Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
Development of
International Water Quality Guidelines for Ecosystems
(IWQGES)
Progress Report 1
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1.
Interpretation of UNEP GC/EA Decision 27/3 as the Basis for Developing the IWQGES ....... 3
1.2.
Background and Rationale ......................................................................................................... 4
1.2.1.
The Status of Water Quality of Freshwater Ecosystems and its Challenges ........................ 4
1.2.2.
Freshwater Ecosystems: “Thermometers” of Ecosystem Health ......................................... 5
2.
The Mandate to Develop the International Water Quality Guidelines ....................................... 6
2.1.
The UN-wide Approach: Partnerships and Consultation towards the IWQGES ................... 6
2.2.
Legal Framework and Institutional Partnership to Develop the IWQGES ............................... 7
2.3.
Time Schedule and Organization of the IWQGES Project ......................................................... 8
2.4.
UNEP Project Activities Related to the IWQGES ..................................................................... 10
3.
Objectives of the IWQGES and Status of implementation ......................................................... 11
3.1.
Objectives, Purpose and Scope of the IWQGES ...................................................................... 11
3.2.
Status of Implementation of the IWQGES............................................................................... 13
4.
Conceptual Approaches for Developing the IWQGES ................................................................ 15
4.1.
Focus on Freshwater Ecosystem-Health.................................................................................. 15
4.2.
Classification Schemes by Freshwater Ecosystem Types ........................................................ 17
4.3
. Characterization of the Health of Freshwater Ecosystems .................................................. 17
4.4.
Freshwater Ecosystem Health Restoration: How Should We Go About It? .......................... 20
1
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
4.5.
Thresholds, Resilience and Possible Tipping Points ................................................................ 21
4.6.
Proposed Indicators and Monitoring Options for National Water Quality Standards .......... 22
5.
Outline of the Content of IWQGES .............................................................................................. 26
6.
Outlook of the Development of the IWQGES ............................................................................. 28
Annexes ............................................................................................................................................... 29
2
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
1. Introduction
1.1. Interpretation of UNEP GC/EA Decision 27/3 as the Basis for Developing the
IWQGES
Within the broad environmental mandate of UNEP, water resources and in particular water quality
plays an important role as documented in Decision 27/3 (Annex 1). This resolution elaborates, in
twelve introductory paragraphs, the important actions in the area of water quality under the active
role and/or leadership of UNEP.
Decision 27/3 correspondingly lists the most important needs in this area including the lack of data
and monitoring of the quality and quantity of freshwater resources, the assessment of land-based
activities and related observation of nutrients, litter and waste water cycles which threatens both
freshwater and marine ecosystems.
Decision 27/3 clearly recognizes the important role of water and sanitation (and hence water
quality) in all dimensions of sustainable development. It emphasizes the integrating role of water
among and within ecosystems and calls for the protection of the resource and improvement of its
quality. This is desirable both for the role of water quality in ecosystem conservation and in
preservation of biodiversity.
While acknowledging the availability of human user-oriented water quality guidelines, Decision
27/3 recognizes the absence of water quality guidelines for ecosystems. Water quality guidelines
for ecosystems are expected to serve as the basis for securing ecosystem services through
maintaining the health of ecosystems. Water quality guidelines for ecosystems complement
existing utilitarian water quality guidelines. Together these standards and guidelines will promote
and contribute to sustainable water management.
The introductory paragraphs of Decision 27/3 thus outline the need for and general feature of
water quality guidelines for ecosystems. The recommendation that water quality guidelines might
be integrated into existing water-related guidelines implies that water quality guidelines for
ecosystems must refer to freshwater bodies, being part of various geographical, climatic, landscape
and ecosystem settings.
Decision 27/3 concludes with four Operational Paragraphs (OP). OP 1 and OP 4 are addressed to
the Executive Director of UNEP, whereas OP 2 and OP 3 are invitations to Member States, UN
agencies and other stakeholders to support and get actively involved in the development of the
water quality guidelines as specified in OP 1.
While OP 4 refers to the reporting modalities to the governing organs of UNEP, OP 1 clearly outlines
the intention of the decision to develop water quality guidelines for ecosystems that may be
voluntarily used to support the development of national standards, policies and frameworks, taking
into account existing information while integrating, as appropriate, all relevant aspects of water
management.
This formulation confirms, as implied in the introductory paragraphs, that the referent of the
National Water Quality Standards would be, like for other aspects of water management, the
freshwater bodies. It also specifies that in the sense of OP 1 “the international guidelines for
3
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
ecosystems” refers to the compilation of a document of advisory nature (hence a voluntary
framework) on how to establish, implement and enforce water quality standards for ecosystems.
