Water Framework Directive scientific and technical support related to ecological status - summary report of JRC activities in 2015

This report summarises the scientific and technical contributions of DG JRC to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) related to ecological status covering the year 2015. JRC is providing long-term support aimed at achieving a common understanding of good status and potential, the principal environmental objectives of the WFD. An important aspect of this work is the WFD intercalibration exercise as required in WFD Annex V 1.4.1, ensuring that classification methods are compliant with the Directive’s requirement and give comparable result, thus establishing a level playing field for the measures that need to be taken my Member States to achieve good status or potential. JRC scientific and technical support is carried out in the framework of the WFD “common implementation strategy” (CIS) mandated by the EU Water Directors, where JRC is responsible for the working group on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT), working with experts from all Member States and key stakeholder organisations. Main issues covered in 2015 were intercalibration of good ecological status, intercalibration of good ecological potential, nutrient standards, typology, and hydromorphology. A new CIS work programme has been agreed upon by the Water Directors in which the JRC will continue to play a key role in the ECOSTAT working group for the years 2016-2018.JRC.H.1-Water Resource

Ecological Quality Ratios for Ecological Quality Assessment in Inland and Marine Waters

This report addresses the issue: What is a WFD compliant assessment method? This is done by focusing on the concept of the Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR). The EQR incorporates the key WFD requirements for ecological classification: typology, reference conditions, and class boundary setting. The Deliverable is targeted both to the policy makers and competent authorities implementing the Water Framework Directive and the scientists supporting them with their specific knowledge. The Classification Guidance separates three levels in the biological assessment: the parameter level, the quality element level, and the status classification. The main conclusion is that the WFD requires classification of water bodies at the quality element level, and that the worst of the relevant quality elements determines the final classification (the “one out, all out” principle). How the different parameters within a quality element are combined is not prescribed; this can either be done by combining them in a multimetric index, or in any other way. WFD- compliance criteria for assessment methods include reference conditions setting, definition of quality classes, and intercalibration of those boundaries. Those are currently addressed in the WFD intercalibration exercise, with a strong focus on specific quality elements and pressures. It is expected that the remaining quality elements and pressures will be addressed in the next couple of years, and that there will be a tendency from very specific, single-parameter, pressure-specific methods towards more general multimetric approaches. Quantification of EQR uncertainty should be implemented in future assessment programs. Software like starbugs (http://www.eu-star.at/) may help in the assessment of EQR uncertainty and provides a first attempt into this direction. It should be remarked that the analysis of uncertainty of EQR classification of a given site resulting from the use of a specific assessment scheme does not reveal the (unknown) real quality class of that site. If the EQR assessment outcome can be incorporated into a modelling framework, uncertainties may be assessed through careful evaluation of model predictions.JRC.H.5-Rural, water and ecosystem resource

The use of remote sensing to characterise hydromorphological properties of European rivers

Remote sensing (RS) technology offers unparalleled opportunities to explore river systems using RADAR, multispectral, hyperspectral, and LIDAR data. The accuracy reached by these technologies recently has started to satisfy the spatial and spectral resolutions required to properly analyse the hydromorphological character of river systems at multiple scales. Using the River Hierarchical Framework (RHF) as a reference we describe the state-ofthe- art RS technologies that can be implemented to quantify hydromorphological characteristics at each of the spatial scales incorporated in the RHF (i.e. catchment, landscape unit, river segment, river reach, sub-reach - geomorphic and hydraulic units). We also report the results of a survey on RS data availability in EU member states that provides the basis for a discussion on the current potential to derive RHF hydromorphological indicators from high-resolution multispectral images and topographic LiDAR at the national scale across Europe. This paper shows that many of the assessment indicators proposed by the RHF can be already derived by different RS sources and existing methodologies, and that EU countries have sufficient RS data at present to already begin their incorporation into hydromorphology assessment and monitoring, as mandated by WFD, which so far have been insufficiently addressed by the member states due to the demanding efforts it would require. With cooperation and planning, RS data can form a fundamental component of hydromorphological assessment and monitoring in the future to help support the effective and sustainable management of rivers, and this would be done most effectively through the establishment of multi-purpose RS acquisition campaigns and the development of shared and standardized hydromorphological RS databases updated regularly through planned resurveyed campaigns.JRC.H.1-Water Resource

