Search

Recommended Citation: WWQA Ecosystems, 2023. White Paper – Embedding Lakes into the Global Sustainability Agenda. Published by UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology on behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme coordinated World Water Quality Alliance Ecosystems Workstream. 22nd March 2023. ISBN: 978-1-906698-82-9. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7752982. This White Paperhas been prepared by the World Water Quality Alliance (WWQA) Ecosystems Workstream as a contribution to the work of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in their implementation of United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) Resolution 3/10 on "Addressing water pollution to protect and restore water-related ecosystems" (UNEP/EA.3/Res.10). The White Paper has been prepared following a peer review process and represents the views of the authors. The White Paperdoes not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of contributing organisations.&nbsp

Highlights • Nutrient concentration thresholds based on pressure-response models are needed for management. • Nutrient thresholds were derived from relationships of phytoplankton and macrophytes against nutrients. • Very shallow eastern continental lakes do not demonstrate a strong response to nutrients. • Fish stocking is the dominant pressure in these highly eutrophic shallow lakes. • These understudied lakes challenge the dominant paradigm of lake assessment and management. Nutrient targets based on pressure-response models are essential for defining ambitions and managing eutrophication. However, the scale of biogeographical variation in these pressure-response relationships is poorly understood, which may hinder eutrophication management in regions where lake ecology is less intensively studied. In this study, we derive ecology-based nutrient targets for five major ecoregions of Europe: Northern, Central-Baltic, Alpine, Mediterranean and Eastern Continental. As a first step, we developed regressions between nutrient concentrations and ecological quality ratios (EQR) based on phytoplankton and macrophyte communities. Significant relationships were established for 13 major lake types; in most cases, these relationships were stronger for phosphorus than for nitrogen, and stronger for phytoplankton than for macrophytes. Using these regressions, we estimated the total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) concentrations at which lakes of different types are likely to achieve good ecological status. However, in the very shallow lakes of the Eastern Continental region, relations between nutrient and biological communities were weak or non-significant. This can be attributed to high nutrient concentrations (in the asymptotic zone of phosphorus-phytoplankton models) suggesting other factors (light, grazing) limit primary production. However, we also show that fish stocking is a major pressure on Eastern Continental lakes, negatively affecting ecological status: lakes with low fish stocking show low chlorophyll-a concentrations and good ecological status despite high nutrient levels, while the lakes with high fish stocking show high chlorophyll-a and low ecological status. This study highlights the need to better understand lakes in biogeographic regions that have been, for historical reasons, less studied. This, in turn, helps reveal factors that challenge the dominant paradigms of lake assessment and management.

Eutrophication caused by an excessive presence of nutrients is affecting large portions of European waters with more than 60% of the surface water bodies failing to achieve the primary ambition of water management in Europe, that of good ecological status (GES) with diffuse emission from agriculture being the second most important pressure affecting surface waters. We developed EU wide and regional nutrient targets that define the boundary concentrations between good and moderate status for river and lake total P (TP) and total N (TN) and assessed the gap between actual nutrient concentrations and these targets and considered strategies of nutrient reductions necessary to achieve GES and deliver ecosystem services. The nutrient targets established for rivers ranged from 0.5–3.5 mg/L TN and 11–105 μg/L TP and for lakes 0.5–1.8 mg/L TN and 10–60 μg/L TP. Based on the EU wide targets, 59% of the TN and 57% of the TP river monitoring sites and 64% of the TN and 61% of the TP lake monitoring sites exceed these value and are thus at less than GES. The PCA and step-wise regression for EU basins clearly showed that the basin nutrient export is predominantly related to agricultural inputs. In addition, the step-wise regression models for TN and TP provided the ability to extrapolate the results and quantify the input reductions necessary for reaching the nutrient targets at the EU level. The results suggest that a dual water management strategy would be beneficial and should focus a) on those less polluted rivers and lakes that can easily attain the GES goal and b) on the more highly polluted systems that will improve the delivery of ecosystem services.

International audience; The characterization of lake hydromorphology is crucial to understand the dynamics of biodiversity. In Europe, it isalso a regulatory requirement of the Water Framework Directive. However, according to the literature, few methodsinclude this characterization. The aim of this study is to review the state of the art of the methods currently used orunder development in European countries to assess lake hydromorphological status for the implementation of theWFD. Our analysis is based on responses to a questionnaire distributed to national experts on hydromorphologyof the 28 countries implementing the WFD. Our results highlighted significant progress in the assessment ofhydromorphological features and processes. Water level regime, through the range of water flow or existing watermanagement, and structure of the shore zone through macrophytes and substrate characteristics or measurement oflateral connectivity, are the most frequently assessed features. Stratification, surface/groundwater connection andplanform pattern are the lake features most frequently omitted from the methods. However, in most of the countries,the development of methods was still in progress to meet the WFD requirement. Definition of reference condition is acentral component of all WFD compliant assessment tools but this is a challenge particularly in the assessment ofhydromorphological alteration of reservoirs. Similarly, demonstrating strong links between hydromorphological indicatorsand biological quality elements remains a challenge with many knowledge gaps still evident. These results highlight the need for rapid collection of new environmental data and the need for conceptual and applied research to make methodological progress in assessing lake hydromorphology and ensuring habitat quality.

Various methods have been proposed to identify threshold concentrations of nutrients that would support good ecological status, but the performance of these methods and the influence of other stressors on the underlying models have not been fully evaluated. We used synthetic datasets to compare the performance of ordinary least squares, logistic and quantile regression, as well as, categorical methods based on the distribution of nutrient concentrations categorised by biological status. The synthetic datasets used differed in their levels of variation between explanatory and response variables, and were centered at different positions along the stressor (nutrient) gradient. In order to evaluate the performance of methods in “multiple stressor” situations, another set of datasets with two stressors was used. Ordinary least squares and logistic regression methods were the most reliable when predicting the threshold concentration when nutrients were the sole stressor; however, both had a tendency to underestimate the threshold when a second stressor was present. In contrast, threshold concentrations produced by categorical methods were strongly influenced by the level of the stressor (nutrient enrichment, in this case) relative to the threshold they were trying to predict (good/moderate in this instance). Although all the methods tested had limitations in the presence of a second stressor, upper quantiles seemed generally appropriate to establish non-precautionary thresholds. For example, upper quantiles may be appropriate when establishing targets for restoration, but not when seeking to minimise deterioration. Selection of an appropriate threshold concentration should also attend to the regulatory regime (i.e. policy requirements and environmental management context) within which it will be used, and the ease of communicating the principles to managers and stakeholders.