While OP 1 clearly defines objectives, scope and nature of the mandated “international guidelines
for ecosystems”, the term ‘guidelines’ in the preceding introductory paragraphs can be interpreted
both as guidelines (or a manual) on how to develop standards (in conformity with OP 1) but also as
the standards themselves. The same term used for two different meaning could create a
misunderstanding. More so, that in several countries, due to the different legal power of water and
water quality directives, regulations (or standards) are sometimes issued and referred to as
“guidelines”. This is frequently the case when the inherent classification, thresholds and/or
associated water uses are technical recommendations summarizing the state-of-the-art knowledge
rather than having binding legal power.
In fact there are no international water quality guidelines for ecosystems (in the sense of OP 1)
available. With the exception of a few countries most countries do not yet have water quality
legislation (standards or national “guidelines”) for ecosystems.
By acknowledging ecosystems as legitimate “water users” with respective quality requirements for
their own sake but also as providers of essential ecosystem services whose sustainability depends
on securing the ecosystem health and functionality of freshwater bodies, the urgency to act in the
spirit of Decision 27/3 and by the words of OP 1 becomes apparent.
It is in this context that the science-based manual, the International Water Quality Guidelines for
Ecosystems (IWQGES), will be conceived and compiled.
1.2. Background and Rationale
1.2.1. The Status of Water Quality of Freshwater Ecosystems and its Challenges
Human population growth, accelerating economic activities, land use alterations, and climate
change increase pressures on the quality and quantity of global water resources. These factors are
threatening freshwater systems as well as ecosystems in general. Declining water quality1 has
become an issue of global concern as it is causing major disturbances in water use, ecosystems
health and functioning, and the biodiversity that ecosystems underpin (Butchart et al. 2010).
The discharge of wastewater, but also that of nutrients and other forms of pollutants has increased
dramatically during the past decades. With economic growth and higher standards of living in many
countries, sewage and other wastes are increasingly discharged into largely intact/natural
ecosystems. It is estimated that 90 per cent of all wastewater in developing countries flows
untreated directly into rivers, lakes and/or the oceans (“Sick Water?” by Corcoran et al. 2010). As
an example, human interference with the nitrogen cycle represents one of three system boundaries
that have already exceeded our planet’s safe operating space (Rockström et al. 2009). Nutrient
enrichment of freshwater bodies from agriculture (animal waste and excessive use of fertilizers) is
on the increase as is pesticide pollution. Hormones, pharmaceutical residues and other new
chemicals are emerging pollutants creating new water quality challenges worldwide. Water quality
1
In this report “water quality” is used holistically. It covers physical, chemical and biological aspects.
4
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
issues are complex and diverse, and therefore urgently require global attention and action as
highlighted in the UN-Water Policy Brief on water quality (UN-Water 2011) and in the Global Water
Systems Project (GWSP) “Blue Note” (Bogardi et al. 2011).
Meeting growing human needs for water, food and energy without irreversibly degrading the
important goods and services provided by healthy ecosystems is one of the most pressing
challenges for society in the 21st century and is central to current notions of water security (Bogardi
et al. 2012; Cook and Bakker 2012; UNU-INWEH and UN-Water 2013). Freshwater systems are
impacted by multiple stressors to the extent that these seriously threaten water security, for
humans and nature at a global scale (Dudgeon et al. 2006; Vörösmarty et al. 2010). As a
consequence, freshwater biodiversity is in serious decline (Strayer and Dudgeon 2010; Dudgeon et
al. 2006). There is growing awareness that the water requirements to sustain ecosystem health and
biodiversity in rivers and wetlands can be well aligned with human needs and deliver a range of
ecosystem goods and services to society (Postel and Richter 2003; Bernhardt et al. 2006).
Deteriorating water quality has a significant effect on water availability as part of the resource
cannot be considered for higher value uses. In the water footprint analysis of humanity, Hoekstra
and Mekonnen (2012) have estimated that the freshwater needed to dilute the concentration of
polluting substances in natural water bodies (so called “grey water”) already exceeds the amount of
freshwater withdrawn from rivers, lakes and aquifers for human use. Obviously, “business as usual”
is not an option for sustainable water resources management.
