Ecosystem monitoring under Article 9 and Annex V of Directive 2016/2284 (NECD)

Draft Guidance

1. Introduction and legal basis

Both the original NECD 2001/81/EC and the new NECD 2016/2284/EU have the aim to improve not only human health but also the condition of ecosystems across the EU. The Clean Air Programme for Europe1 includes, in addition to its target for reduction of health impact across Europe, a target for a reduction by 35% by 2030 of the ecosystem area subjected to eutrophication, compared with 2005.

The determination of the extent of ecosystem impacts of air pollution in the EU is based on exceedance of critical loads and levels for sulphur, nitrogen and ozone. The calculation of these effect thresholds has relied on the work of the Working Group on Effects under the Gothenburg Protocol to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP2), including the work of the Coordinating Centre for Effects (CCE) and the International Cooperative Programmes (ICPs) on Waters, Forests, Vegetation, Integrated Monitoring, and Modelling and Mapping 3, and the networks of monitoring established for that purpose in the area of participating Parties to the protocol.

Given the central importance of this work for the determination of the ecosystem objectives of the EU air policy, the co-legislators have included in the new NECD 2016/2284, provisions requiring the monitoring of the ecosystem impacts of air pollution. The mandatory monitoring is intended to reinforce the work being done under the Convention so as to ensure the long-term security of the effects-based work on which EU policy has relied for the last two decades.

The principle obligations on Member States are as follows:

To ensure the monitoring of negative impacts of air pollution upon ecosystems based on a network of monitoring sites that is representative of their freshwater, non-forest natural and semi-natural habitats, and forest ecosystem types, taking a cost-effective and risk-based approach (article 9 paragraph 1 first subparagraph)

To report by 1 July 2018 and every four years thereafter, to the Commission and the European Environment Agency, the location of the monitoring sites and the associated indicators used for monitoring air pollution impacts (article 10 paragraph 4(a))

1 COM(2013)918 final2 https://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/welcome.html3 In full: ICP on Assessment and Monitoring Effects of Air Pollution on Rivers and Lakes; ICP on Assessment and Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Forests; ICP on Effects of Air Pollution on Natural Vegetation and Crops; ICP on Integrated Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Ecosystems.

1

To report by 1 July 2019 and every four years thereafter, to the Commission and the European Environment Agency, the monitoring data referred to in Article 9 (Article 10 paragraph 4(b)).

The Commission shall:

Report by 1 April 2020 and every four years thereafter, to the European Parliament and the Council, on the progress towards the Union's biodiversity and ecosystem objectives in line with the 7th Environmental Action Programme (Article 11 paragraph 1(b)(iii)) (see section 2 for details).

The aim of this guidance is to address the key questions which Member States may have with regard to the practicalities of setting up and operating a network which meets the requirements of the Directive. As guidance, it is not of a binding nature, and Member States have the flexibility to set up their networks as appropriate and practical for their domestic circumstances, so long as they ensure the monitoring of air pollution impacts as required by Article 9. When reporting their networks Member States are encouraged to submit a document explaining how the networks have been developed to fulfil the Directive's criteria.

The establishment of a fully-operational network will be a matter of incremental improvement. This guidance focuses on the key issues for the first cycle (2018-19), and on the basis of the information reported under Article 10 the Commission will, in its report to be published in 2020 under Article 11 of the Directive, assess to what extent the monitoring so established would need to be reinforced in order to meet the requirements of Article 9. These improvements would then be the target of implementation in the second phase (2022-23), together with any other issues or lessons learned which have emerged in the course of implementation.

This guidance is structured as follows:

Section 2: Aims and objectives of ecosystem monitoring under the NECD

Section 3: The scope and design of the ecosystem monitoring network

Section 4: Relationship with other monitoring activities

Section 5: Reporting

Section 6: Support for implementation

Section 7: Case studies

2. Aims and objectives of ecosystem monitoring under the NECD

The aim of the ecosystem monitoring provisions is to allow the assessment of the effectiveness of the Directive in the protection of the environment. With regard to the protection of the environment, the Directive refers (Article 1 and Article 11) to 'the Union's biodiversity and

2

ecosystem objectives in line with the 7th Environmental Action Programme' (7th EAP), which in relation to air pollution are defined as follows:

'air pollution and its impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity are further reduced with the long-term aim of not exceeding critical loads and levels'4

The intention is thus to reinforce the ecosystem monitoring network needed to determine the state of, and predict changes in, terrestrial and freshwaters ecosystems in a long-term perspective with respect to the impacts of SOX, NOX, NH3, and ground level ozone (acidification, eutrophication, ozone damage or changes on biodiversity). Thus the ultimate objective of the monitoring is:

to improve information on the impacts of air pollution, including the extent of any impacts and the recovery time when the impacts are reduced, and to contribute to review of critical loads and levels.

The monitoring will continue to be complemented by a modelling assessment of the extent to which critical loads and levels are exceeded across the EU, as has been the case to date.

To address these objectives MS shall coordinate with other monitoring programmes under the European Union, or the LRTAP Convention if appropriate. The ecosystem monitoring currently done under the Nature and Water Framework Directive legislation involves a very wide-ranging network of reporting on the overall state of ecosystems, but air pollution impacts are not monitored under these Directives. Therefore, data collected under these broad-based assessments of ecosystem conditions will be only partially relevant to the objectives of Article 9 (this issue is taken up in more detail in section 4 below, on 'Relationship with other monitoring activities'). The NECD monitoring follows the LRTAP Convention effects monitoring in being specifically related to investigating the impacts of air pollution as a pressure on ecosystems, with a view to better understanding the mechanisms involved, the extent of impacts and the recovery prospects, and so the ecosystem monitoring under LRTAP is directly relevant to the NECD objectives.