One key component of any eutrophication management strategy is establishment of realistic thresholds above which negative impacts become significant and provision of ecosystem services is threatened. This paper introduces a toolkit of statistical approaches with which such thresholds can be set, explaining their rationale and situations under which each is effective. All methods assume a causal relationship between nutrients and biota, but we also recognise that nutrients rarely act in isolation. Many of the simpler methods have limited applicability when other stressors are present. Where relationships between nutrients and biota are strong, regression is recommended. Regression relationships can be extended to include additional stressors or variables responsible for variation between water bodies. However, when the relationship between nutrients and biota is weaker, categorical approaches are recommended. Of these, binomial regression and an approach based on classification mismatch are most effective although both will underestimate threshold concentrations if a second stressor is present. Whilst approaches such as changepoint analysis are not particularly useful for meeting the specific needs of EU legislation, other multivariate approaches (e.g. decision trees) may have a role to play. When other stressors are present quantile regression allows thresholds to be established which set limits above which nutrients are likely to influence the biota, irrespective of other pressures. The statistical methods in the toolkit may be useful as part of a management strategy, but more sophisticated approaches, often generating thresholds appropriate to individual water bodies rather than to broadly defined “types”, are likely to be necessary too. The importance of understanding underlying ecological processes as well as correct selection and application of methods is emphasised, along with the need to consider local regulatory and decision-making systems, and the ease with which outcomes can be communicated to non-technical audiences.

Triggered by the adoption of the Water Framework Directive, a variety of fish-based systems were developed throughout Europe to assess the ecological status of lakes. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of all existing systems and summarizes sampling methods, fish community traits (metrics) and the relevant anthropogenic pressures assessed by them. Twenty-one European countries developed fish-based assessment systems. Three countries each developed two distinct systems to approach different ecoregions, either to use different data, or to assess different lake types leading to a total number of 24 systems. The most common approach for the setting of reference conditions, used in seventeen systems, was the utilisation of fish communities in comparably undisturbed natural lakes as reference. Eleven used expert judgment, nine historical data and eight modelled relationships. Fourteen systems combined at least two approaches. The most common fish sampling method was a standardized fishing procedure with multimesh-gillnets. Many countries applied combinations of fishing methods, e.g. non-standard gillnets, fyke nets and electrofishing. Altogether 177 metrics were used for index development and each system combined 2–13 metrics. The most common ones were total standardized catches of number and biomass, relative abundance of Perca fluviatilis, Rutilus rutilus, and Abramis brama, feeding preferences, sensitive species, and non-natives. The pressure-response-relationships for these metrics were supported with both correlations established during system development and scientific publications. However, the metrics and their combinations were highly diverse and no metric was applied universally. Our analysis reveals that most fish-based assessment systems address multiple pressures (eutrophication, hydromorphological alterations, fishery pressure and occurrence of non-natives), whilst few are pressure-specific, tackling only eutrophication or acidification. We argue that the value of fish-based systems for lakes lies in their capacity to capture the effect of many different pressures and their interactions which is lacking for most assessment systems based on other biota.

Freshwaters face multiple environmental problems including eutrophication, acidification, salinization, and climate-change, all of which can lead to impairment of ecosystem structure and function. Furthermore, these stressors often act in combination. Benthic algal-based assessments to quantify impairment are used in both the EU and US. In this review, we use case studies, experience, and the literature to compare concepts, approaches, and methods between the EU and US to offer an updated picture of benthic algal-based assessments. Both the US and EU are composed of numerous constituent states having considerable flexibility to adopt individual methods. The goal of this work is to synthesize the various approaches that are used across the EU and US. Specifically, we compare and contrast benthic algal assessment performed in response to core legislation – the Water Framework Directive in the EU and the Clean Water Act in the US, with a particular focus on the steps taken to ensure consistency at different stages of the process. This includes consideration of approaches to sampling design and field methods, taxonomic resolution and laboratory harmonization, metric selection and choice of algal groups, assessment of stressors and stressor/response relationships. A number of commonalities emerged during this process, particularly the focus on diatoms over other algal groups. However, there are also a number of key differences, including more widespread use of multimetric indices in the US compared with the EU. Finally, we consider emerging opportunities, including the potential for using metagenomic approaches for bioassessment in the future.

The Water Framework Directive requires that the ecological status of surface waters be monitored and managed if necessary. A central function in ecological status assessment has the Biological Quality Elements—organisms inhabiting surface waters—by indicating human impact on their habitat. For benthic invertebrates, a wide array of national methods are used, but to date no comprehensive summary of metrics and methods is available. In this study, we summarize the benthic invertebrate community metrics used in national systems to assess the ecological status of rivers, (very) large rivers, and lakes. Currently, benthic invertebrate assemblages are used in 26 national assessment systems for rivers, 13 assessment systems for very large rivers, and 21 assessment systems for lakes in the EU. In the majority of systems, the same metrics and modules are used. In the Red Queen’s race of ecosystem management this may be a disadvantage as these same metrics and module likely depict the same stressors but there is growing evidence that aquatic ecosystems are subject to highly differentiated, complex multiple stressor impacts. Method development should be fostered to identify and rank impacts in multi-stressor environments. DNA-based biomonitoring 2.0 offers to detect stressors with greater accuracy—if new tools are calibrated.

Highly humic lakes are typical for the boreal zone. These unique ecosystems are characterised as relatively undisturbed habitats with brown water, high acidity, low nutrient content and lack of macrophytes. Current lake assessment methods are not appropriate for ecological assessment of highly humic lakes because of their unique properties and differing human pressures acting on these ecosystems. This study proposes a new approach suitable for the ecological status assessment of highly humic lakes impacted by hydrological modifications. Altogether, 52 macroinvertebrate samples from 15 raised bog lakes were used to develop the method. The studied lakes are located in the raised bogs at the central and eastern parts of Latvia. Altered water level was found as the main threat to the humic lake habitats since no other pressures were established. A multimetric index based on macroinvertebrate abundance, littoral and profundal preferences, Coleoptera taxa richness and the Biological Monitoring Working Party (BMWP) Score is suggested as the most suitable tool to assess the ecological quality of the highly humic lakes.

