1. 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)

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

3. 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

4. Typologies based on expert knowledge or on monitoring data

5. 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)

6. Different requirements for different purposes

7. 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

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

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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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)

14. 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)

15. 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

16. “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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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