3. The scope and design of the ecosystem monitoring network

3.1. The impacts of interest

The air pollution impacts of interest for the ecosystem monitoring are in the first instance those relating to the substances for which reduction commitments are set in Annex II of the Directive, that is: acidification, eutrophication and ozone damage. While the impacts of other pollutants (e.g. heavy metals) are also of concern, a staged approach is appropriate and it is proposed that the first phase of monitoring focus on these three issues.

3.2. Ecosystem types

4 7EAP: DECISION No 1386/2013/EU, Annex, paragraph 28(d)

3

Article 9.1 of the Directive requires that Member States shall conduct monitoring on:

'a network of monitoring sites that is representative of their freshwater, natural and semi-natural habitats and forest ecosystem types, taking a cost-effective and risk-based approach'

There is a large number of habitats distributed throughout Europe5 with a significant variation in the number of habitats per Member State. Thus while the network coverage must be representative, it should also be proportionate.

A starting point would be a consideration of the number of biogeographical regions represented in the Member State which would need to be covered. The latest classification of the EU's biogeographical regions comprises the eleven (Alpine, Anatolian, Arctic, Atlantic, Black Sea, Boreal, Continental, Macaronesian, Mediterranean, Pannonian and Steppic) shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Biogeographical regions in Europe6

Within the biogeographical regions, the main habitats of interest can be classified according to the MAES and EUNIS classifications. The proportion of land cover represented

5 See e.g. Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC.6 https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/biogeographical-regions-europe-3

4

by ecosystem types varies substantially (Figure 2), and there is also substantial variation between countries.

Figure 2: Area and percentage of MAES terrestrial and freshwaters ecosystem types EU-28 (MAES, 20167)

Some elements of the MAES classification are clearly not relevant for the NECD purposes (principally urban ecosystems and sparsely- or un-vegetated land). Cropland is not relevant for nutrient load but is relevant for ozone damage; ozone impacts on crops were explicitly calculated in the NECD Impact Assessment and it makes sense to follow up and validate those estimates in the ecosystem monitoring.

On that basis, there would then be six major categories of ecosystem relevant for the NECD: Grasslands, Cropland, Forests and woodlands, Heathland and Shrub, Wetlands, and Rivers and lakes, as shown in Table 1. These MAES categories can be easily linked with EUNIS habitat classes (Level 1 and 2) and Corine Land Cover classes (Level 3).

7 MAES Technical Report 2016-095 “ Mapping and assessing the condition of Europe’s ecosystems: Progress and challenges. 3rd Report – Final, March 2016)

5

Table 1: Link between MAES ecosystem types, EUNIS habitat classes and Corine Land Cover classes

MAES Ecosystem

type

EUNIS Habitat classes Level 1

EUNIS Habitat classes Level 2

Corine Land Cover (CLC) classesLevel 3

Cropland

I Regularly or recently cultivated agricultural, horticultural and domestic habitats

I1 Arable land and market gardens

I2 Cultivated areas of gardens and parks

2.1.1. Non-irrigated arable land2.1.2. Permanently irrigated land2.1.3. Rice fields2.2.1. Vineyards2.2.2. Fruit trees and berry plantations2.2.3. Olive groves2.4.1. Annual crops associated with

permanent crops2.4.2. Complex cultivation patterns2.4.3. Land principally occupied by

agriculture, with significant areas of natural vegetation

2.4.4. Agro-forestry areas

Grassland

E Grasslands and land dominated by forbs, mosses or lichens

E1 Dry grasslandsE2 Mesic grasslandsE3 Seasonally wet and wet grasslandsE4 Alpine and subalpine grasslandsE5 Woodland fringes, clearings and

tall forb standsE6 Inland salt steppesE7 Sparsely wooded grasslands

2.3.1. Pastures3.2.1. Natural grassland

Woodland and forest

G Woodland, forest and other wooded land

G1 Broadleaved deciduous woodlandG2 Broadleaved evergreen woodlandG3 Coniferous woodlandG4 Mixed woodlandG5 Lines of trees, small woodlands,

recently felled woodlands, early stage woodland, coppice

3.1.1. Broad-leaved forest3.1.2. Coniferous forest3.1.3. Mixed forest3.2.4. Transitional woodland shrub

Heathland and shrub

F Heathland, scrub and tundra

F1 TundraF2 Arctic, alpine and subalpine scrubF3 Temperate and mediterraneo-montane scrubF4 Temperate shrub heathlandF5 Maquis, arborescent matorral

and thermo-Mediterranean brushes

F6 GarrigueF7 Spiny Mediterranean heathsF8 Thermo-Atlantic xerophytic scrubF9 Riverine and fen shrubsFA HedgerowsFB Shrub plantations

3.2.2. Moors and heathland3.2.3. Sclerophyllous vegetation

Wetlands D Mires, bogs and fens

D1 Raised and blanked bogsD2 Valley mires, poor fens and

transition miresD3 Aapa, palsa and polygon miresD4 Base-rich fens and calcareolus

spring miresD5 Sedge and reedbeds, normally

without free-standing water

4.1.1. Inland marshes4.1.2. Peatbogs

6

D6 Inland saline and brackish marshes and reedbeds

Rivers and lakes

C Inland surface waters

C1 Surface standing watersC2 Surface running watersC3 Littoral zone of inland surface

waterbodies

5.1.1 Water courses5.1.2 Water bodies

Note : EUNIS is currently under revision. Updates will be shared by EEA as soon as available (Grassland, Forest, Heathland and Shrub Q1 2018, Cropland, Wetlands Q4 2018, Rivers and Lakes Q4 2019).

