Transcript Slide 1

SCIENCE AND INSTITUTIONS
IN EU WATER MANAGEMENT
Keith Richards and Feng Mao
Objectives



The WFD is a legal institution that embodies a range of ideas (themselves
informal forms of institution) and is implemented by agencies (formal institutions).
This presentation examines contention at each of these institutional levels. It draws
on the European experience, and examines the additional contentions that may
arise in seeking to introduce ecologically-focused water quality assessment
procedures elsewhere; for example, in China.
It will consider







The scientific challenge of defining typologies and reference conditions
The balance between harmonisation (the Common Implementation Strategy) and
diversity of approach, and its relationship to scale of implementation
The lack of consideration of “interdependence” in aquatic and riparian ecosystems
involved in a method that focuses on individual indicators
The integration of WFD monitoring procedures into pre-existing monitoring practices
(both ecological and chemical)
The practical risks associated with a “one-out-all-out” method of quality assessment
The application of the DPSIR (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) model at the
catchment scale given a “reach”-scale monitoring procedure
Its underlying assumption is that to be explicit about these areas of contention and
difficulty can help to improve the WFD and its application.
The Water Framework Directive (i)

Underlying principles and practice (i)
 Define
water bodies
 Lakes
– but also parts of river networks
 (But at what resolution? 5, 50, 500km2)
 Select
a common basket of measures
 Hydromorphological,
ecological and chemical indicators
 Hydromorphology only if it supports good quality
 How should these be selected, sampled and measured?
 Use
these to define the quality status of water body
 6-point
scale; High, Good, Moderate, Poor, Bad; and
Heavily Modified
 Are these distinctions on a linear or non-linear scale?
 The HMWB option provides a political choice
The Water Framework Directive (ii)

Underlying principles and practice (ii)
 Make
the quality status relative to a reference state
 The
Reference State is essentially “High Quality”
 But what is the Reference State? (Pre-Bronze Age?)
 Ensure
the Reference State varies with water body type
 What
classification of river types is to be used?
 Design
programme of measures so each water body is of
“good” ecological status by 2015 (*in the EU!)



How to define scale at which measures are applied?
If HMWB, only aim for “good ecological potential”
The devil is, as always, in the detail
 The
common WFD process is a set of laudable principles
 Its practices are contentious and politicised at every step
Typologies (i)

WFD – Type A and Type B
Type A
Criteria
Altitude
Catchment area
Classes
High: >800m
Mid-altitude: 200 to 800m
Lowland: <200m
Small: 10 to 100 km2
Medium: >100 to 1000 km2
Large: >1000 to 10000 km2
Geology


Very Large: >10000 km2
Calcareous
Siliceous
Organic
Type B
Criteria
Slope (m/m)
Classes
<=0.005
0.005-0.02
0.02-0.04
>0.04
Hardness/Alkalinity (mg <35 mg CaCO3/l Soft water
CaCO3/l)
35-100 mg CaCO3/l Medium hardness
>100 mg CaCO3/l Hard water
Some ecological relevance, but little connection
with hydromorphology
Many alternative river typologies
Typologies (ii)

River Styles™ (Australia)

Brierley and Fryirs (2000, 2004)
Typologies (iii)

Montomery and Buffington (1997)
Typologies (iv)

A compromise?

Combine the “downstream” effect with channel pattern
characteristics that determine physical habitats
Typology B
>0.04
0.02-0.04
0.005-0.02
<=0.005

slope classes (m/m) Channel styles
Cascades and bedrock channels
Step-pool channels
Braided and wandering channels
Pool-riffle channels
Braided and wandering channels
Pool-riffle channels
Lowland meandering channels
Lowland meandering channels
Anastomosing channels
Favours measuring channel attributes
For example - bed, bank, cross-section properties; and
 Summing attribute scores, rather than a pass-fail approach

Reference Conditions (i)

What is the Reference Condition


An arbitrary and pragmatic choice (the art of the possible?)
At what scale can a Reference Condition be defined?
Can there be a “European” Reference Condition?
 No, because there is not even a single RC in one basin


Are RCs defined for each Ecohydrological Region?

Common Implementation, or Subsidiarity?
Urbanic, G and Podgornik, S (2008) Testing some Europeanfishbased assessment systems using Slovenian fish data from the
Ecoregion Alps. Natura Sloveniae 10(2), 47-58

What would this mean, say, for China?
Reference Conditions (ii)

What good is measuring against a historical state?





