Search

EUR 31029 EN This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission's science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.; International audience; The assessment of lake status in Europe has evolved during the last few decades from physico-chemical focused assessment to a more comprehensive ecological approach. The EC Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires the assessment of hydromorphological and physico-chemical conditions of lakes considered as supporting elements of the biological communities. The WFD describes the hydromorphology of lakes using quality elements belonging to the hydrological regime on the one hand and to morphological conditions on the other hand. A lake can achieve good ecological status only if the aforementioned quality elements correspond to natural conditions or deviate from them very slightly. Therefore, hydromorphological assessment is crucial for ecological status assessment. During summer 2020, an inventory of the HYMO assessment and monitoring methods currently implemented or under development in the different European countries for WFD implementation was conducted. This study summarises key information reported through the aforementioned inventory in order to get a comprehensive overview of the hydromorphological methods at the present time and to contribute to more common understanding of how hydromorphological conditions are defined and hydromorphological changes are characterised in different national contexts in Europe. The high response rate of the European survey makes it possible to provide a comprehensive overview of lake hydromorphological assessment and monitoring methods implemented or under development in the different European countries.Currently, 33 methods are applied or in development in 20 countries, 20 are currently assessment methods, 10 are monitoring methods and 3 methods will be replace by new protocols. This report gives also a basis to carry out future relevant good practices suitable with standards such as the water quality guidance standard on assessing the hydromorphological features of lakes – EN 16039:2011 and the water quality guidance standard on determining the degree of modification of lake hydromorphology – EN 16870:2017. Hydrological characteristics are relatively well taken into account by the different countries except the residence time although its evaluation is recommended in the EN 16039:2011 standard. Surface-groundwater interactions and stratification/mixing are also poorly taken into account in the different countries even though the interactions between surface water and groundwater are characterised in a majority of countries but not used to assess lake conditions. Morphological characteristics are also relatively well taken into account by the different countries, in particular lake depth variation, shape of the littoral zone and shore zone aquatic vegetation. Nevertheless, the planform pattern, substrate and aquatic vegetation in the open water are still poorly used to evaluate lake conditions although their evaluation is recommended in the EN 16039:2011 standard. All of the 20 current assessment methods use a scoring system which are mostly quantitative although the degree of confidence is still poorly included in the methods. However, the scoring system and the way in which class thresholds are defined remain to be specified by the different countries.Finally, two main hurdles remain; a methodological hurdle with the determination of reference conditions which is not clearly defined for many countries although this is essential when assessing lake conditions and a scientific hurdle with regard to the link with biology of the different hydromorphological assessment methods. In order to improve best practices and write recommendations further information is needed on how reference conditions and classification are undertaken at Member State level for assessing lake hydromorphology.

The interdependencies between water and energy are well known and they have become a topic of increasing attention for the scientific and policy communities. Water is used throughout the energy industry, and the water system needs energy for collecting, pumping, treating and desalinising water. Increasing water and energy needs, or changes in water availability due to climate change could have significant effects on the energy system. These problems are expected to be very acute in developing countries, but also in Europe. The EU has ambitious decarbonisation goals for the future, which could be very difficult to achieve if the European water system becomes too stressed, since decarbonisation relies on water-demanding energy technologies such as biofuels, carbon capture, or nuclear power. The water sector is not as energy-intensive as other industries. Despite that, the operation of the water sector may offer solutions for increasing the flexibility of the European power system. This may be achieved by powering water treatment and desalination plants with renewable energy and by using water supply and distribution networks to store energy. All the above considerations denote that the use and management of energy and water resources need to be addressed simultaneously, especially when taking into consideration that the fundamental difference between energy and water is that energy can be renewable, however water resource are finite. Only with this “nexus” approach it is possible to take full advantage of the opportunities to increase energy efficiency in the water sector; to exploit the possibilities of the water system as a source of flexibility for the power system; to extract more energy from water; and to reduce the water footprint of the energy industries. The Water Energy Food and Ecosystem Nexus (WEFE Nexus) flagship project addresses in an integrated way the interdependencies and interactions between water, energy, agriculture, water supply and treatment, as well as the environment. These interactions have been so far largely underappreciated. The WEFE-Nexus can be depicted as a way to overcome stakeholders’ view of resources as individual assets by developing an understanding of the broader system. It is the realisation that acting from the perspective of individual sectors cannot help tackle future societal challenges. This report summarises the main results obtained to date within the WEFE project as regards the water-energy nexus., JRC.C.7-Knowledge for the Energy Union

