Science and institutions in EU water management

1
Science and institutions in EU water management

• Keith Richards and Feng Mao

2
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-Stat
  e-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.

3
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

4
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

5
Typologies (i)

• WFD Type A and Type B
• Type A Type B
• Some ecological relevance, but little connection
  with hydromorphology
• Many alternative river typologies

6
Typologies (ii)

• River Styles (Australia)
• Brierley and Fryirs (2000, 2004)

7
Typologies (iii)

• Montomery and Buffington (1997)

8
Typologies (iv)

• A compromise?
• Combine the downstream effect with channel
  pattern characteristics that determine physical
  habitats
• Favours measuring channel attributes
• For example - bed, bank, cross-section
  properties and
• Summing attribute scores, rather than a pass-fail
  approach

Typology B slope classes (m/m) Channel styles
gt0.04 Cascades and bedrock channels
gt0.04 Step-pool channels
0.02-0.04 Braided and wandering channels
0.02-0.04 Pool-riffle channels
0.005-0.02 Braided and wandering channels
0.005-0.02 Pool-riffle channels
0.005-0.02 Lowland meandering channels
lt0.005 Lowland meandering channels
lt0.005 Anastomosing channels
9
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?
• What would this mean, say, for China?

Urbanic, G and Podgornik, S (2008) Testing some
Europeanfish-based assessment systems using
Slovenian fish data from the Ecoregion Alps.
Natura Sloveniae 10(2), 47-58
10
Reference Conditions (ii)

• What good is measuring against a historical
  state?
• A rivers water quality is in practice
  irreversible.
• It is improbable that a rivers 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)
11
Aquatic/Riparian Ecosystem Dynamics

• Static v dynamic character of ecosystems
• Standard system defines static picture of
  ecosystem state
• Insufficient to design water quality monitoring
  and remediation
• More attention needed to the dynamics of
  ecosystems
• 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
12
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

13
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
14
Combining metrics (i)

• The One-Out-All-Out Method

Figure 1
Figure 2
15
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
• 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

Administrative Region 1 Administrative Region 1 Administrative Region 1 Administrative Region 2 Administrative Region 2
A B C D E
Lenient Good Good Good Bad Good
Appropriate Good Good Bad Bad Good
Stringent Good Bad Bad Bad Good
16
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
• 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

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
17
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 catchment-
• scale measures
• Need full assessment
• of hydromorphology
• in order to identify
• remediation methods

18
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