Graphical abstract, Highlights • We harmonised nine macrophyte-based approaches for assessing lake ecological status. • We established relationships between the common view and nutrient concentrations. • Submerged vegetation decrease and free-floating plants increase along the status gradient. • We describe indicator taxa for ‘good’ and ‘less than good’ ecological status. • We establish a ‘guiding image’ of the macrophyte community at ‘good’ ecological status., The European Water Framework Directive has been adopted by Member States to assess and manage the ecological integrity of surface waters. Specific challenges include harmonizing diverse assessment systems across Europe, linking ecological assessment to restoration measures and reaching a common view on ‘good’ ecological status. In this study, nine national macrophyte-based approaches for assessing ecological status were compared and harmonized, using a large dataset of 539 European lakes. A macrophyte common metric, representing the average standardized view of each lake by all countries, was used to compare national methods. This was also shown to reflect the total phosphorus (r2 = 0.32), total nitrogen (r2 = 0.22) as well as chlorophyll-a (r2 = 0.35–0.38) gradients, providing a link between ecological data, stressors and management decisions. Despite differing assessment approaches and initial differences in classification, a consensus was reached on how type-specific macrophyte assemblages change across the ecological status gradient and where ecological status boundaries should lie. A marked decline in submerged vegetation, especially Charophyta (characterizing ‘good’ status), and an increase in abundance of free-floating plants (characterizing ‘less than good’ status) were the most significant changes along the ecological status gradient. Macrophyte communities of ‘good’ status lakes were diverse with many charophytes and several Potamogeton species. A large number of taxa occurred across the entire gradient, but only a minority dominated at ‘less than good’ status, including filamentous algae, lemnids, nymphaeids, and several elodeids (e.g., Zannichellia palustris and Elodea nuttallii). Our findings establish a ‘guiding image’ of the macrophyte community at ‘good’ ecological status in hard-water lakes of the Central-Baltic region of Europe.

The European Union has embarked on a policy which aims to achieve good ecological status in all surface waters (i.e. rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters). In theory, ecological status assessment methods should address the effects of all relevant human pressures. In this study, we analyze the degree to which methods European countries use to assess ecological status tackle various pressures affecting European waters. Nutrient pollution is by far the best-covered pressure for all four water categories. Out of total of 423 assessment methods, 370 assess eutrophication and pressure-specific relationships have been demonstrated for 212 of these. “General degradation” is addressed by 238 methods, mostly validated by relationships to combined pressure indices. Other major pressures have received significantly less effort: hydromorphological degradation is assessed by 160 methods and pressure-specific relationships have been demonstrated for just 40 of these. Hydromorphological pressures are addressed (at least by one BQE) only by 25% countries for coastal waters and 70–80% for lakes and transitional waters. Specific diagnostic tools (i.e. single-pressure relationships) for hydromorphology have only been developed by a few countries: only 20% countries have such methods for lakes, coastal and transitional waters and less than half for rivers. Toxic contamination is addressed by 90 methods; however, pressure-specific relationships have been demonstrated for just eight of these. Only two countries have demonstrated pressure-specific acidification methods for rivers, and three for lakes. In summary, methods currently in use mostly address eutrophication and/or general degradation, but there is not much evidence that they reliably pick up the effects of other significant pressures such as hydromorphology or toxic contamination. Therefore, we recommend that countries re-examine: (1) those pressures which affect different water categories in the country; (2) relevant assessment methods to tackle those pressures; (3) whether pressure-response relationships have been developed for each of these., Graphical abstract Unlabelled Image, Highlights • Large number of aquatic biological assessment methods (423) used in EU member states • Not all major pressures are addressed by biological assessment systems. • Eutrophication is best-covered (370 methods) with pressure-response well documented. • Lack of assessment systems addressing hydromorphological alterations and toxic contamination • The capacity of assessment systems to diagnose the cause of degradation is limited.

International audience; In this overview (introductory article to a special issue including 14 papers), we consider all main types of natural and artificial inland freshwater habitas (fwh). For each type, we identify the main biodiversity patterns and ecological features, human impacts on the system and environmental issues, and discuss ways to use this information to improve stewardship. Examples of selected key biodiversity/ecological features (habitat type): narrow endemics, sensitive (groundwater and GDEs); crenobionts, LIHRes (springs); unidirectional flow, nutrient spiraling (streams); naturally turbid, floodplains, large-bodied species (large rivers); depth-variation in benthic communities (lakes); endemism and diversity (ancient lakes); threatened, sensitive species (oxbow lakes, SWE); diverse, reduced littoral (reservoirs); cold-adapted species (Boreal and Arctic fwh); endemism, depauperate (Antarctic fwh); flood pulse, intermittent wetlands, biggest river basins (tropical fwh); variable hydrologic regime—periods of drying, flash floods (arid-climate fwh). Selected impacts: eutrophication and other pollution, hydrologic modifications, overexploitation, habitat destruction, invasive species, salinization. Climate change is a threat multiplier, and it is important to quantify resistance, resilience, and recovery to assess the strategic role of the different types of freshwater ecosystems and their value for biodiversity conservation. Effective conservation solutions are dependent on an understanding of connectivity between different freshwater ecosystems (including related terrestrial, coastal and marine systems).

[White paper] Water quality metrics derived from satellite observation can complement conventional water sampling, particularly to achieve much improved spatialand temporal coverage of medium (several square kilometres) and largerwaterbodies. Thus, it has the potential to enhance confidence in WFDecological status classification, firstly by quantifying elements of environmental status that are currently not or under-reported by Member States, such as the frequency, onset, duration and extent of phytoplankton blooms. Second,confidence in ecological status assessment would improve with increasedrepresentativeness of the natural diversity of waterbodies that aremonitored, their inter-annual variability and water quality trends within largerwaterbodies. Moreover, using standardised approaches, it would allow better comparison and standardization of water quality assessment across Member States, facilitating the management of transboundary waters in particular. Finally, by increasing spatial and temporal coverage, satellite observation is expected to enhance the effectiveness of the Programme of Measures (PoM) through early detection of deterioration, improving knowledge of the potentialextent of an impact, improving monitoring of the effectiveness of PoMs and providing information to support more strategic in situ sampling. The European Union and European Space Agency currently boast the mostadvanced suite of satellite-based instruments designed to observe optical water quality. The Copernicus framework of sensors and services has hadsignificant investment in recent years. Therefore, the vast majority of the costassociated with satellite-based monitoring of surface waters has already been invested. To promote and support the use of satellite-based water quality metrics in WFD statutory monitoring and reporting activities, we make the following recommendations, particularly in light of the ongoing revision of the WFD: Recognition of satellite observation as an assessment method in the context of the revision of the Water Framework Directive. Explicit encouragement to use satellite-based monitoring to complement national and statutory monitoring and reporting, such as already exercised by a limited number of countries (examplesin this paper) and available from existing academic, governmental and private sector capabilities, will provide a clear signal to Member States that its use is supported. In particular, satellite products that enhance confidence in the classification of phytoplankton biomass (typically measured by chlorophyll-a) by vastly improving spatial and temporal coverage should be considered, since these are already highly mature and can support quality elements that have thus far been considered too costly to include using conventional methods, such as assessing the frequency and intensity of algal blooms in lakes and coastal waters. Create a satellite observation expert group to harmonise metrics across countries and advise member states on best practises. The satellite observation expert group will: ensure harmonisation of the applicable satellite observation methods and their comparability with nationally-approved and intercalibrated methods; establish guidelines on how observation uncertainties should be reported; andensure close collaboration with the Water Framework Directive Common ImplementationStrategy working group on ecological status (WG ECOSTAT). An expert group advising on bestpractise is necessary because satellite-based observation capabilities continue to improve overtime whereas water quality management relies on stable and transparent methodologies. The expert group should work towards self-certification in the industry, including representationfrom the downstream Earth observation service sector, and be led by an independent researchand policy advisory body (such as the Joint Research Centre). Reference the use of satellite-based Earth observation metrics in the Reporting Guidance (Annex 5) of the revised Water Framework Directive. Particular reference to the use of satellite-derived water quality indicators in assessing phytoplankton biomass (by proxy of chlorophyll-a) and the frequency and intensity ofphytoplankton blooms in Annex 5 as well as national and international standards will ensurethe provision of monitoring data of equivalent scientific quality and comparability. Convene a conference for EC, Member States, WFD authorities to agree onrecommendations of common practices and reporting standards when using satellitebasedwater quality metrics to support the Water Framework Directive. Provide an opportunity for policy makers to recognise and proactively support the use of already available satellite-based Earth observation derived metrics and capitalise on alreadyestablished networks of national Earth observation scientists applying relevant derived metricsto the Water Framework Directive requirements.

