ASSIGNING WATER BODY TYPES IN THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION Wouter van de Bund EC Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and sustainability, Ispra (Italy)

OUTLINE Introduction: Typology and the WFD Questionnaire results Discussion: which typology will work for which purpose? Recommendations Typology and REFCOND

Aim of typology for reference conditions Grouping of sites where the biology is similar in absence of human disturbance, to enable the detection of the effects of human disturbance variability within types should be smaller than between types variability depends both on typology and the chosen biological parameters

Typologies based on expert knowledge or on monitoring data

Typology in WFD implementation Basis for type-specific reference conditions Reporting initial characterisation of water bodies (2005) mapping of types in RBMP (2009) Intercalibration selection of types and sites for intercalibration (2003/4)

Different requirements for different purposes

System A and System B System A: ecoregion approach (Illies) with fixed categories lakes: 25 (ecoregions) * 3 (altitude) *3 (depth) * 4 (size) * 3 (geology) = 108 types System B: physical and chemical factors determining the characteristics of the water body and hence the biology more flexible; obligatory and optional factors

Existence of national typology systems (questionnaire results) Most countries have no national typology systems Existing typologies need to be adapted to meet WFD requirements

Planned use of typology systems for WFD (questionnaire results) Rivers Lakes A B ? A B ? Typology system

Applicability of System A types (questionnaire results) System A is not optimal Class boundaries arbitrary Italy, Norway, Sweden: ecoregions too large - problems with North-South gradients UK: System A could be used, but not for reference conditions

Need for supporting data Usefulness of any typology for reference conditions needs to be validated by data monitoring data paleolimnological data estimate of within-type variability for different parameters System A (and the different planned System B’s) are not yet validated

UK River Habitat Survey: testing of 5 river typology systems Based on data from 4500 river sites Variability within types >> variability between types RHS conclusion: don’t use fixed classes for reference conditions because divisions are arbitrary

UK recommendation: use different typologies for different purposes Simple typologies don’t work for reference conditions, but are required for reporting Use site-specific reference conditions Reporting: discrete, simple system (either A or B)

RIVPACS approach for reference conditions Model for prediction of reference macroinvertebrate communities in rivers using multivariate analysis of data from reference locations Similar approach applied in Sweden in both streams and lakes (littoral and profundal)

Problems with site-specific reference conditions Depends on availability of data Data not available for all water body categories Data not available for all biological quality elements Data not available for all (eco)regions

“RIVPACS approach” beyond UK rivers Including all biological quality elements Large geographical area Wider range of water body categories Standardised sampling methodology May not be useful for direct WFD implementation needs, but could be beneficial in the long term

Harmonised typology for reporting/intercalibration? Most countries will use System B Needs to be defined in most cases Risk of incompatibility between countries: some harmonisation beneficial Development of ‘core scheme’ based on ecological knowledge can be expanded to meet regional requirements

Example: ECOFRAME project Ecological Quality and functioning of shallow lake ecosystems with respect to the needs of the European Water Framework Directive Finland, Estonia, Poland, Sweden, Denmark, UK, Ireland Netherlands, Germany, Spain, JRC

ECOFRAME proposed typology for shallow lakes Core scheme of 48 categories: 4 climate categories (ice cover, summer temperature) 2 lake area categories (threshold 10 km2) 2 catchment types (organic soil, rock/mineral based) 3 conductivity classes (indicative for calcareous and marine inputs) Scheme should be refined locally to incorporate specific lake types

Benefits of ‘core System B’ typology Single framework for reporting and reference conditions Can be used for reference conditions (refined locally) because class boundaries are ecologically relevant Compatible typologies allow comparison and harmonisation of assessment systems

Conclusions and points for discussion (1) In the WFD implementation typology is required for different purposes: reference conditions, reporting, intercalibration Reference conditions and reporting require different kinds of typologies

Conclusions and points for discussion (2) System A is not suitable for type-specific reference conditions types are not ecologically meaningful within-type variability is not tested, but is likely to be too large

Conclusions and points for discussion (3) Because in System B class boundaries are unspecified, there is a risk that different countries use incomparable systems This would be an obstacle for comparison and harmonisation of assessment systems A single, transparent core typology (to be refined locally) would be beneficial

Conclusions and points for discussion (4) Reference conditions: site-specific RC preferable, but this requires models based on data and/or expert knowledge The UK RIVPACS approach could be extended (geographically, with other quality elements, with other categories of water bodies) To achieve this, a European initiative to bring together the data would be required

Typology and the REFCOND project (1) Typology not specifically included in REFCOND work program WFD requires type-specific reference conditions Too strict application of WFD typology requirements could prevent useful reference conditions

Typology and the REFCOND project (2) REFCOND guidance should include recommendations on how good typology can enable good reference conditions REFCOND guidance could also highlight the importance of collecting (reference) data in a standardised way for validation of typologies and reference conditions