Source : MAES technical Report 2016-095 and EEA Technical Report 6/2015.

3.3. Site selection, number and density

Given the range of conditions across the EU, this section focuses on providing qualitative criteria that are relevant for each type of ecosystem. These criteria should be the basis for selecting sites and determining their number and density so as to ensure a sufficient and consistent monitoring network specific to the situation of the individual Member State.

Where possible the sites chosen should satisfy the following principles:

the site should be such that the impacts of aerial deposition can be distinguished from other pressures;

the site should be sensitive to the pressure in question, such that if there are any impacts they would be readily identifiable;

the site should be typical for the ecosystem and habitat to be monitored.

Maps of areas sensitive to particular impacts can be useful when identifying monitoring stations, such as that provided in Annex 1 on acid sensitivity for surface waters.

While not every site should necessarily be of high biodiversity value, the network as a whole should ensure an adequate representation of sites which are minimally disturbed and rich in species.

The required number and density of sites is dependent on the sensitivity of the ecosystems, the ecosystem area affected, the number of different habitats occurring (see section 3.2 above), and the intensity of the air pollution pressure. The national network should be such as to allow for analysis of spatial gradients, understanding of cause-effect relationships and provide data for mapping and modelling of critical loads and levels and exceedances. It is more important to have sites in several regions than to have several sites in each region. More pristine or reference areas need less sites as no major changes are anticipated in such regions, but should not be omitted.

With regard to environmental gradients, the most important gradients found in the MS should be covered by the network. Key climatological (precipitation, temperature), hydrological parameters and soil alkalinity (e.g. pH) gradients should vary systematically.

7

With regard to air pollution parameters, each Member State should at least cover areas with high deposition level of acidifying and eutrophying substances (on a national scale) and high concentration levels of ozone. For long-term comparisons also reference sites at low deposition/concentration values are also advisable. The use of existing maps of critical load/level exceedance for site selection is recommended.

With regard to ecosystem type, each Member State should select sites according to the representation within its territory of the natural habitat types (Annex I, Habitat Directive) considering as relevant, the list of relevant habitat categories presented in Table 1.

For those Member States with many sensitive examples of a particular kind of ecosystem, a tiered approach to monitoring may be appropriate, with wide-ranging monitoring of a relatively simple parameter set (Level I) reinforced by more targeted and in-depth monitoring of a smaller set of more sophisticated parameters (Level II). For some ecosystems it may be appropriate to use a minimum density for level I-type monitoring (for instance Level I monitoring under the ICP Forests uses a network based on a 16 x 16km grid). Where appropriate, the recommendations on parameters and frequency below are distinguished according to such levels.

3.4. Parameters to be monitored and frequency of monitoring

This section of the guidance elaborates on which parameters would be appropriate to monitor, following the structure of Annex V of the NECD and reflecting its recommendations. However, in the interests of a comprehensive guidance, the recommendations depart from Annex V where there is a good justification (e.g. the addition of biological parameters in some instances, which are absent from Annex V).

3.4.1. Terrestrial ecosystems: Forests and woodlands

Table 2 below sets out the parameters and frequencies which should be monitored at Level I and Level II type plots for forest ecosystems, according to the ICP Forests approach and with due regard to Annex 5 of the NEC Directive. Detailed description of all methods applied to monitor the condition of forest ecosystems at both Level I and Level II intensity are given in an extensive manual,8 and references to the relevant sections of the manual are provided in the table below, also wih regard to the data which should be reported. An overview on surveys carried out under ICP Forests, and the respective parameters of the full programme can be found in the manual and in the internet (http://icp-forests.net/).

Measurement (Indicator complex)

Parameters Frequency Methods

Soil acidity inthe soil solid phase

Element concentrations (base cations etc.) Ca, Mg, K, Na, Alex, Ntot and

ratios C/N

Every 10-15 years at Level I and LevelII plots

Part X

Soil acidity in the soil solution

pH, [SOx], [NO3], [base cations (Ca, Mg, K, Na)], [Alex].

Every 4 weeks at Level II plots

Part XI

Soil nitrate leaching, in soil solution

[NO3+] at deepest soil layer (40-80 cm); to calculate fluxes a soil water

Every 4 weeks at Level II plots

Part X, water balance model cf. Part IX

8 UNECE ICP Forests Programme Co-ordinating Centre 2016. http://www.icp-forests.org/Manual.htm

8

flux model (water balance model) has to be applied.

C/N ratio + total soil N, in soil solid phase

Cstock, Nstock, C/N ratio. Every 10-15 years at Level I and Level II plots

Part X

Nutrient balance in foliage

[N], [P], [K], [Mg], and ratios with [N]. Every 2 yrs. at Level II, every 10-15 yrs. at Level I

plots

Part XII

Table 2: Selected indicator complexes, parameters, and sources for methods from the ICP Forests Programme to cope with the NECD, Annex V; []: concentrations.