This opinion paper introduces a special series of articles dedicated to freshwater benthic algae and their use in assessment and monitoring. This special series was inspired by talks presented at the 9th International Congress on the Use of Algae for Monitoring Rivers and Comparable Habitats (Trento, Italy, 2015), the latest of a series of meetings started in 1991.In this paper, we will first provide a brief overview of phytobenthos methods in Europe. Then, we will turn towards the ‘dark side’ of phytobenthos and describe four particular problems for phytobenthos assessment in the European Union: (1) over-reliance on a single group of algae (mostly diatoms) to the exclusion of other groups; (2) relatively low adoption of benthic algae for ecological assessments in lakes; (3) absence of measures of phytobenthos abundance; (4) approaches used to define boundaries between ecological classes.Following this, we evaluate the strengths and limitations of current phytobenthos assessment methods against 12 criteria for method evaluation addressing four areas: ecological rationale, performance, feasibility of implementation, and use in communication and management. Using these criteria, we identify and discuss three general challenges for those developing new methods for phytobenthos-based assessment: a weak ecological rationale and insufficient consideration of the role of phytobenthos as a diagnostic tool and for communicating ecosystem health beyond a narrow group of specialists.The papers in the special series allow a comparison with the situation and approaches in the USA, present new methods for the assessment of ecological status and acidification, provide tools for an improved management of headwaters and petrifying springs, discuss the utility of phytobenthos for lake assessments, and test the utility of functional measures (such as biofilm phosphorus uptake capacity, PUC).

A small standing-water ecosystem (SWE) is a shallow (

European water policy has identified eutrophication as a priority issue for water management. Substantial progress has been made in combating eutrophication but open issues remain, including setting reliable and meaningful nutrient criteria supporting ʽgoodʼ ecological status of the Water Framework Directive. The paper introduces a novel methodological approach - a set of four different methods - that can be applied to different ecosystems and stressors to derive empirically-based management targets. The methods include Ranged Major Axis (RMA) regression, multivariate Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression, logistic regression, and minimising the mismatch of classifications. We apply these approaches to establish nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) criteria for the major productive shallow lake types of Europe: high alkalinity shallow (LCB1; mean depth 3–15 m) and very shallow (LCB2; mean depth, Graphical abstract Unlabelled Image, Highlights • We link ecological status of lake macrophyte communities to nutrient levels. • We establish nutrient criteria for ʽgoodʼ ecological status in shallow lakes of Europe. • Different regression and categorical methods yield similar nutrient criteria. • Empirically derived nutrient criteria can guide lake restoration efforts. • This methodology can be applied to other ecosystems and indicators.

In European countries, hydromorphological (HyMo) pressures are the second most commonly occurring types of pressures on aquatic ecosystems (after eutrophication). HyMo pressures (i.e., man-made alt...

The Water Framework Directive requires that European Union (EU) Member States ensure that their surface waters are in at least good ecological status by 2015 or at the latest by 2027. The good ecological status objective has been described and operationally defined in the Water Framework Directive. Member States develop their own ecological assessment methods but they must demonstrate that their methods and resulting classifications are comparable to other Member States across the EU. Comparability of assessment results is determined through an intercalibration exercise, the subject of this article. In 2013 The European Commission issued an updated Commission Decision on the results of intercalibration of assessment results across Europe. We present an overview of the process, discuss critical issues and good practices, and recommend approaches for a successful completion of the exercise. OA hybrid

European countries have defined >1000 national river types and >400 national lake types to implement the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). In addition, common river and lake types have been defined within regions of Europe for intercalibrating the national classification systems for ecological status of water bodies. However, only a low proportion of national types correspond to these common intercalibration types. This causes uncertainty concerning whether the classification of ecological status is consistent across countries. Therefore, through an extensive dialogue with and data provision from all EU countries, we have developed a generic typology for European rivers and lakes. This new broad typology reflects the natural variability in the most commonly used environmental type descriptors: altitude, size and geology, as well as mean depth for lakes. These broad types capture 60–70% of all national WFD types including almost 80% of all European river and lake water bodies in almost all EU countries and can also be linked to all the common intercalibration types. The typology provides a new framework for large-scale assessments across country borders, as demonstrated with an assessment of ecological status and pressures based on European data from the 2nd set of river basin management plans. The typology can also be used for a variety of other large-scale assessments, such as reviewing and linking the water body types to habitat types under the Habitats Directive and the European Nature Information System (EUNIS), as well as comparing type-specific limit values for nutrients and other supporting quality elements across countries. Thus, the broad typology can build the basis for all scientific outputs of managerial relevance related to water body types.

