Overzicht. Monitoring en beoordeling in the KRW. 368 nationale methodes

Overzicht Monitoring in andere landen Wouter van de Bund Met bijdragen van Sandra Poikane, Wendy Bonne, Nikolaos Zampoukas (JRC Ispra) Sebastian Birk (UDE)

Monitoring en beoordeling in the KRW • Biologische beoordelingsmethodes • Iedere lidstaat ontwikkelt zijn eigen methodes • KRW schrijft voor welke aspecten vereist zijn: – Abundantie, biomassa, soortensamenstelling, ‘bloom frequency’ voor fytoplankton

• • • •

Monitoring en assessment in de KRW Overzicht van KRW beoordelingsmethodes Intercalibratie Conclusies

Belangrijkste elementen van KRW beoordelingsmethodes

REFERENCE DEFINITION

NUMERICAL EVALUATION

DATA ACQUISITION

• KRW geeft algemene beschrijvingen van high, good, moderate status

BOUNDARY SETTING

– Intercalibratie van HG en GM klassegrenzen CEN en nationale standaards

Overzicht van KRW beoordelingsmethodes • Samenwerking ECOSTAT/EU project WISER – Sebastian Birk, UDE ism JRC

• (bijna) Compleet overzicht van biologische methodes voor de KRW methodes voor de KRW • Informatie verzameld door enquete • Voor intercalibratie en andere doeleinden • Informatie is vrij toegankelijk: http://www.wiser.eu/results/methods‐db/

CLASSIFICATION

Nationale methodes, Intercalibratie van klassegrenzen

Nationale methodes in Europa Totaal: 29 landen: 27 EU lidstaten Noorwegen Croatië

Kustwateren: 24 landen x 3 BQEs = 72 methodes th d Overgangswateren: 17 landen x 4 BQEs = 68 methodes Rivieren: 29 landen x 4 BQEs = 116 methodes

368 nationale methodes

Meren/Stuwmeren: 28 landen x 4 BQEs = 112 methodes

1

Overzicht van KRW beoordelingsmethodes


Completeness of ecological status classification per region Completeness of ecological status classification per BQE Western Europe Benthic Invertebrates

Northern Europe

Angiosperms and Macroalgae

Southern Europe Southern Europe

Phytplankton Fish Fauna

Eastern Europe 0%

50%

100%

Macrophytes and Phytobenthos

Percent coverage of BQEs within water categories of 29 European countries

0%

50%

100%

Percent coverage of BQEs within water categories of 29 European countries Western Europe: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, United Kingdom Northern Europe: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden Southern Europe: Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Spain Eastern Europe: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia Bron: Birk, S., Strackbein, J. & Hering, D., 2010. WISER methods database. Version: May 2010. Available at http://www.wiser.eu/results/methods-db/.

Bron: Birk, S., Strackbein, J. & Hering, D., 2010. WISER methods database. Version: May 2010. Available at http://www.wiser.eu/results/methods-db/.



Physico‐chemical pressures

21%

54% 25%

Eutrophication (n=213) Pollution by organic matter (n=97) Acidification, Heavy metals, Pollution by organic compounds (n=81)





Pressure‐Impact‐Validation per Biological Quality Element

Pressure‐Impact‐Validation

No

8%

Yes

100% 75% 50%

29%

25%

63%


Fish Fauna (n=38)

Macrophytes s.l. (n=62)

Benthic Invertebrates (n=71)

Yes (n=175)

Phytoplankton (n=59)

No (n=80)

Phytobenthos (n=25)

No information available (n=22)

0%


2



Pressure‐Impact‐Validation per Water Category Yes

Validated pressures‐impact relationships among water categories

No

100%

100%

75%

75%

0%

Transitional Waters (n=55)

0%

Coastal Waters (n=73)

25%

Rivers (n=86)

50%

25%

Lakes (n=67)

50%



Lakes (n=43)

Rivers (n=60)

General degradation Hydromorphology Water/sediment quality

Coastal and Transitional Waters (n=62)

Hydrology Land use



Taxonomisch niveau van de basisgegevens




Conclusies ‐ methodes • KRW vereist een groot aantal methodes… • Ca. 40% nog niet beschikbaar – Regionale verschillen – Verschillen per BQE V hill BQE – Verschillen per categorie (R > L > K > T)

• Methodes sterk gericht op eutrofiëring, Average number of metrics per water category and BQE Bron: Birk, S., Strackbein, J. & Hering, D., 2010. WISER methods database. Version: May 2010. Available at http://www.wiser.eu/results/methods-db/.

