WFD compliance

European Union Water Initiative plus
for Eastern Partnership
© iStockphoto.com/ansonsaw
Support of Water Policy Reforms
towards Integrated Water Resources Management
WORKSHOP ON
ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION
WFD compliance
Georg Wolfram
Kyiv, 19-20 June 2018

As a reminder …
2
1. Which water body shall be assessed? (category, type)
2. What is the expected key pressure?
3. What is the most sensitive biological quality element?
4. Which sampling method is most appropriate?
5. How shall the sample be processed in the lab?
6. How shall the data be analysed?
7. WFD compliance check & statistical evaluation

KEY OBJECTIVE OF THE WFD
3
 The WFD aims at achieving a good ecological status (GES)
and a good chemical status in all surface waters.
 One of the main challenges: same understanding of GES
among all countries
 The harmonisation of the understanding of GES across
Europe was garantueed by the intercalibration of
assessment methods. During this process, all methods were
checked, compared and statistically evaluated.
 The starting point in the intercalibration was a
compliance check of the national assessment methods

COMPLIANCE CHECK
4
The compliance check is based on the following criteria:
1. Ecological status is classified by one of five classes (high, good, moderate, poor and
bad).
2. High, good and moderate ecological status are set in line with the WFD’s normative
definitions (boundary setting procedure)
3. All relevant parameters indicative of the biological quality element are covered
4. Assessment is adapted to intercalibration common types
5. The water body is assessed against type-specific near-natural reference conditions
6. Assessment results are expressed as ecological quality ratios (EQRs)
7. Sampling procedure allows for representative information in space and time
8. All data relevant for the biological assessment are covered by the sampling procedure
9. Selected taxonomic level achieves adequate confidence and precision in classification

COMPLIANCE CHECK
5
The most important and most critical criteria are
 the definition of reference conditions
 the boundary setting
They have direct influence on the assessment result.
The boundary setting is only possible, if the data allow
establishing a significant pressure-response relationship

REFERENCE CONDITIONS
6
Why do we need reference conditions?
 They cover a range of conditions, against which the actual
status is assessed.
 They shall be defined for all types by means of reference
values.
 The reference value is not the best value possible, but a value
within the range of reference conditions, which corresponds to
High status

REFERENCE CONDITIONS
7
Example:
Metric = fish species richness
River type = large lowland rivers
Reference value = 40
Actual value = 28
Ecological assessment
 quotient of the current value and the reference value
Ecological quality ratio (EQR) = 28 / 40 = 0.7

HOW TO DEFINE THE REFERENCE VALUE?
8
Options for defining reference conditions:
i) Spatially based reference conditions using data from
monitoring sites, which were selected based on very low
anthropogenic pressure;
ii) Reference conditions based on predictive modelling;
iii) Temporally based reference conditions using either historical
data or paleoreconstruction or a combination of both;
iv)A combination of the above approaches

9
Spatially based approach
 Select reference sites (based on defined reference criteria)
 Sample these sites during a monitoring survey
 Gives an overview of the range of reference conditions for
certain metrics or indices

10
Spatially based approach
Example: BQE Fish fauna, Type: small mountain rivers
Step 1: Define reference criteria (using maps, orthophotos, databases,
expert judgement), e.g.
- no large settlements in the river basin upstream
- no significant point sources (WWTP) in the river basin upstream
- no industry in the river basin upstream
- land use of intensive agriculture <5% in the river basin upstream
Step 2: Monitoring at the sites selected according to these criteria
Step 3: Calculate biological metrics used for the assessment
Step 4: Define the reference value, e.g. the median

11
Temporally based approach
Example: Phytoplankton, Alpine lakes
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1932
1934
1936
1938
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
%Biovolumen
Ceratium
Gomphosphaeria
Cyclotella
Reference conditions prior to industrialisation, intensive
tourism etc.  derive reference value for %sensitive taxa

12
Combination of different approaches

13

14
Supporting criteria

15
Carefully check the selected reference sites (plausibility check!)

16
If none of the approaches (spatial, temporal, modelling) can be
applied:
 Data from the same types in other countries
 Define benchmark sites, which represent Good status rather than
reference conditions or High status („alternative benchmarking“)
 Plausibility check with reference values from other countries,
especially EU member states who have successfully passed the
intercalibration process.
 Scientific literature
 Expert judgment

17
Example: Phytoplankton, very large rivers (XGIG)
0,00
0,20
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
Biologicalindex
Pressure index
Country B
Country C
Country A Country A defines
a reference value of 8
 Not plausible, if sites
from a comparable type
in other countries indicate
that higher values may
occur unter low pressure
10
8
9
4
2
0
Plausibility check with reference values from other countries

18
Example: Bulgarian rivers, macroinvertebrates
Assessment method:
- Irish Biotic Index
- 2 metrics: total number of taxa and taxa richness of 5 indicator
groups (from A very sensitive to E very tolerant)
- Invertebrate taxa were assigned to these 5 groups by expert
judgment and based on scientific literature
- Invertebrates are counted in abundance classes

19
Reference values?
- The number of sites with very low anthropogenic impact was too low
to use the spatial approach.
- There are no data from times prior to anthropogenic impacts.
- No modelling can be used to define reference conditions.
 Alternative benchmark approach

20
Criteria for defining alternative benchmark sites
Chemical criteria (nutrient, organic pollution)
Biological
criteria
Mainly
hymo criteria
(ordinal data)
Land use index (LUI)

21
Reference value and national boundary setting:
 Monitoring of benchmark sites
 Calculate the Biotic Index from all sites
 Plausibility check!
 85%percentile of benchmark sites defined as High/Good boundary
 Reference site calculated as “H/G boundary divided by 0.8”
 Other class boundaries derived using equidistant class widths

22
Find the right balance
between “quick and
dirty” and sufficiently
precise!
Significant relationship
between anthropogenic
pressure and biological
response = classification

CONCLUSION
24
 Take into account requirements as defined in various guidance
papers
 Use experience from other countries (reports from
intercalibration can be downloaded from official EU websites)
 Exchange information and ask whenever necessary
 Be creative!
 Keep it simple!

WFD compliance

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (9)

Similar to WFD compliance

Similar to WFD compliance (20)

More from EU Water Initiative plus for Eastern Partnership

More from EU Water Initiative plus for Eastern Partnership (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

WFD compliance