Lakes in Europe are subject to multiple anthropogenic pressures, such as eutrophication, habitat degradation and introduction of alien species, which are frequently inter-related. Therefore, effective assessment methods addressing multiple pressures are needed. In addition, these systems have to be harmonised (i.e. intercalibrated) to achieve common management objectives across Europe.Assessments of fish communities inform environmental policies on ecological conditions integrating the impacts of multiple pressures. However, the challenge is to ensure consistency in ecological assessments through time, across ecosystem types and across jurisdictional boundaries. To overcome the serious comparability issues between national assessment systems in Europe, a total anthropogenic pressure intensity (TAPI) index was developed as a weighted combination of the most common pressures in European lakes that is validated against 10 national fish-based Water quality assessment systems using data from 556 lakes.Multi-pressure indices showed significantly higher correlations with fish indices than single-pressure indices. The best-performing index combines eutrophication, hydromorphological alterations and human use intensity of lakes. For specific lake types also biological pressures may constitute an important additional pressure. The best-performing index showed a strong correlation with eight national fish-based assessment systems. This index can be used in lake management for assessing total anthropogenic pressure on lake ecosystems and creates a benchmark for comparison of fish assessments independent of fish community composition, size structure and fishing-gear.We argue that fish-based multiple-pressure assessment tools should be seen as complementary to single-pressure tools offering the major advantage of integrating direct and indirect effects of multiple pressures over large scales of space and time. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Nearly one hundred biological methods are currently used to assess the ecological status of European lakes. Here, using information from a questionnaire, complemented with findings from the literature, we compared the use of different methods to assess the ecological status of lakes as well as the rationale for using different organism groups (phytoplankton, benthic diatoms, macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish) in monitoring programmes. 2. Reference conditions were estimated for about half of the methods using near-natural reference sites, complemented with other approaches, such as historical data, modelling and expert judgment. About 40% of the methods used more subjective approaches to establish reference conditions (e.g. selecting near-natural reference sites without any pressure criteria) or no information was available. 3. Methods using several measures (i.e. multimetric methods) were developed, with particular emphasis on measures based on sensitivity/tolerance and abundance. Different organisms showed different responses to similar levels of human impacts. Assessment methods based on phytoplankton showed the strongest response to eutrophication, with class boundaries mainly based on ecological rationale. By contrast, statistical distributions and expert judgment were frequently used in setting class boundaries in macrophyte, benthic invertebrates and fish methods. Methods were strongly biased towards detecting changes associated with eutrophication, with other pressures (e.g. hydromorphological alteration) seldom monitored. 4. Effective restoration measures and achieving good ecological status of European lakes will require assessment programmes based on a sound understanding of pressure–response relationships as well as the use of ecologically based approaches in establishing reference conditions and setting class boundaries.

Recent technological developments have increased the number of variables being monitored in lakes and reservoirs using automatic high frequency monitoring (AHFM). However, design of AHFM systems and posterior data handling and interpretation are currently being developed on a site-by-site and issue-by-issue basis with minimal standardization of protocols or knowledge sharing. As a result, many deployments become short-lived or underutilized, and many new scientific developments that are potentially useful for water management and environmental legislation remain underexplored. This Critical Review bridges scientific uses of AHFM with their applications by providing an overview of the current AHFM capabilities, together with examples of successful applications. We review the use of AHFM for maximizing the provision of ecosystem services supplied, by lakes and reservoirs (consumptive and non consumptive uses, food production, and recreation), and for reporting lake status in the EU Water Framework Directive. We also highlight critical issues to enhance the application of AHFM, and suggest the establishment of appropriate networks to facilitate knowledge sharing and technological transfer between potential users. Finally, we give advice on how modern sensor technology can successfully be applied on a larger scale to the management of lakes and reservoirs and maximize the ecosystem services they provide.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) has been published in 2000 and the process of its implementation has created a new paradigm in the understanding of ecological status of water bodies in Europe. The Directive explicitly requires that ecological status is assessed through the analysis of various characteristics of aquatic flora and fauna. An Intercalibration exercise is foreseen to identify and resolve significant inconsistencies between the ecological quality classifications of EU Member States to ensure that the obligation to reach good status has the same meaning throughout Europe. The results of the first Lake Intercalibration exercise (2003-2008) are the setting of reference conditions and class boundaries for phytoplankton biomass metrics for all lake Intercalibration types and all geographical regions of the EU. Work on macrophyte assessment methods has been carried out in the Alpine, Central/Baltic and Northern region, while only Alpine and Mediterranean countries have succeeded to develop and harmonize phytoplankton composition assessment methods. The aim of the second phase of intercalibration (2008-2011) is to close these gaps and improve the comparability of the results in time for the second river basin management plans due in 2015., JRC.H.1-Water Resources

In order to adequately assess the ecological status of thermally stratified lakes based on chlorophyll, the sampling must cover all productive layers of the water column. Missing the deep chlorophyll maxima (DCM) that often occur in the meta- or hypolimnion of transparent lakes supported by sufficient illumination and good nutrient availability may cause serious underestimation of the productivity and lead to misclassification of the lake ecological status. There is no commonly accepted sampling design for stratified lakes, and various monitoring guides suggest controversial designs. Our aim was to find some robust criteria to assess the probability of occurrence of a DCM and estimate the differences in measured mean chlorophyll concentrations caused by various sampling designs. Our theoretical model showed that the probability of occurrence of a DCM increases with increasing water transparency and decreasing lake size. Empirical data from Italian and Estonian stratified lakes confirmed the results. Testing of different sampling designs on lakes with full measured chlorophyll profiles available showed that taking only surface layer samples will lead with a high probability to an underestimation of the chlorophyll concentration in the trophogenic layer. In order not to miss the Chl peak in stratified lakes, in most cases it would be more precautious not to limit the sampling to the well-mixed epilimnion but to extend it to the whole euphotic layer. Sampling the epilimnion instead of the euphotic zone could cause up to a 70% underestimation of the chlorophyll concentration, an error that would cause a misclassification of the lake by one or even two status classes in a 5-class assessment system. In most cases, the 2.5 * Secchi depths proved a suitable criterion of the sampling depth and only in the case of surface scums, would sampling of a 3 * Secchi depth layer be recommended in order not to miss the deep chlorophyll maximum.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000) defines macrophytes as one of the biological groups required for the ecological assessment of European surface waters. For the first step of the intercalibration exercise on the different existing macrophyte assessment methods a common macrophyte dataset was established containing abundance data on 789 macrophyte species from 313 different lake sites in ten European countries. Various common species and genera were identified to be indicative of reference and impacted conditions within the whole Lakes-Central/Baltic GIG. Cluster analyses supported by non-metric multidimensional scaling showed that macrophyte assemblages of sites do not necessarily cluster per lake type and correspond better to the source countries. Other factors such as regional climate effects and/or artefacts of differences in monitoring techniques might also contribute to this effect., JRC.H.1-Water Resources

Aquatic macrophytes are one of the biological quality elements in the Water Framework Directive (WFD) for which status assessments must be defined. We tested two methods to classify macrophyte species and their response to eutrophication pressure: one based on percentiles of occurrence along a phosphorous gradient and another based on trophic ranking of species using Canonical Correspondence Analyses in the ranking procedure. The methods were tested at Europe-wide, regional and national scale as well as by alkalinity category, using 1,147 lakes from 12 European states. The grouping of species as sensitive, tolerant or indifferent to eutrophication was evaluated for some taxa, such as the sensitive Chara spp. and the large isoetids, by analysing the (non-linear) response curve along a phosphorous gradient. These thresholds revealed in these response curves can be used to set boundaries among different ecological status classes. In total 48 taxa out of 114 taxa were classified identically regardless of dataset or classification method. These taxa can be considered the most consistent and reliable indicators of sensitivity or tolerance to eutrophication at European scale. Although the general response of well known indicator species seems to hold, there are many species that were evaluated differently according to the database selection and classification methods. This hampers a Europe-wide comparison of classified species lists as used for the status assessment within the WFD implementation process.