Deteriorating water quality status and hydromorphological changes of watercourses are among the
leading causes of degradation of aquatic ecosystems and their related services, threatening
livelihoods and development. While aquatic ecosystems are the richest habitats by number and
diversity of species, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) noted that aquatic ecosystems
are deteriorating faster than many other natural systems. Consequently their ability to provide
ecosystem services declines. Biodiversity loss, for example is highest amongst aquatic species
(Strayer and Dudgeon 2010). This perspective is even more threatening if put into the global
context. The present rate of annual extinction of all kind of species (aquatic, terrestrial, marine and
avian), an indicator for biodiversity loss, is more than tenfold higher than the proposed, scientific
consensus-based respective planetary boundary (Rockström et al. 2009). Thus the dramatic state of
freshwater bodies, being apparently the most vulnerable ecosystems, becomes evident.
1.2.2. Freshwater Ecosystems: “Thermometers” of Ecosystem Health
Water quality and biological conditions of freshwater bodies do not only characterize the status of
freshwater ecosystems, but reflect also the prevailing situation in neighbouring terrestrial
ecosystems as well. As ultimate sinks in the landscape (through surface runoff and seepage to and
from groundwater bodies) freshwater ecosystems are excellent proxies to characterize the
ecological health of an upstream catchment or even an entire river basin. Environmental stresses
and their evolutionary trends, even far away from lakes, wetlands or water courses or ground
water, can ultimately be detected in the state of the recipient water bodies.
5
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
However this potential is not yet fully utilized. While international water quality guidelines (with a
utilitarian focus) already exist for drinking water, recreational use, irrigation, livestock, and water
reuse (among others), comparable international water quality guidelines for ecosystems with a
focus on freshwater ecosystem health are absent or have only recently started being developed in
few countries. Next to the “utilitarian” water quality standards, similar regulatory mechanisms are
needed for the freshwater ecosystems. These would provide a good framework and basis for
freshwater ecosystem remediation and monitoring schemes, ultimately ensuring freshwater
ecosystem health and function, including provision of ecosystem services. Water quality standards
for ecosystems would facilitate the integration of an ecosystem-based management approach
(considering ecosystems as legitimate water users) in water resources management and water
allocations.
The diversity and complexity of freshwater ecosystems presents challenges to the development of
such international water quality standards, which explains their absence at a global scale.
Furthermore, ecosystem services have been considered for too long as “services for free”.
Overstressing the resilience of freshwater ecosystems by neglecting the precautionary principle has
led to massive deteriorations with consequences for human health and livelihoods. The situation
has become alarming in many parts of the world and has led to an increased demand of immediate
action and solutions to tackle the problems. As a primary pre-requisite for sustainable remediation
actions and safeguard, water quality standards for ecosystems are necessary.
The natural interrelationships between water quality and water quantity to ensure ecosystem
health are seldom made explicit. In this context the above cited “grey water” footprint is rather an
indicator of the severity of the problem than an explicit quantification of environmental flow
requirements and/or water quality status. Thus these Guidelines on how to establish standards for
health of aquatic ecosystems should include both quantitative and qualitative considerations. These
include physical, chemical, biological and hydromorphological features.
2. The Mandate to Develop the International Water Quality Guidelines
2.1. The UN-wide Approach: Partnerships and Consultation towards the
IWQGES
In recognition of the increasing challenges caused by deteriorating water quality, UN-Water
established the Thematic Priority Area (TPA) on Water Quality in 2010 and entrusted the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to coordinate it. In its work, the UN-Water TPA on Water
Quality recognized the need to develop international water quality guidelines for the protection
and rehabilitation of aquatic ecosystems.
At its 17th Senior Programme Managers’ (SPM) meeting in Hamilton (Canada), in February 2011,
UN-Water requested UNEP to continue providing leadership in the development of the IWQGES, as
this action falls within its UN mandate. Developing water quality guidelines for ecosystems would
complement and strengthen UNEP’s activities on addressing the global water quality challenge
6
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
including work under the GPA2 and within the GEMS/Water3 programme. UNEP can also draw on
the collective knowledge of the Ministries of Environment that, in many countries, have the
mandate to monitor water quality and protect ecosystems.