Assessment of the effectiveness of reported Water Framework Directive Programmes of Measures - Part II – development of a system of Europe-wide Pressure Indicators

The EC DG JRC is using in-house models and other information to build indicators of pressures on water bodies, in the context of the 2nd river basin management plan (RBMP) implementation assessment (Water Framework Directive (WFD) 60/2000/EC, art. 18) and review of the WFD (art. 19). These indicators are meant to provide a picture of major water pressures at the European scale. The main reason to develop a set of independent pressure indicators is the need to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of the EU water policies at broad. If the indicators are realistic, the models used for their computation can be used also as tools to simulate scenarios with changing pressures, as a result of policies or other drivers (such as climate changes, implementation of measures or EU sectorial policies). The EC DG ENV is steering the development of an integrated hydro-economic modelling platform in support to the evaluation of policies, with the broadest possible involvement of the EU Member States, and collaborates with DG JRC by leading a large study on the economics of water in Europe also in order to supplement JRC’s biophysical models and indicators with additional economic evidence about the costs and benefits of reducing pressures and improving the conditions of freshwater and marine ecosystems. Another question is whether the pressures are evaluated consistently throughout the European Union. The JRC indicators could be used to benchmark pressure and status reported by the Member States at a different scale. In fact, if JRC indicators are sufficiently reliable, it is expected that overall trends will be consistent with the pressures reported by the Member States. At the same time, JRC indicators do not take into account local conditions in specific water bodies, and should not be compared to reported pressures and status at water body level. The aim of benchmarking is to understand the reasons for assessment discrepancies, primarily for verification purposes. In particular, discrepancies should not be considered per se as evidence of non-compliance in the implementation of the WFD by Member States. particularly, if a given river basin is flagged by Member State reports to suffer from a given pressure, but this is not found in the JRC pressure indicators, the knowledge available at the Commission is likely inadequate for that river basin. The benchmarking process with reported pressures/status in itself could prompt the Commission to seek an explanation for the discrepancies, and eventually to update the indicators, with the overall goal of a coherent and shared vision of pressures at the European and river basin district scales. DG ENV encourages Member States to provide feedback to DG JRC on the indicators and the underpinning models, so that the European scale picture of water pressures they provide can be improved to a sufficient level of realism and representativeness, and can be consequently used as a basis for European water policy evaluation and development. As a first opportunity for this process, the JRC organised a workshop in Ispra on 11-12 May 2016 with the aim to collect feedback from experts on the proposed methodologies and indicators. The JRC pressure indicators are updated over time, as new knowledge is available at the European level. Therefore the benchmarking of local and European assessments is supposed to be a continuous process. The reviews by experts in the Member States should not add to the administrative burden related to the WFD, but should be conducted with the modalities of scientific peer reviews. It will be necessary to pay significant attention to the way the results are communicated, so to clarify the content of the indicators and avert risks of misinterpretation. The review of the indicators will serve also this purpose. This document summarizes the JRC indicators, the state of play with their update and further development, and the outcomes of the workshop held in Ispra on May 11-12, 2016.JRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resource

Impacts of existing and planned hydropower dams on river fragmentation in the Balkan Region