Additional parameters to cover other important features and properties of forest ecosystems like stand age, tree species and ground vegetation composition and diversity, crown condition, leave area index (LAI), throughfall chemistry, litterfall amount and chemistry, or the composition of epiphytic lichens (on tree trunks) can be quite useful and may amend the minimum programme according to Annex V. Respective methods are given in the respective parts of the ICP Forests manual as well.

At some ICP Forests sites but also at other forest and terrestrial ecosystem sites, the nitrogen concentration in mosses is monitored every five years (in addition to heavy metals and selected persistent organic pollutants) and reported to the ICP Vegetation (manual available from http://icpvegetation.ceh.ac.uk).

3.4.2. Freshwater ecosystems: Rivers and lakes

Surface waters, rivers and lakes are in many cases the first medium in the ecosystem that reacts to acidification and eutrophication. Acid sensitive catchments with thin, highly siliceous soils and little ability to retain sulphate and nitrate, are found in upland areas in many parts of Europe (see map in Annex I) as well as North America. Fish populations and other aquatic organisms have been severely damaged over the past 100-years. In many rivers and lakes, fish stocks have been lost because of transboundary air pollution. Sulphate, nitrate, alkalinity, pH and aluminium in sensitive waters respond quickly to change in emissions, with subsequent effects on sensitive organisms and thereby the whole ecosystem. Such effects are evident both relatively close (Figure 3) and far (Figure 4) from major emissions. As emissions started to decrease in the 1980s, the water chemical indicators rapidly started to show signs of recovery whereas biological recovery has lagged behind. More recently, it has also emerged that nitrogen deposition can have a fertilizing effect (eutrophication) in some surface waters found in pristine areas far from direct human disturbance. Increasing atmospheric nitrogen loads could therefore change the functioning of the aquatic food web with potentially serious consequences. Water chemistry and biology in surface waters are among the best indicators of the effects of mitigating measures on ecosystems in Europe.

9

Figure 3. Time series from lake Černé in the Bohemian Forest (SW Czech Republic) showing the response of water chemistry, zooplankton, benthos and fish as well as transparency to changes in deposition of nitrogen and sulphur9

9 Jaroslav Vrba (Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, České Budějovice) and Jakub Hruška (Czech Geological Survey, Prague) provided this figure.

10

Figure 4. Time series from lake Saudlandsvatnet (S Norway) showing the response of water chemistry and sensitive species to changes in sulphur deposition10.

A programme designed for monitoring effects of sulphur and nitrogen deposition in freshwaters should as a minimum include the parameters listed in Table 3. The frequency of sampling should reflect temporal variation in the site that is to be monitored. Sites were the water is exchanged rapidly will respond quicker to changes in deposition. ICP Waters recommend that fast-flushing lakes and rivers should at least be sampled monthly (ICP Waters, 2010). Quarterly or seasonal sampling can be adequate in lakes where the water has a theoretical residence time longer than a few months. Biological monitoring of sensitive species or communities in at least some of the selected sites is highly recommended (Table 4).

10 Modified from Hesthagen, T., Fjellheim, A., Schartau, A.K., Wright, R.F., Saksgård, R., Rosseland, B.O., 2011. Sci. Total Environ. 409, 2908–2916.

11

Other physical and chemical parameters such as temperature, water flow, aluminium fractions, total nitrogen and phosphorous provide supplemental information that depending on local conditions can be useful e.g. for interpreting biological effects of air pollution.

Table 3: Rivers and lakes: Recommended minimum parameters, chemistry. Details and further explanation can be found in ICP Waters Programme manual (ICP Waters, 2010). The references are to chapters in the manual.

Measurement Parameters Frequency Method Data to be reported

Lake catchment sensitivity and hydrochemical

effects of air pollution (acidification)

Alkalinity, sulphate, nitrate, chloride, pH,

calcium, magnesium,

sodium, potassium, dissolved organic

carbon, and specific conductivity

Seasonal/quarterly to annual, depending on

flush rate

Grab sampling of the upper layer

(0,1-1 m) or lake outlet. Described

in chapter 3.

Major ions (mg/l), nitrate (µg N/L), pH,

DOC (mg C/l), alkalinity (µeq/L), conductivity at 25

°C (µS/cm)

River/stream catchment sensitivity and hydrochemical

effects of air pollution (acidification)

Alkalinity, sulphate, nitrate, chloride, pH,

calcium, magnesium,

sodium, potassium, dissolved organic

carbon, and specific conductivity

Monthly Grab sampling. Described in

chapter 3.

Major ions (mg/l), nitrate (µg N/L), pH,

DOC (mg C/l), alkalinity (µeq/L), conductivity at 25

°C (µS/cm)

Table 4: Rivers and lakes: Recommended additional parameters, biology. Details and further explanation can be found in ICP the Waters Programme manual. The references are to chapters in the manual.Measurement Parameters Frequency Method Data to be

reportedBiological

indicators of air pollution

(acidification). Benthic

invertebrates in rivers and lakes.

Presence/absence or relative abundances of

particular groups/species

Seasonal to annual

Kick samples, littoral sampling or core samples.

See Chapter 4. WFD methods are based on CEN

and ISO-standards, and these are adequate.

