Ecostat Discussion Paper on Ecological Status Classification and Eutrophication

1. Ecostat Discussion Paper on Ecological Status Classification and Eutrophication

2. N & P CO2 Organic C Oxygen deficit The normal balance of ingredients

3. N & P N & P Organic C Oxygen deficit Oxygen deficit Effects of nutrient enrichment CO2 Organic C

4. Key Principles

5. Macrophytes may be most sensitive in some specific circumstances (e.g. shallow lakes with very abundant macrophyte communities)

6. If reliably monitoring the most sensitive quality elements is not practicable, monitoring for other quality elements may be needed to help make assessments e.g. In some coastal waters obtaining sufficient measurements of phytoplankton may be impracticable. Indicators of secondary effects on benthic invertebrates may help in making assessments

7. Relevant sub-types may be identified when establishing type-specific reference conditions for indicator parameters Intercalibration type National type 1 Sub-type A National type 2 National type 3 Site specific

8. The type-specific conditions are equivalent for rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters HIGH GOOD Slight changes in biomass NOSIGNIFICANT undesirable disturbance MODERATE Moderate changes in biomass SIGNIFICANT disturbance MAY be present POOR BAD ECOLOGICAL STATUS

10. Probability of significant undesirable disturbances being present Status classes with which conditions are consistent Severity and extent of undesirable disturbance Nutrient enrichment Biomass resulting from accelerated algal growth Very minor Slightly increased compared to reference conditions 0 % Moderately increased compared to reference conditions 100 % Major increase compared to reference conditions Severe disturbances likely GOOD MODERATE POOR

11. Gradient of nutrient enrichment Biomass resulting from accelerated algal growth Probability of significant undesirable disturbances being present Status classes with which conditions are consistent Taxonomic composition Composition moderately different from reference conditions 0 % 100 % Biomass naturally very low at high status GOOD MODERATE POOR

13. Action required under these Directives is the same Nitrates Directive or the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive ‘Eutrophic’ if undesirable disturbances resulting from the accelerated growth of algae are present ‘May become eutrophic’ in the near future’ if such undesirable disturbances are anticipated (e.g. primary effects are present)

14. HIGH Avoid deterioration in status in accordance with WFD GOOD MODERATE POOR BAD UWWT Directive Sensitive area designation tests Ecological status classes Waters ‘may become ‘eutrophic in the near future’ Gradient of nutrient enrichment Appropriate sensitive area identified under UWWT Directive Waters ‘eutrophic’ Waters ‘eutrophic’

15. Those nutrient sensitive areas and vulnerable zones identified because waters ‘may become eutrophic in the near future’ would contain water bodies at moderate status

16. HIGH GOOD MODERATE POOR BAD Ecological status classes Measures under UWWT Directive Other measures under Article 11 of WFD

17. HIGH GOOD MODERATE POOR BAD Ecological status classes OSPAR areas Non-problem Areas Gradient of nutrient enrichment Problem Areas

18. Problem Areas OSPAR Potential Problem Areas WFD Pressures & Impacts Analysis Categories OSPAR Categories Water bodies not at risk Water bodies at risk from nutrient enrichment +

19. Working Group 2.A members to send written comments on the discussion paper by 31st July Working Group 2.A leaders to present revised version of the paper to the Eutrophication Steering Group for further discussions