Executive summary
Type comparisons across the Water Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive
Water Framework Directive ecological status and pressures on water bodies aggregated to broad types of rivers and lakes and to Habitats Directive biogeographic regions
Comparisons of status and pressures/threats of Water Framework Directive and Habitats Directive
Measures with mutual benefit for water management and nature protection
1 Introduction and objective
2 Methodology and approaches
3 Comparison of freshwater types of the Water Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive
3.1 Existing typology systems
3.1.1 WFD national types of rivers and lakes
3.1.2 WFD intercalibration common types (IC types) (EC 2013)
3.1.3 Freshwater Habitat types from the Habitats Directive
3.1.4 Freshwater habitat types of the EUNIS habitats classification
3.2 Broad types of rivers and lakes for comparison of WFD and HD types
3.2.1 Conceptual preliminary identification of broad types
3.2.2 Top-down identification of broad river types using ECRINS
3.2.3 Broad types identification using groups of related national WFD types
3.3 Linking the various types of the WFD and HD
3.3.1 Approach
3.3.2 Results of the cross-walk on types
3.4 Additional aspects of WFD and HD type comparisons
3.4.1 Heavily modified and artificial water bodies (HMWBs and AWBs)
3.4.2 Small water bodies
4 WFD ecological status and pressures in broad freshwater types
4.1 Rivers
4.2 Lakes
5 WFD ecological status and pressures in HD biogeographic regions and in Natura 2000 sites
5.1 Ecological status of rivers and lakes in the HD biogeographic regions
5.2 WFD pressures aggregated to HD biogeographic regions
5.3 WFD Ecological status in river and lake water bodies associated with the Natura 2000 sites
6 Ecological status (WFD) and conservation status (HD) comparison for selected countries
6.1 Introduction to status comparisons
6.2 Comparing WFD and HD status of water bodies in selected countries
6.2.1 Example 1 – Sweden
6.2.2 Example 2 – Germany
6.2.3 Example 3 – Hungary
6.2.4 Example 4 – UK and France
6.2.5 Example 5 – Denmark
7 Pressures (WFD) & threats (HD) comparison for selected countries
7.1 Linking pressures under WFD and threats under HD
7.2 Main pressures affecting freshwater systems in Europe
7.3 Comparing the pressures under the WFD and HD for broad climatic/altitude types in four countries (DE, IE, SE and HU)
7.3.1 Background
7.3.2 Methods
7.3.3 Example 1 – Germany
7.3.4 Example 2 – Hungar
7.3.5 Example 3 – Ireland
7.3.6 Example 4 – Sweden
8 Conclusions on the WFD and HD comparison of types, status and pressures
8.1 Conclusions of the broad types definition and the cross-walk between the WFD and HD/EUNIS types
8.2 Conclusions of cross-walking of the WFD and HD status reporting
8.3 Conclusions of cross-walking the WFD and HD pressures reporting
9 Measures
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Key measures with joint benefits for water management and nature protection
9.3 Case studies illustrating joint benefits of measures
References
Annex 1 Glossary
Annex 2 List of national WFD types linked to broad types, sorted by broad type
6 European Freshwater Ecosystem Assessment: WFD and HD types, status, pressures
Annex 3 List of national WFD types linked to broad types, sorted by country
Annex 4 Ecological status and pressures in rivers and lakes for each country within each biogeographic region
Annex 5 Ecological status in rivers and lakes per broad type and country, for all WBs and for WBs associated with Natura2000 protected areas
Annex 6 WFD-HD comparison of pressures
Annex 7 National WFD national types sorted into broad altitude types and size for Germany, Ireland, Sweden and Hungary
Annex 8 Links between pressure types and freshwater habitats in Hungary