Search

This report presents an ecosystem assessment covering the total land area of the EU as well as the EU marine regions. The assessment is carried out by Joint Research Centre, European Environment Agency, DG Environment, and the European Topic Centres on Biological Diversity and on Urban, Land and Soil Systems. This report constitutes a knowledge base which can support the evaluation of the 2020 biodiversity targets. It also provides a data foundation for future assessments and policy developments, in particular with respect to the ecosystem restoration agenda for the next decade (2020-2030). The report presents an analysis of the pressures and condition of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems using a single, comparable methodology based on European data on trends of pressures and condition relative to the policy baseline 2010. The following main conclusions are drawn: - Pressures on ecosystems exhibit different trends. - Land take, atmospheric emissions of air pollutants and critical loads of nitrogen are decreasing but the absolute values of all these pressures remain too high. - Impacts from climate change on ecosystems are increasing. - Invasive alien species of union concern are observed in all ecosystems, but their impact is particularly high in urban ecosystems and grasslands. - Pressures from overfishing activities and marine pollution are still high. - In the long term, air and freshwater quality is improving. - In forests and agroecosystems, which represent over 80% of the EU territory, there are improvements in structural condition indicators (biomass, deadwood, area under organic farming) relative to the baseline year 2010 but some key bio-indicators such as tree-crown defoliation continue to increase. This indicates that ecosystem condition is not improving. - Species-related indicators show no progress or further declines, particularly in agroecosystems. The analysis of trends in ecosystem services concluded that the current potential of ecosystems to deliver timber, protection against floods, crop pollination, and nature-based recreation is equal to or lower than the baseline value for 2010. At the same time, the demand for these services has significantly increased. A lowered potential in combination with a higher demand risks to further decrease the condition of ecosystems and their contribution to human well-being. Despite the wide coverage of environmental legislation in the EU, there are still large gaps in the legal protection of ecosystems. On land, 76% of the area of terrestrial ecosystems, mainly forests, agroecosystems and urban ecosystems, are excluded from a legal designation under the Bird and Habitat Directives. Freshwater and marine ecosystems are subject to specific protection measures under the Water Framework and Marine Strategy Framework Directives. The condition of ecosystems that are under legal designation is unfavourable. More efforts are needed to bend the curve of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation and to put ecosystems on a path to recovery. The progress that is made in certain areas such as pollution reduction, increasing air and water quality, increasing share of organic farming, the expansion of forests, and the efforts to maintain marine fish stocks at sustainable levels show that a persistent implementation of policies can be effective. These successes should encourage us to act now and to put forward an ambitious plan for the restoration of Europe’s ecosystems., JRC.D.3-Land Resources

In the context of the REFIT evaluation of the UWWTD, this report contributes to addressing the following evaluation questions: • To what extent have the objectives of the UWWTD been achieved? • To what extent are the main pollutants released by urban areas collected and treated? • What have been the (quantitative and qualitative) effects of the UWWTD? • To what extent is the UWWTD still relevant to achieve its objectives of protection of the environment from the adverse effects of waste water discharges? • What would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing the existing EU intervention? This study quantifies the reduction of nutrients and organic matter in European waters as a consequence of the implementation of the UWWTD. To this end, we first calculate loads and concentrations of organic matter, measured as 5-days Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5), total nitrogen (N), and total phosphorus (P) in different scenarios representative of the past (before entry into force of the Directive), present and future under assumptions of a full implementation of the Directive. BOD5, N and P are, together with total suspended solids (TSS), specific targets for urban wastewater treatment. In addition, we estimate concentrations of indicator coliforms in European rivers and coastal areas. Coliforms are not a target of the UWWTD, but they are directly relevant for the quality of bathing waters. Finally, we estimate the reduction of loads of selected micropollutants achieved through implementation of the UWWTD. Micropollutants are also not a target of the UWWTD, but their environmental fate and transport may be very significantly affected by the wastewater treatment system, as many of them are emitted primarily in urban areas and pass through wastewater treatment plants. Quantifying absolute values of the loads of micropollutants in Europe has proven to be a daunting task, far from being achieved even for a limited set of priority substances. However, based on the properties of the substances it is possible to quantify the percentage of the micropollutants entering the wastewater treatment system, which are eventually released in the environment., JRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resources