UN-Water led the process of developing the proposed framework of water quality guidelines in
collaboration with partner organizations, including universities and research institutions, and
governmental bodies. UNEP, on behalf of the UN-Water TPA on Water Quality, and in cooperation
with UNESCO, commissioned the Institute for Water Quality, Resources and Waste Management
(IWAG-TU) at the Vienna University of Technology in Austria to undertake a scoping study4 for
developing water quality guidelines for aquatic ecosystems. The study proposed a water quality
framework, provided an overview of some of the existing water quality guidelines and identified
the lack of and the subsequent need for water quality guidelines for aquatic ecosystems. It
reviewed processes that might form the development of such water quality guidelines, and defined
the scope and process for developing such guidelines. The scoping study recommended an
international consultative, scientific process to develop and adopt the guidelines. These
recommendations were presented and discussed extensively at the 6 th World Water Forum in
Marseille (France) in March 2012.
During the preparatory phase which culminated in the background paper on developing the
envisaged IWQGES informing the UNEP GC of 2013, and the subsequent Decision 27/3 of the
Governing Council of UNEP in February 2013, extensive consultations took place between UNEP,
UNESCO’s International Hydrological Programme (IHP), the United Nations University (both UN
Water members), the Global Water System Project (GWSP), the International Water Resources
Association (IWRA) and other professional entities. During the annual Stockholm World Water
Week in late August 2012, UNEP organized a consultative session on freshwater quality and aquatic
ecosystem health challenges. The background paper to develop IWQGES received strong
professional endorsement in this session.
2.2. Legal Framework and Institutional Partnership to Develop the IWQGES
Building on the initial work and recommendation of UN-Water (see Section 2.1.), and taking into
account paragraphs 122 and 124 of the Outcome document of the 2012 United Nations Conference
on Sustainable Development (Rio + 20 ), “The Future We Want”, which stresses the need to adopt
measures to significantly reduce water pollution and improve water quality and recognize the key
role that ecosystems play in maintaining water quantity and quality, the UNEP Governing Council at
its 27th session (First universal session), adopted decision GC 27/3 in February 2013 (see Annex 1) to
develop International Water Quality Guidelines for Ecosystems (IWQGES).
The Operative Paragraph 1 of decision 27/3:
“Requests the Executive Director, in partnership with Governments, scientific institutions, United
2
Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land based Activities (GPA)
The United Nations Global Environment Monitoring System Water Programme
4 Report available at: http://www.unwater.org/downloads/Scoping_study_final_report.pdf
3
7
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
Nations agencies and other relevant stakeholders, particularly those from developing countries, to
develop International Water Quality Guidelines for Ecosystems that may be voluntarily used to
support the development of national standards, policies and frameworks taking into account
existing information while integrating, as appropriate, all relevant aspects of water management”.
In the implementation of this decision, UNEP is working closely with the United Nations University –
Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS). The mission of the United Nations
University is to contribute, through collaborative research and education, to efforts to resolve the
pressing global problems of human survival, development and welfare that are the concern of the
United Nations, its Peoples and Member States. UNU is a think tank of the UN System with the
particular mandate to provide the platform for UN interactions with the scientific community.
UNU collaborates with UNEP in several interagency activities, among them UN-Water. The two
organizations signed in 2011 a Memorandum of Understanding to provide the framework for
individual project related cooperative agreements. Within the particular partnership for the
development of the IWQGES, UNU-EHS is providing scientific input of its own and is drawing
scientific input from the Global Water Systems Project (GWSP), UNESCO-IHE and other relevant
international and national institutions and individuals. UNU-EHS has established, with support and
endorsement of UNEP, the Drafting Group (DG) which is composed of international scientists, which
is preparing the draft IWQGES. For this, UNU-EHS was able to draw on a broad network of scientists
globally directly but also through its close links to GWSP, and to engage them to work on a project
of direct relevance to the UN system.
UNEP is in the process of establishing an Advisory Group (AG) to support the drafting of the
Guidelines through providing information, data, experiences, reviews and advice including
proposing different perspectives during the process. This group will consist of selected policy
makers and technical experts drawn from all geographical regions. The draft TOR for the Advisory
Group is attached in Annex 7.
The DG and AG members are tasked with ensuring that the guidelines are of the highest scientific
quality and responsive to regional and country needs. The AG, beyond its primary task of quality
control and its role as an internal consultation partner of the DG, will support the regional
consultations envisaged as part of the review process.
UN system-wide input to the development of the guidelines will be obtained through the UN-Water
TPA on Water Quality which will be involved right from the beginning. This forum will also serve the
purpose of linking this activity to other UN-Water activities. UN-Water TPA Water Quality members
participate ex officio in DG and AG sessions.
UNEP will report regularly about the progress of the IWQGES to the UN Environment Assembly
(UNEA) which will oversee the process of development.