Hydromorphological alterations due to floods are among the most widespread pressures on water bodies in Europe. Along with storms, floods are the most relevant natural disaster in Europe, in terms of economic costs due to direct damage to infrastructure, property and agricultural land, and indirect losses. As such, flood protection structures and actions are among the main causes for hydromorphological alteration and ecological impairment. Moreover, mitigation measures options, in the case of HMWB for flood protection, are very limited. Any action for mitigation could in fact result into a weakening of flood protection, increasing risk for population and assets. However, in a substantial number of these water bodies, the effects of the alterations are expected to require some mitigation if good ecological potential (GEP) is to be achieved. One of the core activities for the CIS WG ECOSTAT between 2013 and 2017 has been to try to compare the ecological quality expected by different countries for water bodies impacted by flood protection. The process involved the use of a number of workshops and questionnaires to collect relevant information from European water managers. This report is based on information collected via a template on mitigation measures for water bodies impacted by flood defence structures, which was completed by 18 countries. The key findings of the exercise are as follows: • Comparing the mitigation expected for good ecological potential by different countries provided a good basis for identifying similarities and differences between those countries’ standards for good ecological potential. It also provided a valuable opportunity for the exchange of information. • Although not all Member States (MS) have developed a national hydromorphological assessment method, most of them answered that their assessment systems can detect the hydromorphological impacts due to flood defence structures and actions. • Regarding the scale of the impacts, it appears that in the case of flood defences, which work in longitudinal, lateral and vertical dimensions, a typical range of length of impacts cannot be found. • Some flood defence structures are not very common in some countries, which could explain why the assessment systems are not actually detecting them (e.g. grade control structures, groynes, etc.). • Few MS have already developed a national library of mitigation measures. Even if a national library for mitigation measures is present, MS may not have considered all the possible impacts from flood defences for different reasons. The reasons for not identifying the need for certain types of mitigation is mainly linked to the fact that in some countries, (e.g. mainly lowland), some flood defences are not used, and therefore the related impacts and measures are not considered. Another reason may be that some countries are lacking an appropriate assessment system to detect some types of impact. • The majority of MS consider measures aimed at enhancing longitudinal connectivity for fish and sediments and e-flows to be both highly effective and without an adverse effect on use. Fish passages and light bank protection structures seem to be considered as the most effective measures. • On the contrary, measures linked to enhancing lateral continuity or heterogeneity of banks and channel are deemed to have an adverse effect on use, lowering the level of protection from floods. • The most common reasons for ruling out mitigation measure options are significant effects on use or the wider environment. Some MS rule out mitigation measures that are technically infeasible and/or disproportionately costly.. • A general preliminary conclusion is that there is a need for a common language in order to understand what flood structures and actions are and their impacts in terms of scales and magnitude, on fluvial hydromorphology and biological processes. • Further development of the use of HMWB in respect to flood protection is also needed, with a better understanding of the effects of mitigation measures on hydromorphology and biota and of the potential adverse effects on the use. This requires close cooperation with experts working on the implementation of the Floods Directive and again calls for the need of a common language and understanding., JRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resources