Qualitative or quantitative data. http://www.icp-

waters.no/data/submit-data/

Other groups such as fish, diatoms and periphyton can also be used as bioindicators of acidification.

3.4.3. Terrestrial ecosystems: ozone damage

Monitoring of ozone damage poses challenges specific to that pollutant. Deposited sulphur and nitrogen compounds remain in freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems in both vegetation and soil in some chemical form that can be monitored, including concentrations in plants and mosses (see table 3 and 4). In addition, sulphur and/or nitrogen deposition leads to acidification of freshwaters and soils that can be monitored. In contrast, ozone itself does not accumulate in vegetation or soil, it is the breakdown products of ozone inside plants and the plant reactions to these that causes the damage.

Excessive exposure to ground-level ozone has harmful effects on many types of vegetation, affecting terrestrial ecosystems and the services they provide (e.g. food and timber

12

production, carbon sequestration, air quality and climate regulation). The effects on ozone-sensitive species include visible foliar damage, a reduction in growth, yield quality and quantity for crops, flower number and seed production, and enhanced vulnerability to abiotic stresses such as frost or drought and biotic stresses such as pests and diseases.

The only visible damage in terrestrial ecosystems that can be attributed directly to ozone is foliar damage. Ozone-specific foliar damage develops in ozone-sensitive species during days with high ground-level ozone concentrations. However, there is no clear relationship between ozone foliar damage and impact on important vegetation parameters such as growth (e.g. tree growth) or yield (in the case of crops). For leafy vegetables, the marketable value will be reduced if visible foliar damage is present. Based on experimental data, critical levels of ozone have been established for parameters such as tree biomass and crop yield as these represent cumulative effects of seasonal exposure to ozone.

Critical levels of ozone are defined as “the cumulative exposure or cumulative stomatal flux of atmospheric pollutants above which direct adverse effects on sensitive vegetation may occur according to present knowledge”. Ozone critical levels and target values established for the protection of vegetation in European Legislation (Directive 2008/50/EC) are based on the cumulative ozone concentration. More recent research has shown that cumulative stomatal ozone flux-based target values (e.g. the indicator Phytotoxic Ozone Dose (POD)) are biologically more relevant than concentration-based target values (e.g. AOT40) as they provide an estimate of the amount of ozone entering the leaf pores (stomata) and resulting in damage inside the plant (Mills et al., 2011a,b). The methodology for calculating POD has been developed and applied by the ICP Vegetation using the DO3SE model. By monitoring hourly ozone concentrations and meteorological parameters (Table 5), cumulative stomatal ozone fluxes can be calculated for specific plant species. Exceedance of the stomatal flux-based critical levels provides an indication of the risk of ozone impact on ozone-sensitive species at the site. Details on the calculation of POD and its application are available in the Manual on methodologies and criteria for modelling and mapping critical loads and levels and air pollution effects, risks and trends. (Chapter 3: Mapping critical levels for vegetation. http://icpvegetation.ceh.ac.uk, LTRAP Convention, 2017).

13

Table 5: Key indicators for assessing ozone damage to vegetation according to Annex 5 of the NECD.

Indicator Measurement Frequency Reference for methodology and

data reportingOzone foliar

damage to treesVisible ozone symptoms in

leaves of tree species and on trees and wood plants at ‘light

exposed sampling sites’ (LESS);Tree diameter growth.

Visible ozone symptoms: annually at

Level II plots;Diameter growth:

every 5 yrs.

Part VIII (visible ozone symptoms) and

Part V (diameter growth) of ICP Forests

ManualOzone foliar

damage to crops and non-tree

species

Visible ozone symptoms in leaves;

Crops: harvested yield

Visible ozone symptoms: at least

annually during growing season,

preferably just after (3-7 days) an ozone

episodei;Crop yield: annually

http://icpvegetation.ceh.ac.uk. To be revised from past manuals to suit NECD (including lists

of ozone-sensitive species)

Exceedance of flux-based critical levels of ozone

Ozone concentrationii, meteorologyiii (temperature,

relative humidity, light intensity, rainfall, wind speed, atmospheric pressure) and soil type (sandy, clay or loam) at or near siteiv.

Flux-based model DO3SE can be used to calculate ozone flux and

exceedance of critical levels

Every year:Hourly data during growing seasonv

Method in Modelling and Mapping Manual LRTAP Convention,

Chapter 3 – ‘Mapping critical levels for

vegetation’ (

http://icpvegetation.ceh.ac.uk, including link

to online version of the DO3SE modelvi).

i For a definition of ozone episode, see https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality/resources/glossary/ozone-episodeii Information on measurement height required.iii If no measured data available, modelled hourly data could be used. iv Information on latitude and altitude of site required as well as the biogeographical zone that the site is in (See Figure 1). v Measured hourly ozone concentrations and meteorology data are required for calculation of the stomatal ozone flux. Calculation of fluxes from estimated hourly ozone concentration data using passive samplers (accumulating ozone over a period of 1 – 2 weeks) is associated with high uncertainties.vi https://www.sei-international.org/do3se

14

3.4.4. Integrated monitoring of freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems

Integrated monitoring of ecosystems refers to in-depth, simultaneous measurement of physical, chemical and biological properties of a catchment, over time and across compartments. Due to its complexity, Integrated Monitoring does not aim to cover large spatial areas but rather to improve the causal understanding of the link between air, soil, water and biological response predominantly in forested ecosystems. Generally countries have a few locations in which this detailed monitoring is carried out. Countries are recommended to have at least two sites covering relevant climatic and deposition gradients. Integrated monitoring sites should be small, well defined catchments in natural or semi-natural areas. Measurements include meteorology, wet and dry deposition, through fall, soil chemistry, soil, water and groundwater chemistry, runoff water chemistry and biological response (i.e. vegetation and other biological elements). The aims are to monitor and assess both biogeochemical trends and biological responses; to separate noise and natural variation from the signal of anthropogenic disturbance by monitoring natural forest ecosystems; and to develop and apply tools, e.g. models, for regional assessment and prediction of long-term effects.