International audience; Land use effects are considered among the main stressors on freshwater biodiversity, with up to 80% of land in Europe under intensive use. Here, we address the impact of arable and urban landscapes on taxon richness, Shannon–Wiener diversity, taxon rareness and taxonomic distinctness of eleven organ- ism groups encompassing vertebrates, invertebrates and plants, occurring in five freshwater ecosystem types across Europe: rivers, floodplains, lakes, ponds and groundwater. In addition, nine geo-climatic descriptors (e.g. latitude, longitude, precipitation) were used to disentangle land use effects from those of natural drivers of biodiversity. Using a variance partitioning scheme based on boosted regression trees and generalised linear regression modelling, we sought: (i) to partition the unique, shared and unex- plained variation in the metrics explained by both groups of descriptor variables, (ii) to quantify the contribution of each descriptor variable to biodiversity variation in the most parsimonious regression model and (iii) to identify interactions of land use and natural descriptors. The variation in biodiver- sity uniquely described by land use was consistently low across both ecosystem types and organism groups. In contrast, geo-climatic descriptors uniquely, and jointly with land use, explained significantly more variance in all 39 biodiversity metrics tested. Regression models revealed significant interactions between geo-climatic descriptors and land use for a third of the models, with interactions accounting for up to 17% of the model’s deviance. However, no consistent patterns were observed related to the type of biodiversity metric and organism group considered. Subdividing data according to the strongest geo-climatic gradient in each dataset aimed to reduce the strength of natural descriptors relative to land use. Although data sub-setting can highlight land use effects on freshwater biodiversity, sub-setting our data often failed to produce stronger land use effects. There was no increase in spatial congruence in the subsets, suggesting that the observed land use effects were not dependent on the spatial extent of the subsets. Our results confirm significant joint effects of, and interactions between, land use and natural environmental descriptors on freshwater biodiversity, across ecosystem types and organism groups. This has implications for biodiversity monitoring. First, the combined analysis of anthropogenic and natural descriptors is a prerequisite for the analysis of human threats to biodiversity. Second, geo-climatically, but not necessarily geographically more homogeneous datasets can help unmask the role of anthropogenic descriptors. And third, whole community-based biodiversity metrics (including taxon richness) are not ideal indicators of anthropogenic effects on biodiversity at broad scales.

OA hybrid Although the Water Framework Directive specifies that macrophytes and phytobenthos should be used for the ecological assessment of lakes and rivers, practice varies widely throughout the EU. Most countries have separate methods for macrophytes and phytobenthos in rivers; however, the situation is very different for lakes. Here, 16 countries do not have dedicated phytobenthos methods, some include filamentous algae within macrophyte survey methods whilst others use diatoms as proxies for phytobenthos. The most widely-cited justification for not having a dedicated phytobenthos method is redundancy, i.e. that macrophyte and phytoplankton assessments alone are sufficient to detect nutrient impacts. Evidence from those European Union Member States that have dedicated phytobenthos methods supports this for high level overviews of lake condition and classification; however, there are a number of situations where phytobenthos may contribute valuable information for the management of lakes.

After more than a decade of implementation by water managers in all river basins across Europe, the Water Framework Directive (WFD) has now reached a maturity age. However, some significant gaps still remain in the way WFD is implemented, and there is now a need for water managers and scientist to communicate better in order to find scientific solutions to these gaps. To do so, a Science-Policy Interface (SPI) activity was launched in 2010 led by Directorate General (DG) Research and Onema (the French national agency for water and aquatic ecosystems), providing an interactive forum to connect scientists and WFD end-users. One major aim of the SPI activity was to establish a list of most crucial research and development needs for enhancing WFD implementation. The purpose of the present study is to make the synthesis of the proposals made regarding ecological status, for which 10 priority issues were raised. For lakes, temporary streams as well as transitional and coastal waters, WFD implementation still strongly suffer from the lack of WFD-compliant bioassessment methods. For rivers, special attention should now be paid to the ecological impacts of hydromorphological alterations on biological communities, notably those affecting river continuity and riparian covering. Spatial extrapolation tools are needed in order to evaluate ecological status for water bodies not directly surveyed. The need for more functional bioassessment tools as complements to usual WFD-compliant tools, and to clearly connect good ecological state, biodiversity and ecosystem services when implementing WFD have also been identified as crucial issues., JRC.H.1-Water Resources

Eleven countries participated in an intercalibration exercise to harmonise diatom-based methods used for status assessment in lakes. Participating countries extended from Sweden and Finland in the north to Italy and Slovenia in the south, and from Ireland in the west to Hungary in the east. Intercalibration followed standard procedures developed for the European Commission which ensures that outcomes of this exercise are compatible with those for other types of biota in both freshwater and marine water bodies throughout Europe. Lakes were divided into low, medium and high alkalinity types for this exercise. However, it was not possible to perform a full intercalibration on the low alkalinity lakes due to the short gradient length and confounding influences of pH and humic substances. Values of the Trophie Index of Rott et al. (1999) were computed for all samples in order that national datasets could all be expressed on a common scale. Not all participating countries had reference sites against which national methods could be standardised and, therefore, a Generalised Linear Modelling approach was used to control the effect of national differences in datasets. These steps enabled the position of high/good and good/moderate status boundaries for all participating countries to be expressed on a common scale and for deviations beyond  0.25 class widths ( 0.05 Ecological Quality Radio (EQR) units, assuming equal distances between all class boundaries) to be identified. Those countries which had relaxed boundaries were required to adjust these to within  0.25 class widths whilst the intercalibration rules allowed those countries with more stringent boundaries to retain these. Despite biogeographical and typological differences between participating countries, there was broad agreement on the characteristics of high, good and moderate status diatom assemblages, and the intercalibration exercise has ensured a consistent application of Water Framework Directive assessments around Europe., JRC.H.1-Water Resources

