Suchergebnisse

EUR 31029 EN This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission's science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. ; International audience ; The assessment of lake status in Europe has evolved during the last few decades from physico-chemical focused assessment to a more comprehensive ecological approach. The EC Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires the assessment of hydromorphological and physico-chemical conditions of lakes considered as supporting elements of the biological communities. The WFD describes the hydromorphology of lakes using quality elements belonging to the hydrological regime on the one hand and to morphological conditions on the other hand. A lake can achieve good ecological status only if the aforementioned quality elements correspond to natural conditions or deviate from them very slightly. Therefore, hydromorphological assessment is crucial for ecological status assessment. During summer 2020, an inventory of the HYMO assessment and monitoring methods currently implemented or under development in the different European countries for WFD implementation was conducted. This study summarises key information reported ...

EUR 31029 EN This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission's science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. ; International audience ; The assessment of lake status in Europe has evolved during the last few decades from physico-chemical focused assessment to a more comprehensive ecological approach. The EC Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires the assessment of hydromorphological and physico-chemical conditions of lakes considered as supporting elements of the biological communities. The WFD describes the hydromorphology of lakes using quality elements belonging to the hydrological regime on the one hand and to morphological conditions on the other hand. A lake can achieve good ecological status only if the aforementioned quality elements correspond to natural conditions or deviate from them very slightly. Therefore, hydromorphological assessment is crucial for ecological status assessment. During summer 2020, an inventory of the HYMO assessment and monitoring methods currently implemented or under development in the different European countries for WFD implementation was conducted. This study summarises key information reported through the aforementioned inventory in order to get a comprehensive overview of the hydromorphological methods at the present time and to contribute to more common understanding of how hydromorphological conditions are defined and hydromorphological changes are characterised in different national contexts in Europe. The high response rate of the European survey makes it possible to provide a comprehensive overview of lake hydromorphological assessment and monitoring methods implemented or under development in the different European countries.Currently, 33 methods are applied or in development in 20 countries, 20 are currently assessment methods, 10 are monitoring methods and 3 methods will be replace by new protocols. This report gives also a basis to carry out future relevant good practices suitable with standards such as the water quality guidance standard on assessing the hydromorphological features of lakes – EN 16039:2011 and the water quality guidance standard on determining the degree of modification of lake hydromorphology – EN 16870:2017. Hydrological characteristics are relatively well taken into account by the different countries except the residence time although its evaluation is recommended in the EN 16039:2011 standard. Surface-groundwater interactions and stratification/mixing are also poorly taken into account in the different countries even though the interactions between surface water and groundwater are characterised in a majority of countries but not used to assess lake conditions. Morphological characteristics are also relatively well taken into account by the different countries, in particular lake depth variation, shape of the littoral zone and shore zone aquatic vegetation. Nevertheless, the planform pattern, substrate and aquatic vegetation in the open water are still poorly used to evaluate lake conditions although their evaluation is recommended in the EN 16039:2011 standard. All of the 20 current assessment methods use a scoring system which are mostly quantitative although the degree of confidence is still poorly included in the methods. However, the scoring system and the way in which class thresholds are defined remain to be specified by the different countries.Finally, two main hurdles remain; a methodological hurdle with the determination of reference conditions which is not clearly defined for many countries although this is essential when assessing lake conditions and a scientific hurdle with regard to the link with biology of the different hydromorphological assessment methods. In order to improve best practices and write recommendations further information is needed on how reference conditions and classification are undertaken at Member State level for assessing lake hydromorphology.

The European Union has embarked on a policy which aims to achieve good ecological status in all surface waters (i.e. rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters). In theory, ecological status assessment methods should address the effects of all relevant human pressures. In this study, we analyze the degree to which methods European countries use to assess ecological status tackle various pressures affecting European waters. Nutrient pollution is by far the best-covered pressure for all four water categories. Out of total of 423 assessment methods, 370 assess eutrophication and pressure-specific relationships have been demonstrated for 212 of these. "General degradation" is addressed by 238 methods, mostly validated by relationships to combined pressure indices. Other major pressures have received significantly less effort: hydromorphological degradation is assessed by 160 methods and pressure-specific relationships have been demonstrated for just 40 of these. Hydromorphological pressures are addressed (at least by one BQE) only by 25% countries for coastal waters and 70–80% for lakes and transitional waters. Specific diagnostic tools (i.e. single-pressure relationships) for hydromorphology have only been developed by a few countries: only 20% countries have such methods for lakes, coastal and transitional waters and less than half for rivers. Toxic contamination is addressed by 90 methods; however, pressure-specific relationships have been demonstrated for just eight of these. Only two countries have demonstrated pressure-specific acidification methods for rivers, and three for lakes. In summary, methods currently in use mostly address eutrophication and/or general degradation, but there is not much evidence that they reliably pick up the effects of other significant pressures such as hydromorphology or toxic contamination. Therefore, we recommend that countries re-examine: (1) those pressures which affect different water categories in the country; (2) relevant assessment methods to tackle those pressures; ...

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.

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 reviewed

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.

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.