Table 6 provides variables relevant under Annex V of the NECD directive and the effects of air pollution on ecosystems. Detailed description of needed equipment, design and methodologies can be found in the ICP Integrated Monitoring manual 11 . The full comprehensive measurement programme allows also detailed modelling, cause-effect analysis, and studying interactions with climate change processes12, 13, 14 .

11 www.syke.fi/nature/icpim12 Holmberg, M., Vuorenmaa, J., Posch, M., Forsius, M.,et al., 2013. Relationship between critical load exceedances and empirical impact indicators at Integrated Monitoring sites across Europe. Ecological Indicators 24, 256-265.13 Dirnböck, T., Grandin, U., Bernhardt-Römermann, M., Beudert, B., Canullo, R., Forsius, M., Grabner, M.-T., Holmberg, M., Kleemola, S., Lundin, L., Mirtl, M., Neumann, M., Pompei, E., Salemaa, M., Starlinger, F., Staszewski, T., Uziębło, A.K., 2014. Forest floor vegetation response to nitrogen deposition in Europe. Global Change Biology 20, 429-440.14 Vuorenmaa, J., Augustaitis, A., Beudert, B., Clarke, N., de Wit, H.A., Dirnböck, T., Frey, J., Forsius, M., Indriksone, I., Kleemola, S., 2017. Long-term sulphate and inorganic nitrogen mass balance budgets in European ICP Integrated Monitoring catchments (1990–2012). Ecological Indicators 76, 15-29.

15

Table 6: Parameters and frequency for the ICP Integrated Monitoring sites. Detailed description and methodology can be found in ICP IM manual15

Measurement (Indicator complex)

Parameter Frequency Method

Meteorology Precipitation, temperature of the air, soil temperature, relative humidity, wind velocity, wind direction, global radiation/net radiation

Monthly Part 7.1

Air chemistry sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide,ozone, particulate sulphate, nitrates in aerosols and gaseous, nitric acid, ammonia and ammonium in aerosols

Monthly Part 7.2

Precipitation chemistry (EMEP manual)

sulphate, nitrate, ammonium, chloride, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium and alkalinity

Monthly Part 7.3

Throughfall Sulphate, nitrate, ammonium, total N, chloride, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, dissolved organic carbon and strong acid (by pH)

Weekly to monthly

Part 7.5

Soil chemistry pH (CaCl2), S total, P total N total, Ca exchangeable, Mg exchangeable. K exchangeable, Na exchangeable, Al exchangeable, TOC, exchangeable titrable acidity (H+Al)

Every fifth years Part 7.7

Soil water chemistry

pH, Electrical conductivity, Alkalinity, Gran plot, N total, ammonium, nitrate, P total, Ca, Mg, K, Na, Aluminium total, Aluminium labile

Four times annually

Part 7.8

Runoff water chemistry

alkalinity, sulphate, nitrate, chloride, dissolved organic carbon, pH, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, inorganic (labile) aluminium, total nitrogen, ammonium, stream water runoff, specific conductivity

Monthly Part 7.10

Foliage chemistry Ca, K, Mg, Na, N, P, S, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn and TOC

Every fifth year Part 7.12

Litterfall chemistry

Ca, K, Mg, Na, N, P, S, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn and TOC

Annually Part 7.13

Vegetation (intensive plot)

Ground, field, shrub and tree layer vegetation, specifically soil-growing vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens. Tree diameter, canopy structure,

Three year Part 7.17

Trunk epiphytes Lichen species growing on living tree trunks Every fifth year Part 7.20

Aerial green algae

number of branches , youngest shoot with algaethickest coating of algae per tree, number of annual shoots with >50 % needles left,, number of annual shoots with >5% needles left

Annually Part 7.21

15 UNECE ICP Integrated Monitoring Programme Manual 2017, http://www.syke.fi/en-US/Research__Development/Ecosystem_services/Monitoring/Integrated_Monitoring/Manual_for_Integrated_Monitoring

16

4. Relationship with other monitoring activities

Article 9 of the Directive requires that:

'Member States shall coordinate with other monitoring programmes established pursuant to Union legislation including Directive 2008/50/EC, Directive 2000/60/EC, …and … Directive 92/43/EEC and if appropriate the LRTAP convention and, where appropriate, make use of data collected under those programmes.'

The aim of these provisions is to maximise the use of data collected under existing systems so as to avoid duplication and exploit synergies. However, the ecosystem categories, sites and parameters concerned should be such as identified under Section 3 above in order for the monitoring to be relevant for the purposes of the NECD. The main points are as follows.