A safe, clean water supply is critical for sustaining many important ecosystem services provided by freshwaters. The development of cyanobacterial blooms in lakes and reservoirs has a major impact on the provision of these services, particularly limiting their use for recreation and water supply for drinking and spray irrigation. Nutrient enrichment is thought to be the most important pressure responsible for the widespread increase in cyanobacterial blooms in recent decades. Quantifying how nutrients limit cyanobacterial abuncance in lakes, is, therefore, a key need for setting robust targets for the managment of freshwaters. Using a dataset from over 800 European lakes, we highlight the use of quantile regression modelling for understanding the maximum potential capacity of cyanobacteria in relation to total phosphorus (TP) and the use of a range of quantile responses, alongside World Health Organisation (WHO) health alert thresholds for recreational waters, for setting robust phoshorus targets for lake management in relation to water use., JRC.H.1-Water Resources

Data on phytoplankton, macrophytes, benthic invertebrates and fish from more than 2000 lakes in 21 European countries were used to develop and test metrics for assessing the ecological status of European lakes as required by the Water Framework Directive. The strongest and most sensitive of the 11 metrics responding to eutrophication pressure were phytoplankton chlorophyll a, a taxonomic composition trophic index (PTI) and a functional traits index (FTI), the macrophyte intercalibration taxonomic composition metric (ICM) and a Nordic lake fish index (NLFI). Intermediate response was found for a cyanobacterial bloom intensity index (Cyano), the Ellenberg macrophyte index and a multimetric index for benthic invertebrates (MMI). The latter also responded to hydromorphological pressure. The metrics provide information on primary and secondary impacts of eutrophication in the pelagic and the littoral zone of lakes. Several of these metrics were used as common metrics in the intercalibration of national assessment systems or have been incorporated directly into the national systems. New biological metrics have been developed to assess hydromorphological pressures, based on aquatic macrophyte responses to water level fluctuations, and on macroinvertebrate responses to morphological modifications of lake shorelines. These metrics thus enable the quantification of biological impacts of hydromorphological pressures in lakes., JRC.H.1-Water Resources

14 páginas, 1 figura, 4 tablas., Phytoplankton constitutes a diverse array of short-lived organisms which derive their nutrients from the water column of lakes. These features make this community the most direct and earliest indicator of the impacts of changing nutrient conditions on lake ecosystems. It also makes them particularly suitable for measuring the success of restoration measures following reductions in nutrient loads. This paper integrates a large volume of work on a number of measures, or metrics, developed for using phytoplankton to assess the ecological status of European lakes, as required for the Water Framework Directive. It assesses the indicator strength of these metrics, specifically in relation to representing the impacts of eutrophication. It also examines how these measures vary naturally at different locations within a lake, as well as between lakes, and how much variability is associated with different replicate samples, different months within a year and between years. On the basis of this analysis, three of the strongest metrics (chlorophyll-a, phytoplankton trophic index (PTI), and cyanobacterial biovolume) are recommended for use as robust measures for assessing the ecological quality of lakes in relation to nutrient-enrichment pressures and a minimum recommended sampling frequency is provided for these three metrics., This paper is a result of the project WISER (Water bodies in Europe: Integrative Systems to assess Ecological status and Recovery) funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme, Theme 6 (Environment including Climate Change) (contract No. 226273).

Despite improvements in waste water treatment systems, the impact of anthropogenic nutrient sources remains a key issue for the management of European lakes. The Water Framework Directive provides a mechanism through which progress can be made on this issue. The Directive requires a classification of the ecological status of phytoplankton which includes an assessment of taxonomic composition. In this paper we present a composition metric, the Plankton Trophic Index, that was developed in the WISER EU FP7 project and demonstrate how it has been used to compare national phytoplankton classification systems in Northern and Central Europe. The metric was deerived from sumaer phytoplankton data from 1795 lakes, summarised by genus covering 20 European countries. We show that it is significantly related to total phosphorus concentrations, but that it is alos sensitive to alkalinity, lake size and climatic variables. Through the use of country specific reference values for the index we demonstrate that it is significantly related to othrt national phytoplankton assessment systems and illustrate for a sinngle lake type how it was used to intercalibrate Water Framework Directive boundaries for different countries., JRC.H.1-Water Resources

According to the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the status of European surface waters is assessed using aquatic organism groups. Here we present an overview of 297 assessment methods, based on a questionnaire survey addressing authorities in all countries implementing the WFD. Twenty-eight countries reported on methods applied to rivers (30%), coastal waters (26%), lakes (25%) and transitional waters (19%). More than half of the methods are based on macroscopic plants (28%) or benthic invertebrates (26%); in addition, phytoplankton (21%), fish (15%) and phytobenthos (10%) were assessed. Countries of Central and Western Europe had developed almost all methods required for the WFD implementation. Two main sampling strategies were discernable: small-scale sampling of the taxonomically diverse groups of benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos that demand elaborate processing, versus large-scale sampling of vast, species-poor plant stands or the mobile fish fauna. About three-quarters of methods identified organisms to species-level while in particular phytoplankton-based methods used class- or phylum-level, or included no taxonomic information. Out of nine metric types distinguished, river methods used more sensitivity and trait metrics while for other water categories abundance metrics prevailed. Fish-based methods showed the highest number of metrics. Fifty-six percent of methods focussed on the detection of eutrophication and organic pollution, with shares decreasing from autotrophic to heterotrophic organism groups: phytoplankton > phytobenthos > macroscopic plants > benthic invertebrates > fish fauna. The order was almost reverse for hydrological or morphological deterioration: fish fauna and macroscopic plants > benthic invertebrates > phytoplankton > phytobenthos. These pressures were mainly assessed by methods applied to rivers and transitional waters. The pressure-impact relationship of about one-third of methods was not tested empirically with methods for transitional waters being the least validated. The strength of relationships differed significantly between organism groups and water categories. The correlation coefficients generally covered a broad range ( 0.8), but on average with the pattern: phytoplankton > macroscopic plants > benthic invertebrates > phytobenthos and fish fauna. In terms of water categories the following order resulted: coastal waters > lakes > transitional waters > rivers. Status boundaries were mostly defined using statistical approaches. We advocate better reflection of the necessary sampling effort and precision, full validations of pressure-impact relationships and an implementation of more ecological components into classification.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD), requires European Member States to assess the “ecological status” of surface waters. As part of this, many European countries have developed an ecological quality classification scheme for chlorophyll concentrations as a measure of phytoplankton abundance. The assessment of ecological quality must be based on the degree of divergence of a water body from an appropriate baseline, or ‘reference condition’. It is, therefore, necessary to determine chlorophyll reference conditions for all European lake types. This involves examining how chlorophyll concentrations vary by lake type, in the absence of any nutrient pressures from agriculture or wastewater. For this purpose, a dataset of 540 European lakes considered to be in a relatively undisturbed reference condition has been assembled, including data on chlorophyll concentration, altitude, mean depth, alkalinity, humic content, surface area, and geographical region. Chlorophyll was found to vary with lake type and geographical region, and was found to be naturally highest in low-altitude, very shallow, high alkalinity and humic lake types and naturally lowest in clear, deep, low alkalinity lakes. The results suggest that light and mineral availability are important drivers of chlorophyll concentrations in undisturbed lakes. Descriptive statistics (median and percentiles) of chlorophyll concentrations were calculated from populations of lakes in this reference lake dataset and used to derive lake-type specific reference chlorophyll concentrations. These reference conditions can be applied, through a comparison with observed chlorophyll concentrations at a site, in the assessments of ecological status and provide a consistent baseline to adopt for European countries.