A river’s water quality is in practice irreversible.
It is improbable that a river’s state can be made to recover to an
exact historical condition
Using a programme of measures to shift the state of a water body
from “Moderate” to “High” state would almost inevitably be
different from the historic Reference Condition defined for it, because
of the dynamic interaction of quality parameters
A review on 56 independent studies on freshwater ecosystem in
1910-2008* shows that only 18 have recovered, and even in these
cases, it depends on the variables selected
Therefore we must avoid unrealistic expectations
…and perhaps the historical reference state is unrealistic
 …but: we do need to have a clear goal. What should it be?

* Jones HP, Schmitz OJ (2009) Rapid Recovery of Damaged Ecosystems. PLoS ONE 4(5)
Aquatic/Riparian Ecosystem Dynamics

Static v dynamic character of ecosystems



More attention needed to the dynamics of ecosystems



Standard system defines static picture of ecosystem state
Insufficient to design water quality monitoring and remediation
Aquatic ecosystem dynamics reflect species interactions
Need methods that capture this dynamic behaviour
Ecological network analysis




Well-established method of analysing biological interactions
Developed for marine ecosystems, but applied to river ecology*
Supported by software developments (eg ECOPATH with ECOSIM)
This offers potential
*Christensen (1998) J Fish Biol; McCabe & Gotelli (2000) Oecologia
Integration into existing monitoring

Methods of monitoring

Diverse range of methods of monitoring
“Bottom-up”, field-based methods
 “Top-down” desk-based methods (GIS/RS)


Preferred methods
Reflect existing preferences (if they exist)
 Reflect scale of problem (GIS/RS may be basis for initial
multi-dimensional classification of water bodies and
subsequent sampling of water bodies)


Field-based methods
Difficult to avoid some field methods (aquatic ecology)
 More acceptable if existing use of field survey

Integration into existing monitoring (eg)
River Habitat Survey
RHS assesses the physical structure of
rivers by field survey of c.500m lengths
of river.
The method has been used in the UK
since 1994 (updated in 2003). It was
developed partly in anticipation of the
WFD monitoring needs.
Other countries also use a form of RHS..
Greece, France, Italy.
Confidence in the survey data is
maintained by consistent data recording
by trained surveyors.
(WFD hydromorphological survey
methods could be designed to build on
the RHS.. this would favour a bottom-up,
field-based method in countries with
RHS-type assessment already) .
Typical RHS reach-length survey
Environment Agency (2003) River Habitat Survey
in Britain and Ireland: Field Survey Guidance
Manual, 2003 Version. 74pp
Combining metrics (i)

The One-Out-All-Out Method
Figure 1
Figure 2
Combining metrics(ii)

Ineffective/Inefficient

Too stringent a water quality standard is ineffective.
Inflated type I errors
 Ineffective distribution of funding; poor water quality does not
necessarily receive more funding

Administrative Region 1
Lenient
Appropriate
Stringent

Administrative Region 2
A
B
C
D
E
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Bad
Good
Bad
Bad
Bad
Bad
Bad
Good
Good
Good
What alternatives are there?

Various methods of combining scores for different attributes



Simple average, different decision tree structure
Expert judgement (weighted average)
A method that explicitly considers interaction of ecosystem elements
Applying the D-P-S-I-R method (i)

Programmes of measures
Implemented if water body status is below “Good”
 May be developed from use of D-P-S-I-R method – eg…

Driver:
Fishery habitat management
Pressure: River substrate manipulation
State:
Altered flow regime, deep pools; changed chemistry
Impact:
Changes to taxonomic composition and productivity of aquatic biota
Response: Initiating a programme of substrate reinstatement

Drivers that put pressure on river quality status:
(For example) Agriculture, Flood defence, Forestry, Navigation,
Recreation, Urban development, Water supply and treatment
 Typical pressures on hydromorphology:


River substrate manipulation; bed and bank erosion protection; river
channelisation; Flow manipulation
Applying the D-P-S-I-R method (ii)

Scale at which D-P-S-I-R method is applied

Water body remediation
may need catchmentscale measures
Spatial scale
Hydrological regime, sediment supply
changes;
Environmental adaptation, land use
change
Catchment
Aggradation/incision (sediment wave
migration, storage changes);
Metapopulation processes
Corridor
Reach

Need full assessment
of hydromorphology
in order to identify
remediation methods
Channel pattern dynamics;
Patch dynamics, processes
affecting age/species/community
structure
Barform
Bar growth & dissection;
Local succession processes
Bedform
Grain
Hydraulic roughness;
Recruitment processes
Time
scale
(years)
Sediment transport;
Seed dispersal,
woody debris
transport
10-1
100
101
102
103+
104+
Conclusion

WFD success
 Harmonisation
 Improved

water, ecological and river status
WFD weaknesses and their resolution
 Several
areas that in detail can be improved
 Critique and revision desirable
 Can be developed by continual CIS process
 Can be built into the 6-yearly cycle