4.1. Relationship with the monitoring under existing EU initiatives

Extensive monitoring of freshwater bodies takes place under the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, and of a wide range of habitats under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. The information reported to the EU is available through the relevant EEA Eionet databases.

Reporting to the EU is in the form of aggregated information on environmental status. Detailed information on the site characteristics, parameters measured, frequency of monitoring and the actual data collected is not normally reported to COM and so is only available at national level. Thus it would be for national authorities to identify the extent to which the monitoring currently done could be suitable for integration into the NECD monitoring network.

Given the objective and site selection requirements for NECD monitoring, only a subset of WFD and Habitats sites are likely to be relevant for the current purposes (e.g. for Directive 2000/60/EC, mainly reference sites and possibly surveillance monitoring sites targeted at acidification). A case study on the integration of monitoring under the Water Framework Directive into a monitoring network targeting air pollution impacts in Finland is provided in section 7.2.

4.2. Relationship with monitoring under CLRTAP initiatives

The ecosystem monitoring activities under the Working Group on Effects (WGE) of CLRTAP are directly relevant for the NECD implementation, having the same objectives and having developed substantial technical reference material in their more than 20 years of operation.

This CLRTAP long-term monitoring consequently, provides substantial historical data sets monitored according to approved methodologies and therefore with consistent sampling and analysis procedures, and frequency.

17

The intensive WGE monitoring networks are ecosystem-based, issue-oriented (air pollution) and long-term. These characteristics allow the detection of ecosystem changes, assessment of contributing factors and identification of the consequences of ecosystem changes, thus informing policy makers about the state and predict future changes.

In summary, the NECD objectives are identical to those of the existing monitoring networks under the LRTAP Convention and so this monitoring should all be useful for NECD purposes as it:

Monitors key indicators of acidification, eutrophication and ozone impacts in ecosystems (almost all parameters of Annex V)

Detects changes in the ecosystems

Identifies the rate of change or trend (time scale), the extent of change (spatial scale) and the intensity of change (magnitude of the effect)

Allows for understanding of how the changes would affect the condition of the ecosystem

Allows for the prediction and identification of those changes related to natural processes and human activities

Facilitates modelling of the dynamics of ecosystems and related processes

Enables the forecasting of potentially adverse effects and therefore provide “early warnings”

Enables the evaluation of the effectiveness of policies.

It is also important to highlight that within the LRTAP the issue-oriented monitoring combines both air pollution threats and effects monitoring in order to achieve a sufficient level of predictability to better guide policy action. The simultaneous monitoring in trends of both ecosystem effects and ecosystem stress (air pollution) improve the interpretation of monitoring results.

4.3. Relation with other monitoring networks

LTER-Europe (Long-Term Ecosystem Research) is a European umbrella organisation and research infrastructure for research sites and stations conducting environmental and ecosystem monitoring and research (www.lter-europe.net). One main aim is to organise all such European sites to build a knowledge base to improve our understanding of the structure and functions of ecosystems and their long-term response to environmental, societal and economic drivers.

The main objectives of LTER-Europe are:

to identify drivers of ecosystem change across European environmental and economic gradients

18

to explore relations between these drivers, responses and developmental challenges under the framework of a common research agenda, and referring to harmonised parameters and methods

to develop criteria for LTER Sites and LTSER Platforms to support cutting edge science with a unique in-situ infrastructure

to improve co-operation and synergy between different actors, interest groups, networks, etc.

LTER-Europe works towards its objectives by providing a framework for project development, conceptual work, education, exchange of know-how, communication and institutional integration. The scope for harnessing the network of sites to dual purposes – excellent all-round data, and specific information on air pollution ecosystem impacts – merits further exploration. LTER sites and their measurement program can be found under https://data.lter-europe.net/deims/ .

5. Reporting

5.1. Data to be reported on 1 July 2018

In reporting the location of the monitoring sites and the associated indicators used for monitoring air pollution impacts, in accordance with Article 10(4)a of the Directive, the following should be reported:

The coordinates and altitude of the site, name and habitat/ecosystem type and brief description of the site;

Details of which parameters are monitored at each site;

An explanatory report setting out how the network was designed so as to ensure compliance with Article 9.

5.2. Reporting dataflows for 1 July 2019

The Commission and the EEA will develop a protocol for reporting the monitoring data referred to in article 9 of the Directive, in accordance with Article 10(4)b, reflecting the following principles:

The reporting should be standardised following as far as possible existing data flows;

It should be INSPIRE-compliant;

It should build as necessary on the reporting schemes established under the ICPs.

The protocol will be consulted with Member States and established during the course of 2018, well in advance of the reporting deadline.

19

6. Support for implementation

The exchanges of information on Member States' practice which informed the development of this guidance were very useful. In this context the peer-to-peer tool established under the Commission's Environment Implementation Review provides the possibility to organise further mutual support, whether in the form of twinning support mechanisms, or exchanges between larger groups of Member States on implementation and good practice. The tool uses the well-established Commission TAIEX instrument, and on the request of a Member States' public authority (national, regional, local, etc), TAIEX can arrange missions of experts from public environmental authorities to provide expertise, study visits of staff to another Member State in order to learn from their peers and single or multi-country workshops. More information, e-application and expert registration is available on the website:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/p2p/index_en.htm

Note also that the ICPs hold annual meetings which national experts could attend to learn more about monitoring and share experiences in running the sites. (Information available on the website:https://www.unece.org/environmental-policy/conventions/envlrtapwelcome/meetings-and-events.html#/)