Estimation of domestic and industrial emissions to the European fresh and marine waters is needed for assessing current ecological status of water bodies and providing inputs to conceptual models of pollutant transport and fate. Regulatory efforts of the European Commission, particularly Urban Waste Water Directive (UWWWD) and Water Framework Directive (WFD) prompted investments in waste treatment, and as a result point source emissions to water bodies have declined. In order to account for these improvements, domestic and industrial emission assessments were to be updated for conditions valid in the 2010s. The aim of this study was to assess the quantity and location of domestic and industrial waste emissions of pollutants in European waters for the 2010s. Specifically, the pollutants considered in this study were total Nitrogen (N), total Phosphorous (P), and organic pollution as measured by 5-days Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). The spatial resolution and extent of the analysis corresponded to the CCM2 River and Catchment Database for Europe. Pollutants were estimated in terms of mean annual average load (t/y) released in the CCM2 catchments. The reference period for the assessment was set to 2014-2015, although in some cases a longer time period was considered. The assessment of pollutant loads to waters from domestic and industrial emissions made full use of available European databases created in response to EU regulations. A method was developed to exploit the European datasets and fill in content gaps through alternative sources of information (REP approach). The European datasets allowed pinpointing waste emissions to a much higher spatial and conceptual resolution than before, although some knowledge gaps remained, affecting especially emissions from domestic waste of isolated dwellings, small agglomerations, and industries. Outside EU28, Switzerland and Norway, domestic and industrial emissions were assessed based on population density and national statistics of shares of population served by sewerage treatment and level of WWTP treatments (POP approach). The comparison between Population Equivalent generated in agglomerations and reported in the UWWTD database with country resident population allowed estimating an equivalence of 1.23 PE per inhabitant, meaning that on average in Europe the contribution of small industries, commercial activities and tourism can be considered about 23% of generated load. This information was used to assess population unreported in the UWWTD database because belonging to small isolated dwellings. Estimates of total emissions due to domestic waste with REP approach with those from POP approach for 30 countries covered by both methods were in good agreement, with Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.95 for Nitrogen, 0.94 for Phosphorous and 0.71 for BOD. Yet, important differences emerged when separating emissions by treatment type or pathway, e.g. looking at disconnected, connected not treated or connected and treated shares of domestic waste. The comparison highlighted inconsistencies between the European database and national statistics and it was noted that for some countries national statistics were scant or inconsistent. Thus, while total emissions are comparable, care should be taken when considering each population share independently. Finally, total pollutant emissions for Europe in 2010s were obtained by merging all available data, using the REP approach and the POP approach estimates to fill in knowledge gaps. In EU28, annual emissions to water from domestic and industrial waste for the 2010s were estimated at 777.6 kt/y of Nitrogen, 126.6 kt/y of Phosphorous and 2,190 kt/y of BOD. The majority of domestic waste is treated in WWTPs, with high adoption rates of tertiary treatment and Phosphorus removal technology, lowering emissions of domestic waste per capita. EU28 IND emissions accounted for 11.3% of N, 6.7% of P and 33.7% of BOD emissions. Emissions from population disconnected to sewerage systems or treated with IAS (for which only primary treatment was assumed) accounted for 11.2% of Nitrogen, 14.6% of Phosphorous and 19.5% BOD emissions to the environment. However only a part of these emissions would eventually reach freshwater systems, as environmental abatement (not considered in this study) would further reduce them. Conversely, connected not treated population contributed 6.2% of Nitrogen, 7.2% of Phosphorous, and 14.4% of BOD directly discharged to freshwater bodies. Tackling these sources of domestic waste and upgrading primary treatment facilities may further reduce pollution loads discharged in freshwater systems and ultimately to the seas., 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

Policy context Water reuse has been identified by the European Commission as a relevant solution to be further promoted in the EU to address water scarcity. This opportunity was highlighted again in the context of the EU action plan for a Circular Economy (COM(2015) 614 final). In, particular the Commission committed to table a legislative proposal setting minimum quality requirements for water reuse. This initiative has been included in the Commission Work Programme 2017. In order to support the decisions to be taken on the matter, the costs and benefits of water reuse need to be clearly identified and quantified to the best possible extent. Key conclusions/Main findings In this study we estimate the distribution of costs of reclaiming and transporting treated wastewater for reuse in agricultural irrigation across Europe. We consider treatment costs as well as the costs associated to the water transport infrastructure and to energy for pumping. The study highlights a high variability of costs depending on the relative position of irrigated agricultural land with respect to the wastewater treatment plants. Treatment costs alone may be minor, about 8 €cents/m3, compared to the other costs, with typical total costs exceeding 50 €cents/m3. However, when treatment requirements become more stringent, treatment costs may surge up to about 0.3 €/m3, causing total costs to shift consistently. The energy requirements for pumping of reclaimed water from wastewater treatment plants to agricultural land follow a distribution with a median of about 0.5 kWh/m3 and an interquartile range of another 0.5 kWh/m3, which seems slightly higher than reported in representative cases of irrigation with conventional water sources. The total volumes of water that can be in principle reused for irrigation are significant, and may contribute to the reduction of water stress by 10% or more in regions where irrigation is an important component of demand. Water reuse may also contribute, in a less apparent and more uncertain way, to nutrient pollution mitigation. While the treatment and energy costs are mostly compatible with the market value of the crops produced thanks to irrigation, the total costs may exceed the capacity of farmers to pay. This indicates that (1) reuse is most suitable where irrigation infrastructure already exists and the necessary additional investments are minor, and (2) the cost of water reuse should be considered in a broader context. This context should be extended to include, on the one side, the whole value chain supplied by agriculture and, on the other side, the process of river basin management where reuse may represent a measure with important co-benefits. Related and future JRC work This work is part of the broader “Water-Energy-Food-Ecosystems Nexus” project of the JRC. Water reuse is regarded as a relevant water resource management option, and this report provides the basis for an assessment of strategic priorities for water reuse in Europe., 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