The Balkan region has some of the best conserved rivers in Europe, but is also the location of ~3000 planned hydropower dams that are expected to help decarbonise energy production. A conflict between policies that promote renewable hydropower and those that prioritise river conservation has ensued, which can only be resolved with the help of reliable information. Using ground-truthed barrier data, we analysed the extent of current longitudinal river fragmentation in the Balkan region and simulated nine dam construction scenarios that varied depending on the number, location and size of the planned dams. Balkan rivers are currently fragmented by 83,017 barriers and have an average barrier density of 0.33 barriers/km after correcting for barrier underreporting; this is 2.2 times lower than the mean barrier density found across Europe and serves to highlight the relatively unfragmented nature of these rivers. However, our analysis shows that all simulated dam construction scenarios would result in a significant loss of connectivity compared to existing conditions. The largest loss of connectivity (−47 %), measured as reduction in barrier-free length, would occur if all planned dams were built, 20 % of which would impact on protected areas. The smallest loss of connectivity (−8 %) would result if only large dams (>10 MW) were built. In contrast, building only small dams (<10 MW) would cause a 45 % loss of connectivity while only contributing 32 % to future hydropower capacity. Hence, the construction of many small hydropower plants will cause a disproportionately large increase in fragmentation that will not be accompanied by a corresponding increase in hydropower. At present, hydropower development in the Balkan rivers does not require Strategic Environmental Assessment, and does not consider cumulative impacts. We encourage planners and policy makers to explicitly consider trade-offs between gains in hydropower and losses in river connectivity at the river basin scale.Impacts of existing and planned hydropower dams on river fragmentation in the Balkan RegionpublishedVersio

A new broad typology for rivers and lakes in Europe: Development and application for large-scale environmental assessments

European countries have defined >1000 national river types and >400 national lake types to implement the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). In addition, common river and lake types have been defined within regions of Europe for intercalibrating the national classification systems for ecological status of water bodies. However, only a low proportion of national types correspond to these common intercalibration types. This causes uncertainty concerning whether the classification of ecological status is consistent across countries. Therefore, through an extensive dialogue with and data provision from all EU countries, we have developed a generic typology for European rivers and lakes. This new broad typology reflects the natural variability in the most commonly used environmental type descriptors: altitude, size and geology, as well as mean depth for lakes. These broad types capture 60–70% of all national WFD types including almost 80% of all European river and lake water bodies in almost all EU countries and can also be linked to all the common intercalibration types. The typology provides a new framework for large-scale assessments across country borders, as demonstrated with an assessment of ecological status and pressures based on European data from the 2nd set of river basin management plans. The typology can also be used for a variety of other large-scale assessments, such as reviewing and linking the water body types to habitat types under the Habitats Directive and the European Nature Information System (EUNIS), as well as comparing type-specific limit values for nutrients and other supporting quality elements across countries. Thus, the broad typology can build the basis for all scientific outputs of managerial relevance related to water body types

Water – Energy Nexus in Europe

The interdependencies between water and energy are well known and they have become a topic of increasing attention for the scientific and policy communities. Water is used throughout the energy industry, and the water system needs energy for collecting, pumping, treating and desalinising water. Increasing water and energy needs, or changes in water availability due to climate change could have significant effects on the energy system. These problems are expected to be very acute in developing countries, but also in Europe. The EU has ambitious decarbonisation goals for the future, which could be very difficult to achieve if the European water system becomes too stressed, since decarbonisation relies on water-demanding energy technologies such as biofuels, carbon capture, or nuclear power. The water sector is not as energy-intensive as other industries. Despite that, the operation of the water sector may offer solutions for increasing the flexibility of the European power system. This may be achieved by powering water treatment and desalination plants with renewable energy and by using water supply and distribution networks to store energy. All the above considerations denote that the use and management of energy and water resources need to be addressed simultaneously, especially when taking into consideration that the fundamental difference between energy and water is that energy can be renewable, however water resource are finite. Only with this “nexus” approach it is possible to take full advantage of the opportunities to increase energy efficiency in the water sector; to exploit the possibilities of the water system as a source of flexibility for the power system; to extract more energy from water; and to reduce the water footprint of the energy industries. The Water Energy Food and Ecosystem Nexus (WEFE Nexus) flagship project addresses in an integrated way the interdependencies and interactions between water, energy, agriculture, water supply and treatment, as well as the environment. These interactions have been so far largely underappreciated. The WEFE-Nexus can be depicted as a way to overcome stakeholders’ view of resources as individual assets by developing an understanding of the broader system. It is the realisation that acting from the perspective of individual sectors cannot help tackle future societal challenges. This report summarises the main results obtained to date within the WEFE project as regards the water-energy nexus.JRC.C.7-Knowledge for the Energy Unio

