and the exercise provided a means for those Member States who fell significantly above or below this line to review their approaches and, if necessary, adjust their boundaries

Integrated assessment of ecological status and misclassification of lakes: The role of uncertainty and index combination rules

The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires that the ecological status of waterbodies is assessed using multiple biological quality elements (BQEs) that are combined into a single status class. The recommended combination rule (the “one-out, all-out” rule; OOAO) has been criticised for being unreasonably conservative and for being sensitive to uncertainty. In this study, the objective was to compare the sensitivity to uncertainty of four different combination rules: (1) OOAO, (2) OOAO with exclusion of one element, (3) average and (4) weighted average. Index values for 5 BQEs (phytoplankton, phytobenthos, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish) sampled from 10 lakes in the Wel River catchment in Poland were used to classify the lakes according to the OOAO and the three alternative combination rules. Based on the mean and (where possible) standard deviation of these index values, we modelled the risk of misclassification by simulating 10,000 resamples for each BQEs in each lake, classifying each resample and calculating the proportion of misclassified resamples under each combination rule. For individual BQEs, the risk of misclassification increased both with higher uncertainty (standard deviation) and with the proximity of the index value to a class boundary. Under the OOAO rule, the risk of misclassification was more biased towards worse status (“underclassification”) than towards better status. Furthermore, risk of underclassification was more affected by uncertainty under the OOAO rule compared with the alternative combination rules. This analysis has demonstrated the weaknesses associated with the OOAO rule for integration of BQEs for lake classification. However, the alternative combination rules are associated with other shortcomings, such as the need for subjective judgement, and involve a higher risk of not protecting the most sensitive BQE and thus the whole ecosystem. We recommend that future versions of instructions for WFD implementation consider alternatives to the OOAO combination rule, and provide guidelines for weighting of individual BQEs.acceptedVersio