Hydromorphological alterations for drainage are widespread pressures on water bodies in Europe. Because of the importance of the water uses relying on drainage schemes, such as agriculture and urban areas, not all necessary restoration measures can be taken without significant adverse effect on the water use. Therefore many of the affected water bodies have been designated as heavily modified (HMWB). Still, in a substantial number of these water bodies, some mitigation measures should be taken to reach Good Ecological Potential (GEP). This report presents responses of European countries on a detailed questionnaire distributed in 2015 on the impacts of land drainage on the water environment and the measures that can mitigate those impacts. The questionnaire also included questions on impacts of flood prevention, presented in the accompanying report “Part 2: Impacted by flood protection structures”. A key objective of the questionnaire was to compare the understanding of impacts caused by drainage to continuity, hydrological regime, morphological alterations and aquatic biology. Information was requested on 1) national definitions of drainage and existing guidelines, 2) water uses and regulatory regimes linked to drainage, 3) hydromorphological alterations due to drainage and their assessment, and 4) mitigation measures. A list of mitigation measures and their definition is presented. In total, 20 countries responded to the questions on land drainage. Key findings of the exercise are as follows: • Comparing the mitigation expected for good ecological potential by different countries provided a good basis for identifying similarities and differences between those countries’ standards for good ecological potential. It also provided a valuable opportunity for the exchange of information. • It is possible to reach a harmonized understanding between countries of the environmental objective for HMWBs impacted by drainage. • There is no common EU wide definition of the term drainage, although a common understanding exists of what it entails. • There are several methods to detect impacts from hydromorphological pressures and many countries do not have methods to detect all the parameters affected by drainage. • There is no common understanding on minimum ecological requirements for GEP related to impacts from drainage. • The standard for ecological potential seems to vary between water bodies and countries and few countries have a national definition on significant impact on water use. • There are some indications that the majority of countries probably rule-out mitigation measures when considering (often site-specific) evaluating criteria. • It would be interesting to compare different countries’ national methods to a common and comparable set of water bodies/catchments impacted by drainage. Such an exercise would be valuable in further identifying and elaborating on emerging good practice, implementation of measures in practice and possibly also for handling multiple pressures and intercalibrated Ecological Quality Ratios/Methods related to e.g. pollution in a comparable way. Key recommendations for next steps presented in the conclusions of this report include: • A generalised framework for deciding on the mitigation required for good ecological potential should be developed to achieve further harmonisation of GEP. Such a generalised framework can be used to supplement CIS Guidance no. 4 on HMWB. • The existing approach should be further developed to allow for harmonizing the levels/requirements of ecological potential based on mitigation measures. • Future exercises under the Common Implementation Strategy should use the common technical terminology and mitigation measures provided in this report. • Harmonized hydromorphological classification methods should be developed in order to have a comparable assessment of the hydromorphological alterations due to drainage, among the different countries. • More common understanding on ecological minimum criteria for GEP should be developed. • Countries should exchange and establish transparent criteria for deciding if mitigation would have a significant effect on drainage and benefits for society. • Reasons for ruling out measures should be made clear and more transparent . It is recommended to compare the outcomes produced by countries’ national methods by applying them to a comparable set of heavily modified water bodies included in generic cases. Consideration should then be given to incorporating the results of both exercises into a good practice guide, JRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resources

This report illustrates a system of indicators (called JRC Water Pressure Indicators) providing a consistent picture of human pressures on water bodies at European scale, to be compared with pressure and status information reported by Member States under the Water Framework Directive 60/2000/EC. The indicators represent “version 2.0” of a “version 1.0” published before . This “version 2.0” was introduced in Pistocchi et al. (2017) and includes nutrients, urban runoff, hydromorphological and flow regime alterations, and in particular: • an updated GREEN model setup for estimating nitrogen and phosphorus load to European surface waters; • the updated indicators of morphological alteration of floodplains produced with the Copernicus riparian zones layer ; • the indicators of flow regime perturbation and river continuity disruption, due to dams and other stream barriers in Europe, computed on the basis of a new dataset compiled by the JRC; • the indicators of flow regime alteration due to abstractions, using estimates of demand for irrigation, livestock, domestic and industrial water use and cooling of energy production plants, and information on natural water availability simulated with a calibrated LISFLOOD model. A relevant change from version 1.0 to version 2.0 is the spatial support of the indicators. While in version 1.0 the indicators were computed at the level of HydroEurope (HE1) subbasins, i.e. polygons of an average size of 180 km2, or on grids of 5 km or 1 km resolution (see Pistocchi et al., 2015, for details) and aggregated at the river basin district (RBD) scale, in version 2.0 all indicators are computed on the HydroEurasia (HE2) subbasins. These coincide with the elementary subbasins identified in the CCM2 hydrography, consisting of the subdivision of Europe and surrounding river basins into smaller polygons (average size about 7 km2). Each polygon represents a subbasin and is univocally associated to the main hydrographic segment (river stretch) it contains. The indicators presented here reflect the best knowledge available at the JRC from both compiled European datasets and in-house model simulations. They are designed to be updated when more complete or higher-quality information is made available. Data and model limitations are highlighted for each indicator, either in this report or in Pistocchi et al., 2017., JRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resources