3

Intercalibration: Setting of good status class boundaries Intercalibratie van “good ecological status”

– Consistent with WFD definitions – Comparable between all 25 Member States

1 high

OK

good d moderate poor bad

Restoration needed

0 EQR

Intercalibratie – een langduring en moeizaam proces… 2001

Establishment of Intercalibration working group June 2001

2002

2003 2004

2007…

Guidance on intercalibration Dec. 2002

Draft Register for intercalibration network

Selection of intercalibration sites 2003-4

2005 2006

Deliverable

2003 Final Register for intercalibration network

2004 Intercalibration exercise 2005-6

Formal WFD Intercalibration

Report synthesis on comparability of ecological quality class boundaries 2006

Reporting to SCG, Wa ater Directors & WFD Committee

Process

Intercalibratie fase 1 • Eerste resultaten officieel in 2008 • Niet compleet – belangrijke lacunes – Niet alle BQEs, soms alleen parameters (Chl‐a) – Niet alle GIGs – Heterogeniteit in methodologie (door ‘learning by doing’) – Problemen met referentiecondities

• Tweede fase noodzakelijk • Doel: alles klaar in 2011

Preparation of continuation after 2006…

Preconditions

Guidance for Phase 2

Q1. Do all national assessment methods meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive?

NO

Exclude methods not meeting the requirements.

NO

Establish groups of methods within which intercalibration is carried out and exclude methods that do not fit in any group.

YES IC feasibility check 1

Q2. Do all national methods address the same common type(s) and pressure(s), and follow a similar assessment concept?

• Preconditions

YES

• Harmonised process for all GIGs, BQEs covering the different IC ‘options’ • Only intercalibrate WFD compliant methods at BQE level – Compliance check of methods with common criteria

Q3. Do all countries apply a common assessment method (but different classifications)?

YES

NO

Data basis for IC analysis Common Dataset

Common Dataset Common Dataset feat. partial datasets

IC option

1 – Common Assessment Method

• Datasets and Intercalibration options

2 – Use of Common Metrics

3 – Direct Comparison supported by Use of Common Metrics

Selection of common metric(s) IC feasibility check 2

Q5. Are all methods reasonably related to the common metric(s)? YES

• Common data sets and common metrics wherever possible • Harmonised criteria to assess comparability of class boundaries

Q4. Is the BQE data sampling and processing generally similar, so that all national assessment methods can reasonably be applied to the data of other countries?

NO

YES

NO Improve common metric(s) or reconsider step Q2.

Benchmarking

Q6. Do the intercalibration datasets contain sites in near-natural conditions? YES Screen for sites using abiotic reference criteria, validate with biological data.

NO Screen for sites using abiotic criteria representing selected environmental status, validate with biological data.

• Benchmarking

Description of IC type-specific reference/biological benchmark communities at GIG level, considering possible biogeographical differences Boundary comparison/ setting

Q7. Do the good ecological status boundaries of the national methods comply with the WFD normative definitions? YES

NO

Demonstrate national boundary setting and compare national classifications.

Design and apply Boundary Setting Protocol at GIG level.

Description of IC type-specific biological communities at GIG level representing moderate deviation from reference conditions (goodmoderate boundary), including associated environmental conditions

• Boundary setting • Boundary comparison and harmonization

4

Intercalibratie – huidige status

Lakes phytoplankton , macrophytes (July 2010)

• JRC maakt gedetailleerde overzichten van de huidige status voor alle BQEs en regio’s (GIGs): – – – –

Beschikbaarheid van nationale methodes voor elk land Bijdragen aan gemeenschappelijke dataset voor elk land Actieve deelname vor lek land Verwachte resultaten in 2012

• Informatie vrij beschikbaar: • http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/jrc/jrc_eewai/library NL: OK

Lakes benthic fauna, fish (July 2010)

Expected results for round 2 IC for lakes

NL: OK

Rivers phytobenthos , macrophytes (July 2010)

NL: OK

Rivers benthic fauna, fish (July 2010)

NL: OK

5

Expected results for round 2 IC for rivers

Coastal Phytoplankton, macroalgae/angiosperms (Sept 2010)

NL: +/- OK

Coastal benthic fauna (Sept 2010)

Transitional Phytoplankton, macroalgae/angiosperms (Sept 2010)

Expected results for round 2 IC for coastal waters

Transitional benthic fauna and fish (Sept 2010)

White = no IC due to lack of common types NL: methods OK

White = no IC due to lack of common types NL: OK

6

Expected results for round 2 IC for transitional waters

Conclusies • 10 jaar WFD Æ ontwikkeling biologische methodes – Rivieren: voor alle BQEs – Meren: voor de meeste BQEs; vissen relatief problematisch – Kust/overgangswateren: meet problematisch

• Grote mate van heterogeniteit in methodes • Intercalibratie was complexer dan verwacht – Eerste ronde was onvolledig – Tweede ronde loopt af in 2011

Meer informatie: JRC: http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ WISER: http://www.wiser.eu Methodes: http://www.wiser.eu/results/methods-db/ Intercalibratie: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/jrc/jrc_eewai/libra

7

Overzicht. Monitoring en beoordeling in the KRW. 368 nationale methodes

Recommend Documents