Department of Ecology and Animal Biology, University of Vigo, Spain.
Sci Total Environ. 2012 Mar 15;420:33-42. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.01.026. Epub 2012 Feb 10.
One objective of the European Union (EU)'s Water Framework Directive (WFD: Directive 2000/60/EC) is for all European surface waters to achieve 'good status' by 2015. In support of this objective, the EU has facilitated an intercalibration exercise to ensure harmonized definitions of the status of water bodies, reflecting the deviation of their properties (mainly biotic assemblages) from a minimally disturbed state, termed the "reference condition". One of the major challenges of the WFD has been to find common approaches for defining reference conditions and to define the level of anthropogenic intervention allowed in reference sites. In this paper we describe how river reference sites were selected in the Central-Baltic region of Europe. A list of pressure criteria was provided and 14 Member States (MSs) categorized each criterion according to the method (i.e. measured, field inspection, etc.) used for reference site screening. Additionally, reference land-use and water-chemistry thresholds were agreed among countries in order to base reference site selection on objective criteria. For land-use criteria, a reference threshold and a rejection threshold were established. Sites with all criteria below the reference threshold were considered to be reference sites; sites having most criteria below the reference threshold and only some parameters between the reference and rejection threshold were "possible reference sites". These sites were retained only after carefully checking the cumulative effects of the pressures using local expertise, and a posteriori water-chemistry evaluation was necessary. In general, the most widespread method for defining a reference site was the measurement of pressures, followed by field inspections and expert judgment. However, some major pressures (e.g. hydromorphological alteration) were evaluated in a number of different ways (e.g. measured, field inspection, expert judgment). Our meta-analyses reveal a need to reinforce standardization in the application of pressure criteria by Member States. The pressure criteria identified in this exercise should be refined and tested with biological data to help in the further validation of minimally disturbed sites (i.e. the WFD "reference condition") and to provide a firm foundation for ecological status assessment. This in turn would ensure that there is pan-European comparability when evaluating the achievement of environmental objectives.
欧盟水框架指令(WFD:指令 2000/60/EC)的目标之一是到 2015 年使所有欧洲地表水达到“良好状态”。为了支持这一目标,欧盟促进了一项相互校准的工作,以确保对水体状况的定义协调一致,反映其特性(主要是生物组合)与最小干扰状态的偏差,称为“参考条件”。WFD 的主要挑战之一是找到定义参考条件的共同方法,并定义参考点允许的人为干预水平。本文描述了如何在欧洲中波罗的海地区选择河流参考点。提供了一份压力标准清单,14 个成员国(MS)根据用于参考点筛选的方法(即测量、现场检查等)对每个标准进行分类。此外,各国还商定了参考土地利用和水质阈值,以便根据客观标准选择参考点。对于土地利用标准,确定了参考阈值和拒绝阈值。所有标准都低于参考阈值的站点被认为是参考站点;大多数标准低于参考阈值且只有一些参数在参考和拒绝阈值之间的站点是“可能的参考站点”。只有在仔细检查使用当地专业知识的压力累积效应后,才保留这些站点,并且需要进行事后水质评估。一般来说,定义参考点最广泛的方法是测量压力,其次是现场检查和专家判断。然而,一些主要压力(例如水形态改变)以多种不同方式进行评估(例如测量、现场检查、专家判断)。我们的荟萃分析表明,成员国在应用压力标准方面需要加强标准化。本研究确定的压力标准应与生物数据一起进行细化和测试,以帮助进一步验证最小干扰点(即 WFD“参考条件”),并为生态状况评估提供坚实的基础。这反过来将确保在评估环境目标的实现情况时具有泛欧可比性。