The Water Framework Directive requires the development and implementation of river basin management plans for improving the ecological status of freshwater bodies throughout Europe. The scientific community supports this process by developing decision-support tools for identifying the principal sources of water pollution. Models, however, are imperfect representations of the real world, and are conditioned by structural uncertainty, implicit in the description of biophysical processes, and data uncertainty, as well as in the various restrictions of the environmental data the models were developed. Hence, decision makers must plan management actions on the basis of the best available, however still incomplete, knowledge. The comparison of independent assessments may offer insights that are useful for decision-making, e.g. for identifying knowledge gaps, identifying data uncertainties, consolidating investigation results, and increasing stakeholders’ acceptance. The Danube River is the second largest and most international river of Europe. Its basin covers approximately 803,000 km2 of Central and South-Eastern Europe and is shared by 19 countries. Within the context of fostering scientific collaboration in the Danube region and under the auspices of the International Commission for the Danube River Protection (ICPDR), three independent model (SWAT, MONERIS and GREEN) were compared with the objective of reaching a shared appraisal of nutrient pressures and drivers in the Danube Basin. Annual water discharge (Flow, m3/s) as well as annual loads of total nitrogen (TN, ton/y) and total phosphorus (TP, ton/y) were compared at the outlet of 18 ICPDR regions for the decade 2000-2009. For each region, mean annual values, correlation, standard deviation, and root mean square error of model simulations were analysed. Good water discharge simulations across the basin confirmed that hydrology was correctly represented in all models. The nutrients comparison revealed for some assessment regions the need for a spatially and temporarily intensified monitoring especially for TN. Concerning TP, SWAT and MONERIS had comparable long mean annual TP loads, but differed for amplitude and phases; while GREEN generally overestimated TP loads. Despite differences in model approaches and considered input data, the three assessments were coherent, and all three models may be confidently used for river basin management of the region., JRC.H.1-Water Resources

Ambitious nutrient reduction targets have been set for the Gippsland Lakes, Victoria but at what cost to productive agriculture? An interdisciplinary approach is addressing this question for the Moe River catchment, a dairy-dominated catchment that is a major source of pollutants to the Gippsland Lakes. Off-farm nitrogen exports are being estimated by biophysical modellers, and economists are quantifying the impact of farming systems and agricultural practices on farm profitability. This information is assembled to form the interim profit-pollution frontier for nitrogen reported in this paper, and to calculate abatement costs. Phosphorus and sediment exports will be considered in future work. This information is intended for use in a landscape-optimisation model that highlights how land uses can best be spatially allocated in the catchment to meet end-of-valley pollution targets at least cost.

The official environmental discourse in Laos describes a “chain of degradation” stretching from upland shifting cultivation, increased runoff and soil erosion to the siltation of wetlands and reservoirs. This perspective has had wide-ranging impacts on rural development policy which, in the uplands, has long favoured forest conservation over agriculture. Integrating soil erosion and water sediment data with local perceptions of land degradation in an upland village of northern Laos, this study tests the validity of the official environmental discourse. Biophysical measurements made in a small agricultural catchment indicate a significant correlation between the spatial extent of cultivation and soil erosion rates. However, sediment yields recorded at the outlet of the catchment highlight relatively low levels of off-site sediment exportation. Furthermore, farmers' perceptions suggest that local land degradation issues and crop yield declines could be less related to soil erosion than to agricultural land shortage, increased weed competition, and fertility losses resulting from the intensification of shifting cultivation. The study concludes that a better understanding and management of land degradation issues can be achieved by developing more inclusive and scientifically-informed approaches to environmental perceptions and narratives.