Water Bodies in Europe: Integrative Systems to assess Ecological Status and Recovery. Daniel Hering, WISER consortium. Daniel Hering.

Transcription

1 Tuesday, 7 th April, 9. am Water Bodies in Europe: Integrative Systems to assess Ecological Status and Recovery Daniel Hering The WFD at the age of (almost) 1: University of Duisburg-Essen daniel.hering@uni-due.de due.de The WFD at the age of (almost) 1: Overview Example Contribution of WISER Overview Example Contribution of WISER Overview Example Contribution of WISER Water Bodies in Europe: Integrative Systems to assess Ecological Status and Recovery Funded under FP7, Theme Environment (including Climate Change) Contract No.: 73 Aims of WISER in general Contribution to remove as many still existing obstacles for WFD implementation as possible, in the fields of: - Ecological assessment and intercalibration - Linkage of assessment and restoration - Linkage of assessment and climate change Specific aims of WISER Which indicators are best suited for the assessment of ecological status? Which are most reliable? Which are redundant? How can results of different organism groups best be compared, intercalibrated and combined into an integrated appraisal of ecological status? How do organism groups respond to recovery? How is assessment and restoration affected by? How can uncertainty be quantified and minimized? 1

2 Tuesday, 7 th April, 9. am 1 Management, coordination and reporting 1 Management, coordination and reporting 5.1 Effects of.1 Uncertainty 5.1 Effects of.1 Uncertainty.1 Data service. Review Effects of. Combination of organism groups.3 Cross water categories comparison.1 Data service. Review Effects of. Combination of organism groups.3 Cross water categories comparison Effects of. Comparison of recovery processes Effects of. Comparison of recovery processes 7 Dissemination 7 Dissemination Assessment of ecological status: Overview of WFD-related The WFD at the age of (almost) 1: Topic National assessment systems Uncertainty in assessment Intercalibration Combination of assessment results ( one-out all-out principle ) Successes Assessment systems for most BQEs and water types available Transparent development process involving scientists and water managers Principle of giving status classifications as probabilities Simple underlying statistical principles developed Completed for several BQEs and water types Many assessment schemes have comparable class boundaries Reduced type II errors (water body is falsely classified as good or high) Problems Effort and time needed for development Different and complex systems Only few assessment systems have included uncertainty estimation Communication of the concept to water managers Differences in national assessment systems Effort required for intercalibration has been more than expected Increased type I error (water body is falsely classified as moderate or worse) Assessment of ecological status: WISER contribution Generation of an overview of assessment methods currently used by member states Overview of assessment methods Questionnaire on biological assessment methods Development of assessment systems for water types and BQEs for which methods are still missing using existing data and a new field exercise Estimation of uncertainty in bioassessment

3 Tuesday, 7th April, 9. am Daniel Hering, WISER consortium Response to questionnaire 5 Methods described, covering countries 3 river methods 7 lake methods 9 coastal and transitional water methods 5 plankton methods macrophyte / angiosperm / macroalgae methods 7 invertebrate methods 39 fish methods soon on 3

4 Tuesday, 7 th April, 9. am Lake sampling campaign Sampling scheme for phytoplankton Sample 1 Sub-sample (expert # 1) PP MP IN FI Station 1 (Deep point) Sample Sub-sample 3 (expert # ) Numer of lakes Number of lakes sampled Number of lakes remaining Lake 1 Station (Centre) Sample 1 Sample Sub-sample 1 (expert # ) Sub-sample (expert # ) Sub-sample 3 (expert # 1) Sub-sample 1 (expert # ) Station 3 (Near outflow) Sample 1 Sample Sub-sample (expert # 1) Sub-sample 3 (expert # ) Coastal / transitional waters Coastal / transitional waters Number of replicate samples (existing data not included) Location PP MA AS BI FI Oslofjord/Skagerra k Orwell & Stour 7 Helsinki Bay Basque Country 1 Mondego TW Balearic Islands Lesina Lagoon TW 1 7 Varna Bay TW/ 7 Total TW/ 53 3 The WFD at the age of (almost) 1: Topic Monitoring systems: Overview of WFD-related Monitoring data Surveillance monitoring and operational monitoring Monitoring requirements of WFD and other European legislation Successes Huge amounts of data on aquatic communities is collected Sampling and assessment systems better standardised Programmes for long-term monitoring (surveillance monitoring) and for planning restoration (operational monitoring) WFD filled important gaps in surface water monitoring Problems Comparability of original data between countries is limited Original data not centrally stored Monitoring is not including functions or ecosystem services Very few surveillance monitoring sites in many member states No Europe-wide data base on surveillance monitoring Definitions of WFD and other directives are not always consistent Potential synergies of monitoring systems not fully exploited

5 Tuesday, 7 th April, 9. am Monitoring systems: WISER contribution Data bases available Target exercise of combining data from research projects and monitoring programmes Data flow Partners' datasets 51- L-C 53-LR- C 7-L- NC Workpackage datasets Central database The WFD at the age of (almost) 1: New data Metadata for each dataset Metadatabase River Basin Management Plans: Overview of WFD-related Lahn: non-restored Topic Bridging ecology and management in RBMPs Successes Management decisions are based on ecological effects of stressors Plans are drafted for entire catchments Problems Deriving management decisions difficult in multi-stressor situations Results of ecological assessment were often not available for the first RMPBs Good status as general quality target Generally applicable target in all member states High status sites may play a key role for maintaining aquatic biodiversity Ecological status response to restoration Stimulated synthesis of experiences on biotic responses to restoration measures Response of biota to restoration measures in multi-stressor situations poorly predictable Lack of data and experience on scales required for restoration Ecological and political timescales Clear goal to reach good ecological status for all water bodies by 15 / 7 Long time needed to implement measures that require land use change Time lags in biotic response expected 5

6 Tuesday, 7 th April, 9. am Lahn: restored Overview Comparison Some typical pictures of restored streams Hydromorphology Ground beetles Fish Benthic invertebrates Floodplain vegetation Aquatic macrophytes Floodplain habitats 1 Floodplain habitats 1 p <,1 p <,1 Bottom habitats 1 1 p <,5 Number of species Overview p <, p <,1 1 1 Effects of local revitalisation n.s. p <, p <,1 1

7 Tuesday, 7 th April, 9. am Interpretation RBMPs: WISER contribution Effects of local revitalisation Recolonization potential Driver-Response- Recovery-Chains Large-scale empirical models Catchment-based (empirical and mechanistic) models large impact on floodplain habitats n wi yi yˆ i i varyi 1 n p1 1 less impact on bottom habitat (former) water pollution The WFD at the age of (almost) 1: Conclusion Including the biota into RMBPs makes planning more complete and more complex Restoration needs to consider the catchment scale site scale measures often not sufficient In many cases, the biota will respond slowly to restoration Dissemination materials 7