Aquatic macrophytes are one of the biological quality elements in the Water Framework Directive (WFD) for which status assessments must be defined. We tested two methods to classify macrophyte species and their response to eutrophication pressure: one based on percentiles of occurrence along a phosphorous gradient and an other based on trophic ranking (LEAFPACS method). The methods were tested at Europe-wide, regional and national scale as well as by alkalinity category, using 1147 lakes from twelve European states and compared for the regional levels. Definition of boundaries for grouping species as sensitive, tolerant or indifferent to a change in trophic status can be facilitated by assessing the (non-linear) response of well known individual species or groups of species along a phosphorous gradient, such as Chara spp. and large isoetids. In total 48 taxa out of 114 taxa were classified identical regardless of dataset or classification method. These taxa can be considered the most consistent and reliable indicators of sensitivity or tolerance to eutrophication at European scale. Although the general response of well known indicator species seems to hold, there are many species that are evaluated differently according to the database selection and classification methods., JRC.H.5-Rural, water and ecosystem resources

The Water Framework Directive (EC 2000; WFD) is the first piece of international legislation to require European countries to establish comparable ecological assessment schemes of their freshwaters. A key element in harmonising quality classification within and between Europe’s river basins is an “Intercalibration” exercise, stipulated by the WFD, to ensure that the good status boundary in all of the biological assessment methods are comparable. In this article we provide a comprehensive overview of this international comparison, focusing on the assessment schemes developed for freshwater lakes. 82 lake ecological assessment methods were submitted for the intercalibration exercise, and 62 were successfully intercalibrated and included in the EC Decision on Intercalibration, with a high proportion of phytoplankton (18), macrophyte (17) and benthic fauna (13) assessment methods. In this article we (1) review all the assessment methods developed for lakes focusing on the metrics included and the pressures addressed; (2) summarize the process and the results of intercalibration of lake assessment methods, and (3) discuss the current gaps and the way forward to common management objectives for European lakes., JRC.H.1-Water Resources

[White paper] Water quality metrics derived from satellite observation can complement conventional water sampling, particularly to achieve much improved spatialand temporal coverage of medium (several square kilometres) and largerwaterbodies. Thus, it has the potential to enhance confidence in WFDecological status classification, firstly by quantifying elements of environmental status that are currently not or under-reported by Member States, such as the frequency, onset, duration and extent of phytoplankton blooms. Second,confidence in ecological status assessment would improve with increasedrepresentativeness of the natural diversity of waterbodies that aremonitored, their inter-annual variability and water quality trends within largerwaterbodies. Moreover, using standardised approaches, it would allow better comparison and standardization of water quality assessment across Member States, facilitating the management of transboundary waters in particular. Finally, by increasing spatial and temporal coverage, satellite observation is expected to enhance the effectiveness of the Programme of Measures (PoM) through early detection of deterioration, improving knowledge of the potentialextent of an impact, improving monitoring of the effectiveness of PoMs and providing information to support more strategic in situ sampling. The European Union and European Space Agency currently boast the mostadvanced suite of satellite-based instruments designed to observe optical water quality. The Copernicus framework of sensors and services has hadsignificant investment in recent years. Therefore, the vast majority of the costassociated with satellite-based monitoring of surface waters has already been invested. To promote and support the use of satellite-based water quality metrics in WFD statutory monitoring and reporting activities, we make the following recommendations, particularly in light of the ongoing revision of the WFD: Recognition of satellite observation as an assessment method in the context of the revision of the Water Framework Directive. Explicit encouragement to use satellite-based monitoring to complement national and statutory monitoring and reporting, such as already exercised by a limited number of countries (examplesin this paper) and available from existing academic, governmental and private sector capabilities, will provide a clear signal to Member States that its use is supported. In particular, satellite products that enhance confidence in the classification of phytoplankton biomass (typically measured by chlorophyll-a) by vastly improving spatial and temporal coverage should be considered, since these are already highly mature and can support quality elements that have thus far been considered too costly to include using conventional methods, such as assessing the frequency and intensity of algal blooms in lakes and coastal waters. Create a satellite observation expert group to harmonise metrics across countries and advise member states on best practises. The satellite observation expert group will: ensure harmonisation of the applicable satellite observation methods and their comparability with nationally-approved and intercalibrated methods; establish guidelines on how observation uncertainties should be reported; andensure close collaboration with the Water Framework Directive Common ImplementationStrategy working group on ecological status (WG ECOSTAT). An expert group advising on bestpractise is necessary because satellite-based observation capabilities continue to improve overtime whereas water quality management relies on stable and transparent methodologies. The expert group should work towards self-certification in the industry, including representationfrom the downstream Earth observation service sector, and be led by an independent researchand policy advisory body (such as the Joint Research Centre). Reference the use of satellite-based Earth observation metrics in the Reporting Guidance (Annex 5) of the revised Water Framework Directive. Particular reference to the use of satellite-derived water quality indicators in assessing phytoplankton biomass (by proxy of chlorophyll-a) and the frequency and intensity ofphytoplankton blooms in Annex 5 as well as national and international standards will ensurethe provision of monitoring data of equivalent scientific quality and comparability. Convene a conference for EC, Member States, WFD authorities to agree onrecommendations of common practices and reporting standards when using satellitebasedwater quality metrics to support the Water Framework Directive. Provide an opportunity for policy makers to recognise and proactively support the use of already available satellite-based Earth observation derived metrics and capitalise on alreadyestablished networks of national Earth observation scientists applying relevant derived metricsto the Water Framework Directive requirements.