2.3. Time Schedule and Organization of the IWQGES Project
8
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
Given the wide scope of IWQGES and complex consultations required, the following is the
envisaged process and timeline for developing the Guidelines:

Phase 1: Development of the Preliminary Draft of IWQGES (by mid-2014).

Phase 2: International review and interaction between DG and AG (second half of 2014) to
produce the Draft IWQGES. This will serve as basis for regional consultations in 2015. The
progress of the development of the IWQGES will be reported to the UNEP GC/EA in mid
2015.

Phase 3: Regional and international consultation process with Member States and other
stakeholders involving the DG and AG in 2015.

Phase 4: Presentation of the revised IWQGES for the endorsement of IWQGES by the UNEA
of UNEP (June 2016; “approval process”) for dissemination and member state consultation
in Phase 5.

Phase 5: Dissemination, implementation and regular updates of the IWQGES (post 2016).
Such updates would allow for regional / national/ ecotype-based refinement/ finer-scale
guideline development.
The development of the international guidelines for ecosystems, up to approval process, is
expected to take 36 months: 21 months for developing the draft guidelines (Phases 1, 2) and 15
months for international regional consultations on the draft guidelines with stakeholders and
relevant government services (Phase 3). The project implementation (Phase 1) was initiated in May
2013.
The Drafting Group (DG) under the aegis of UNU-EHS, is undertaking the necessary literature
review, collecting and analyzing data, developing the conceptual approach, and setting possible
parameters, thresholds, and compiles the “Preliminary Draft Guidelines” by end of June 2014.
Furthermore, after incorporating the comments and input from the Advisory Group (AG) and other
peer opinions the DG will produce “Draft Guidelines” in Phase 2 which will serve as the basis for
broad regional consultations with stakeholders and governments, the UN system and other
intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, the scientific community and other stakeholders (Phase 3).
The DG and the AG will interact during phases 1 – 3 starting from the formal establishment of AG.
This is expected to take place in early 2014.
Following its decision to develop the water quality guidelines for ecosystems, the role of the UNEP
Governing Council/Environmental Assembly (UNEP GC/EA) can be summarized as follows:


Review regular progress reports from the UNEP Secretariat on developing the guidelines and
provide directions in 2014.
Facilitate and support global and regional consultations on the draft guidelines in 2015.
9
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.


Take note of the progress in developing the Draft IWQGES in 2015.
Endorse the IWQGES in Phase 4 and following this approval in 2016 promote its application
in Phase 5.
2.4. UNEP Project Activities Related to the IWQGES
In order to fulfil the requirements of decision GC 27/3, the following three complementary activities
are implemented by the UNEP Secretariat in parallel with the IWQGES project:
1.
UNEP, with support from UN-Water, is currently compiling existing global, regional and
national, as well as catchment level, water quality guidelines into a “Global Compendium on
Existing Water Quality Guidelines”. The Compendium will include lessons learnt in the
development and implementation of the available guidelines, as well as best practices in
their application. This is envisaged to be useful input to the development of IWQGES.
Additionally, through its compilation it will provide a platform that brings together
knowledge, policy and management stakeholders to enrich the debate on water quality and
promote water use efficiency. The International Water Association (IWA) has been
commissioned by UNEP to compile this compendium which contributes directly to several of
the key objectives highlighted in the Rio+20 communiqué.
2.
UNEP is developing, with contributions from UN-Water the second “World Water
Quality Assessment Report”, the first worldwide water quality assessment since 1989. The
Assessment will provide information on the state of the quality of water resources globally
and recommend policy options for protecting or restoring water quality, to better ensure
the provision of ecosystem services such as food production and water supply to society.
The Assessment will furthermore identify parameters, indicators and possible threshold
values that are potentially relevant to developing the IWQGES. UNEP commissioned the
Environmental Research Centre of the Helmholtz Society (UFZ), in Germany to coordinate
the development of the report.
3.
UNEP is contributing to the definition of water quality targets and indicators for the
possible post 2015 development agenda on water led by UN-Water. Furthermore, a
resource book of technologies for wastewater management will be compiled and an
economic and sustainability rationale for wastewater management provided. These will
inform the development of IWQGES. UNEP’s Global Programme of Action for the Protection
of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA) is spearheading this effort.
The development of the IWQGES is complementary to these three initiatives and is outlined in the
following Chapter 3. The IWQGES will serve as the flagship output. The final version of IWQGES will
draw on results and conclusions of initiatives 1 – 3 above.