7. Case studies

7.1. UK ozone monitoring

The UK has an intensive monitoring site for ozone run by the ICP Vegetation Programme Coordination Centre. At this site, hourly ozone concentrations and meteorology are monitored to enable calculation of cumulative stomatal ozone fluxes (POD) over the growing season for a variation of plant species (crops, trees, (semi-)natural vegetation). Hence, exceedance of flux-based critical levels of ozone can be calculated. In addition, foliar damage in ozone-sensitive species is monitored regularly, but not often observed due to the generally low ambient ozone concentrations at the site. The UK also has a rural network of ca. 20 monitoring sites where hourly ozone concentrations are recorded. When combined with modelled meteorological data, exceedances of flux-based critical levels of ozone can be calculated for these sites. Foliar ozone damage is currently not monitored at these sites.

7.2. Integration of monitoring of Finnish surface waters under WFD, CLRTAP ICPs and NECD

The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) obliges Member States to carry out a surveillance monitoring programme to provide information e.g. for the assessments of long-term changes in natural conditions and long-term changes resulting from widespread (global) anthropogenic activity. To fulfil these objectives in surveillance design, monitoring of ecological status and chemical status for surface waters has to be carried out usually in water bodies which represent natural or semi-natural reference conditions and/or high/good ecological status. The monitoring of air pollution impacts of sulphur and nitrogen on aquatic ecosystems under the LRTAP Convention involves mainly the same

20

objectives and surveillance designs, and therefore the monitoring of aquatic ecosystems under the CLRTAP ICPs is relevant to the WFD monitoring at reference sites (and vice versa). The aims and objectives of these monitoring programs are also relevant for the ecosystem monitoring under the NECD.

The WFD monitoring at reference sites in Finland – both chemical and biological – is primarily carried out in lakes and streams which are located in protected or remote area, or catchments are located in other areas with no or only minor direct human influence. Generally these types of freshwaters in Finland are oligotrophic or dystrophic, the terrestrial catchment is mainly forested, and water chemistry is characterized by low or moderate ionic strength. These water bodies are therefore susceptible to air pollution impacts. To monitor the ecological status and chemical status of lakes and rivers under WFD, the typology, which is representative of freshwaters, their natural and semi-natural habitats in Finland, consists of following lake and river types (Table 8):

Table 8. Typology of Finnish freshwater bodies (http://www.ymparisto.fi/en-US/Waters/State_of_the_surface_waters/Typology_of_surface_waters).

Lake types River typesSmall and medium-sized humus-poor lakes Small peatland riversSmall humic lakes Small rivers in regions with mineral soilsMedium-sized humic lakes Small rivers in regions with clay soilsLarge humus-poor lakes Medium-sized peatland riversLarge humic lakes Medium-sized rivers in regions with mineral

soilsHumus-rich lakes Medium-sized rivers in regions with clay

soilsShallow humus-poor lakes Large peatland riversShallow humic lakes Large rivers in regions with mineral soilsShallow humus-rich lakes Large rivers in regions with clay soilsLakes with very short water retention Very large peatland riversLakes in N. Lapland Very large rivers in regions with mineral

soilsNaturally nutrient-rich and calcium-rich lakes

Out of these 12 lake types for WFD monitoring, the types ‘small humus-poor’ or ‘small humic lakes’ (incl. shallow ones) involve small (A < 1 km2) forest headwater lakes, which are common in boreal regions in coniferous forest and peatland areas and are numerous in Finland, and have been shown to be sensitive to air pollution, as well as good indicators of air pollution impacts. The type ‘lakes in N. Lapland’ also includes sensitive lakes in forest or mountain areas in north Finland with low-ionic and nutrient-poor chemical characteristics. Correspondingly, the river types ‘small peatland rivers’ and ‘small rivers in regions with mineral soils’ include small streams in forest or mountain areas, and many of them are sensitive and good indicators of air pollutant impacts as well.

21

Monitoring of air pollution impacts on lakes and streams in forest and mountain reference areas in Finland are carried out under CLRTAP (ICP Waters, ICP Integrated Monitoring) and national monitoring programmes. The regular monitoring started at most of the sites in 1990, and is presently being carried out at 34 sites covering geographically the whole country. To supplement WFD monitoring at reference sites, 18 out of the 34 ICP/national sites were integrated into WFD monitoring/reporting to provide information on long-term changes in natural conditions and long-term changes resulting from global pressures, mainly from atmospheric deposition and climate change. In return the WFD monitoring provides biological data for requirements of CLRTAP-based assessments. CLRTAP-based and national monitoring programs suitable for assessment of air pollution effects fulfil the demands of chemical analysis for the WFD, including pH, alkalinity, major anions and cations, nutrients and dissolved organic carbon. Monitoring targets, surveillance design (such as site establishment/selection, sampling and chemical analyses) and a common database are coordinated by the governmental Environmental Administration, including the Finnish Environment Institute and 13 Centres for Economic, Development, Transport and the Environment. The governmental Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) is also involved to national WFD monitoring providing authority and expertise regarding to fish monitoring. Centralised activities enable flexible risk-based and cost-effective approach in monitoring and reporting under different international programs, and in planning and implementation of new monitoring programs, such as monitoring under the NECD.

22

Annex 1: Map of acid sensitivity in Europe. Source: ICP Waters

23