Scientific Support to the European Commission on the Marine Strategy Framework Directive - Management Group Report

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) (MSFD) requires that the European Commis-sion (by 15 July 2010) should lay down criteria and methodological standards to allow consistency in approach in evaluating the extent to which Good Environmental Status (GES) is being achieved. ICES and JRC were contracted to provide scientific support for the Commission in meeting this obligation. A total of 10 reports have been prepared relating to the descriptors of GES listed in Annex I of the Directive. Eight reports have been prepared by groups of independent experts coordinated by JRC and ICES in response to this contract. In addition, reports for two descriptors (Contaminants in fish and other seafood and Marine Litter) were written by expert groups coordinated by DG SANCO and IFREMER respectively. A Task Group was established for each of the qualitative Descriptors. Each Task Group consisted of selected experts providing experience related to the four marine regions (the Baltic Sea, the North-east Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea) and an appropriate scope of relevant scien-tific expertise. Observers from the Regional Seas Conventions were also invited to each Task Group to help ensure the inclusion of relevant work by those Conventions. This is the report of the MSFD Management Group.JRC.DDG.H.5-Rural, water and ecosystem resource

A hitchhiker's guide to European lake ecological assessment and intercalibration

The Water Framework Directive is the first international legislation to require European countries to establish comparable ecological assessment schemes for their freshwaters. A key element in harmonising quality classification within and between Europe's river basins is an "Intercalibration" exercise, stipulated by the WFD, to ensure that the good status boundaries in all of the biological assessment methods correspond to similar levels of anthropogenic pressure. In this article, we provide a comprehensive overview of this international comparison, focusing on the assessment schemes developed for freshwater lakes. Out of 82 lake ecological assessment methods reported for the comparison, 62 were successfully intercalibrated and included in the EC Decision on intercalibration, with a high proportion of phytoplankton (18), macrophyte (17) and benthic fauna (13) assessment methods. All the lake assessment methods are reviewed in this article, including the results of intercalibration. Furthermore, the current gaps and way forward to reach consistent management objectives for European lakes are discussed. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

Protecting and restoring Europe's waters:an analysis of the future development needs of the Water Framework Directive

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is a pioneering piece of legislation that aims to protect and enhance aquatic ecosystems and promote sustainable water use across Europe. There is growing concern that the objective of good status, or higher, in all EU waters by 2027 is a long way from being achieved in many countries. Through questionnaire analysis of almost 100 experts, we provide recommendations to enhance WFD monitoring and assessment systems, improve programmes of measures and further integrate with other sectoral policies. Our analysis highlights that there is great potential to enhance assessment schemes through strategic design of monitoring networks and innovation, such as earth observation. New diagnostic tools that use existing WFD monitoring data, but incorporate novel statistical and trait-based approaches could be used more widely to diagnose the cause of deterioration under conditions of multiple pressures and deliver a hierarchy of solutions for more evidence-driven decisions in river basin management. There is also a growing recognition that measures undertaken in river basin management should deliver multiple benefits across sectors, such as reduced flood risk, and there needs to be robust demonstration studies that evaluate these. Continued efforts in ‘mainstreaming’ water policy into other policy sectors is clearly needed to deliver wider success with WFD goals, particularly with agricultural policy. Other key policy areas where a need for stronger integration with water policy was recognised included urban planning (waste water treatment), flooding, climate and energy (hydropower). Having a deadline for attaining the policy objective of good status is important, but even more essential is to have a permanent framework for river basin management that addresses the delays in implementation of measures. This requires a long-term perspective, far beyond the current deadline of 2027