The EC DG JRC is using in-house models and other information to build indicators of pressures on water bodies, in the context of the 2nd river basin management plan (RBMP) implementation assessment (Water Framework Directive (WFD) 60/2000/EC, art. 18) and review of the WFD (art. 19). These indicators are meant to provide a picture of major water pressures at the European scale. The main reason to develop a set of independent pressure indicators is the need to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of the EU water policies at broad. If the indicators are realistic, the models used for their computation can be used also as tools to simulate scenarios with changing pressures, as a result of policies or other drivers (such as climate changes, implementation of measures or EU sectorial policies). The EC DG ENV is steering the development of an integrated hydro-economic modelling platform in support to the evaluation of policies, with the broadest possible involvement of the EU Member States, and collaborates with DG JRC by leading a large study on the economics of water in Europe also in order to supplement JRC’s biophysical models and indicators with additional economic evidence about the costs and benefits of reducing pressures and improving the conditions of freshwater and marine ecosystems. Another question is whether the pressures are evaluated consistently throughout the European Union. The JRC indicators could be used to benchmark pressure and status reported by the Member States at a different scale. In fact, if JRC indicators are sufficiently reliable, it is expected that overall trends will be consistent with the pressures reported by the Member States. At the same time, JRC indicators do not take into account local conditions in specific water bodies, and should not be compared to reported pressures and status at water body level. The aim of benchmarking is to understand the reasons for assessment discrepancies, primarily for verification purposes. In particular, discrepancies should not be considered per se as evidence of non-compliance in the implementation of the WFD by Member States. particularly, if a given river basin is flagged by Member State reports to suffer from a given pressure, but this is not found in the JRC pressure indicators, the knowledge available at the Commission is likely inadequate for that river basin. The benchmarking process with reported pressures/status in itself could prompt the Commission to seek an explanation for the discrepancies, and eventually to update the indicators, with the overall goal of a coherent and shared vision of pressures at the European and river basin district scales. DG ENV encourages Member States to provide feedback to DG JRC on the indicators and the underpinning models, so that the European scale picture of water pressures they provide can be improved to a sufficient level of realism and representativeness, and can be consequently used as a basis for European water policy evaluation and development. As a first opportunity for this process, the JRC organised a workshop in Ispra on 11-12 May 2016 with the aim to collect feedback from experts on the proposed methodologies and indicators. The JRC pressure indicators are updated over time, as new knowledge is available at the European level. Therefore the benchmarking of local and European assessments is supposed to be a continuous process. The reviews by experts in the Member States should not add to the administrative burden related to the WFD, but should be conducted with the modalities of scientific peer reviews. It will be necessary to pay significant attention to the way the results are communicated, so to clarify the content of the indicators and avert risks of misinterpretation. The review of the indicators will serve also this purpose. This document summarizes the JRC indicators, the state of play with their update and further development, and the outcomes of the workshop held in Ispra on May 11-12, 2016., JRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resources

Hydromorphological alterations due to e.g. water storage with major impacts on the aquatic ecology are among the most widespread pressures on water bodies in Europe. Many of these impacted water bodies have been designated as heavily modified water bodies, and many are expected to need mitigation measures to meet the good ecological potential (GEP) and some possibly good ecological status (GES) to fulfil the requirements of the WFD. Among the core activities for the CIS WG ECOSTAT from 2013 onwards, have been to assess the comparability of GEP among countries implementing the WFD. The aims of this activity and hence this report have been to develop a suitable method for assessing comparability (intercalibration), learn from each other to ensure common understanding and emerging good management practice across Europe, as a basis for supplementary guidance on HMWBs issues. In other words; agree on a common understanding on environmental requirements for water bodies impacted by water storage. Several workshops have been arranged and a series of templates have been circulated to national management experts to get a comparison of available measures in mitigation libraries and use thereof. In the present report, the assessment of comparability is based on returned templates from 23 countries. Response is lacking from four countries while three countries have informed ECOSTAT that finalising and use of national libraries is still ongoing. The outcome has been a common terminology and some key findings regarding key ecological functions normally expected to be mitigated by measures in water bodies impacted by water storage to meet the requirements of GEP., JRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resources

