Munne & Prat. La diagnosis y mejora de los ecosistemas fluviales mediante la DMA

The diagnosis and improvement of fluvial ecosystems through the Water Framework Directive

In 2000, the European Union released the Water Framework Directive, which required members of the European Union to establish restoration plans for their water bodies. This legislation is the new reference point for most water related activities throughout Europe. It has been heralded as a major turning point, and promises to invigorate the effort to clean up Europe's rivers, lakes, and wetlands. Each member state is responsible for implementing the details. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) only provides broad guidelines and general goals. Most importantly, the WFD has set the target that water bodies achieve "good ecological status".

But what does "good ecological status" really mean and how can member states measure it? These are the two questions that Antoni Munné and Narcís Prat attempt to answer in the paper "The diagnosis and improvement of fluvial ecosystems through the Water Framework Directive". For Munne and Prat, the ecological status of a water body can be broken down into three components:
1) Biological parameters
2) Hydro-morphological parameters
3) Physical and chemical parameters

The problem them becomes combining these three very different parameters into a unified indicator that represents "ecological status". They present a method that gives priority to the biological indicators first.

But even before getting to the stage of combing indicators, Munne and Prat point out that the existing literature on biological indicators does not necessarily fit the needs of Mediterranean rivers. The special climatic conditions, most notably, the highly variable water flow -- torrential rains followed by a long dry season -- has created an ecosystem that is not accurately measured by biological methods imported from northern Europe or elsewhere. In response to this deficiency, for the past 10 years, biologists in north eastern Spain have created their own protocols to assess water quality, biological diversity, "biological quality". These indexes and protocols are referred to by their acronyms IBMWP, BMWPC, IPS, IBD, CEE and of their vegetation index QBR.

This article made me reflect on Walters criticism of reductionism and the tension between the particular and the systemic. Clearly, the challenge is how to integrate these indicators, and the authors astutely point this out.

To complicate things further, the authors argue that not all water bodies should have the same restoration targets. They, and the Catalan Water Agency, propose a more granular restoration plan whereby each water body should reach certain targets depending on the characteristics of that water body. This makes intuitive sense. Not all rivers can be measured by the same metric. The question is how to operationalize this idea.

Again, Munne and Prat offer their solution. River bodies can be categorized into a typology. Catalonia has 5 fluvial systems, of which 3 have subtypes.

1. Ríos de montaña húmedea (Humid mountain rivers)
1a. Ríos de montaña húmedea
1b. Ríos de montaña húmedea sílica (silica)
1c. Ríos de montaña húmedea calcárica (calcareous)

2. Ríos de montaña mediterránea (Mediterranean mountains rivers)
2a. Ríos de montaña mediterránea sílica (silica)
2b. Ríos de montaña mediterránea calcárica (calcareous)
2c. Ríos de montaña mediterránea de elevado caudal (high flow)

3. Ríos de zona baja mediterránea (Lower Mediterranean Rivers)
3a. Ríos de zona baja mediterránea
3b. Ríos de zona baja mediterránea sílica (silica)
3c. Ríos de zona baja mediterránea cárstica (calcareous)

4. Ejes Principales (Principle axis)

5.Torrentes litorales (Coastal torrents)

The method used to define these river types has been published in Environmental Management, and is guiding the selection of restoration standards for each river type. This system contrasts with my understanding of river management in the US, where the EPA or the State sets universal standards for all rivers. I would welcome a correction if this is incorrect.

This article raises interesting questions:

• Which indicators most accurately measure "ecological status"?
• How are these combined?
• Should governments regulate based on all or some of these variables? Which ones?
• Will the Catalan government require different standards for each river body?
  
• How will these different standards be communicated to the public?
• Why are biological indicators given priority?
  
• Are there examples of improvement in physical / chemical variables not leading to improved biological status?

Finally, the article points out that most of the industrial pollution in Catalan rivers has been in the second half of the twentieth century (1950-2000). Given Spain's long history, I thought that perhaps major contamination could have gone back further, but with more reflection, it makes sense, since modern chemicals and major industry arrived much later.

Munné & Prat. no date. La diagnosis y mejora de los ecosistemas fluviales mediante la DMA
The diagnosis and improvment of fluvial ecosystems through the Water Directive Framework