International audience

This report summarises the scientific and technical contributions of DG JRC to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) related to ecological status covering the year 2015. JRC is providing long-term support aimed at achieving a common understanding of good status and potential, the principal environmental objectives of the WFD. An important aspect of this work is the WFD intercalibration exercise as required in WFD Annex V 1.4.1, ensuring that classification methods are compliant with the Directive’s requirement and give comparable result, thus establishing a level playing field for the measures that need to be taken my Member States to achieve good status or potential. JRC scientific and technical support is carried out in the framework of the WFD “common implementation strategy” (CIS) mandated by the EU Water Directors, where JRC is responsible for the working group on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT), working with experts from all Member States and key stakeholder organisations. Main issues covered in 2015 were intercalibration of good ecological status, intercalibration of good ecological potential, nutrient standards, typology, and hydromorphology. A new CIS work programme has been agreed upon by the Water Directors in which the JRC will continue to play a key role in the ECOSTAT working group for the years 2016-2018., JRC.H.1-Water Resources

International audience

In this report we propose a classification of river basin districts (RBDs) in terms of the consistency between reported significant pressures and pressures expected to be relevant in each RBD on the basis of pan-European indicators. We discuss the results and limitations of the classification obtained at European scale, and we suggest a perspective for its use for improving Water Framework Directive (WFD) implementation and the subsequent in-depth analysis of programmes of measures (PoMs) and their effectiveness. Overall, the analysis highlights that some river basin districts report pressures in a way that is in line with expectations from European indicators, while some others report either higher or lower pressure intensity than expected. Reasons for these discrepancies may include lack of relevant local information in the assessment of European indicators, and under/overestimation of pressures by the RBD authorities or reporting member states. The analysis presented here is based on data aggregated at RBD level, as allowed by the available information, and should be regarded mainly as a proof of concept. In the future, the same analysis should be updated with reference to individual water bodies, and taking into consideration the updates of river basin management plans and PoMs under development at the time of writing this report., JRC.H.1-Water Resources

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) (MSFD) requires that the European Commis-sion (by 15 July 2010) should lay down criteria and methodological standards to allow consistency in approach in evaluating the extent to which Good Environmental Status (GES) is being achieved. ICES and JRC were contracted to provide scientific support for the Commission in meeting this obligation. A total of 10 reports have been prepared relating to the descriptors of GES listed in Annex I of the Directive. Eight reports have been prepared by groups of independent experts coordinated by JRC and ICES in response to this contract. In addition, reports for two descriptors (Contaminants in fish and other seafood and Marine Litter) were written by expert groups coordinated by DG SANCO and IFREMER respectively. A Task Group was established for each of the qualitative Descriptors. Each Task Group consisted of selected experts providing experience related to the four marine regions (the Baltic Sea, the North-east Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea) and an appropriate scope of relevant scien-tific expertise. Observers from the Regional Seas Conventions were also invited to each Task Group to help ensure the inclusion of relevant work by those Conventions. This is the report of Task Group 1 Biological diversity., JRC.DDG.H.5-Rural, water and ecosystem resources

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC) (MSFD) requires that the European Commis-sion (by 15 July 2010) should lay down criteria and methodological standards to allow consistency in approach in evaluating the extent to which Good Environmental Status (GES) is being achieved. ICES and JRC were contracted to provide scientific support for the Commission in meeting this obligation. A total of 10 reports have been prepared relating to the descriptors of GES listed in Annex I of the Directive. Eight reports have been prepared by groups of independent experts coordinated by JRC and ICES in response to this contract. In addition, reports for two descriptors (Contaminants in fish and other seafood and Marine Litter) were written by expert groups coordinated by DG SANCO and IFREMER respectively. A Task Group was established for each of the qualitative Descriptors. Each Task Group consisted of selected experts providing experience related to the four marine regions (the Baltic Sea, the North-east Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea) and an appropriate scope of relevant scien-tific expertise. Observers from the Regional Seas Conventions were also invited to each Task Group to help ensure the inclusion of relevant work by those Conventions. This is the report of the MSFD Management Group., JRC.DDG.H.5-Rural, water and ecosystem resources