10
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
3. Objectives of the IWQGES and Status of implementation
3.1. Objectives, Purpose and Scope of the IWQGES
As outlined in the previous sections, the aim of the IWQGES, as derived from OP 1 of the UNEP
GC/EA Decision 27/3, is to develop a set of scientifically-based policy and technical
recommendations and summarize them for practical applications, thus assisting transnational,
national, and regional authorities in the establishment of appropriate regulatory mechanisms to
improve the sustainable management of their water resources and the protection of freshwater
ecosystems.
This double perspective is necessary to emphasize that direct and indirect provisioning of
ecosystem services constitute the life support for the planet, including its human population.
Without ensuring the sustained health and natural functions of the respective ecosystems, these
services cannot be relied upon. Given the alarming state and prevailing deteriorating tendencies of
the quality of water in various ecosystems in many parts of the world as described in Section 1.2.1.,
there is an urgent need for IWQGES.
The IWQGES will focus on water quality conditions that sustain healthy freshwater ecosystems and
their functions. They will additionally draw linkages between the provisioned ecosystem services
and respective human uses. The IWQGES are intended to be global in scope and relevance,
although it is expected that countries which have not yet put in place regulatory activities for the
protection of water quality and freshwater ecosystem health management will be the primary users
of the IWQGES. Therefore a strong focus will be on assisting developing countries in improving the
protection of their aquatic resources as stipulated by OP 1 of Decision 27/3, the more so as in these
countries, the direct reliance on ecosystem services is more prevalent than in highly developed
countries.
In the context of IWQGES the term “Guidelines” refers to a document conceived and compiled as a
manual or roadmap, including recommendations helping the respective government authorities to
establish (potentially binding) standards for water quality requirements for freshwater ecosystem
health within their respective jurisdiction.
The IWQGES will make explicit use of available reference documents (such as the EU Water
Framework Directive and the Ramsar Convention), as well as any existing national standards and
regulatory frameworks and data. Moreover, the development of the IWQGES can benefit from and
build on the three other complementary activities launched by UNEP (see Section 2.4).
While considering and drawing from available relevant guidelines, standards and the scientific
literature, IWQGES is not advocating the simple transfer of available knowledge to unchartered
geographical locations. The objective is therefore rather to define regionally-relevant principles and
thresholds, advising how to establish binding standards which will guide and support the
11
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
formulation of locally-relevant policies, the protection and the rehabilitation towards improving
freshwater ecosystem health.
These Guidelines are intended to be science-based recommendations, hence providing, among
others, a set of non-prescriptive physical, chemical and biological characterizations of certain
categories of freshwater ecosystems. These characterizations will be presented mostly as numerical
threshold values but will also encompass explanatory sections. The thresholds and
recommendations will promote water management towards sustainable water quality statuses for
different types of water bodies. As the Guidelines are global in scope, they will be necessarily
broad, have a coarse resolution and be precautionary in nature. They will need further
development, refinement and validation at regional, national and sub-national scales considering
local ecotypes and stakeholder contexts. The phases of regional consultations in 2015 and the
potential revisions of IWQGES after 2016 are foreseen to account for these needs.
Nevertheless, by adopting the recommendations of IWQGES, countries may save efforts and costs,
which would normally be needed prior to establishing binding standards and water use regulations.
It is expected that these guidelines could also partially reduce the amount of complex background
research that may be required by countries to establish their water quality regulations, as the
IWQGES will provide a framework and contain some of the relevant information required. Further,
countries are anticipated to benefit from the global knowledge relating to water quality and
freshwater ecosystem health. The IWQGES aims to be a useful starting point to bring forward more
strategically targeted in-depth research required over time.
Governments (at all scales) and other stakeholders who are legitimate custodians and users of
aquatic resources within their respective jurisdictions must agree on a set of standards and
objectives for these waters at the respective (usually national) level. Whether ecosystem functions
and/or ecosystem services provided by a certain river or lake remain intact or are being sustainably
restored is ultimately a political (preferably multi-stakeholder) decision. Nevertheless, the scientific
community and the intergovernmental agencies can provide information and guidance on this
process. Countries can then promulgate their respective (binding) water quality standards based on
scientifically-sound and regionally-relevant recommendations.
Thus the set of indicators and thresholds presented in the IWQGES will serve as well-founded
scientific advice. As such they are not a substitute for standards to be established and enforced by
sovereign state authorities or by intergovernmental bodies (like the EU) or through international
conventions to be observed within their respective jurisdictions, according to implementation time
schedules formulated by the same authorities and/or their political organs. Thresholds, their
definitions and numerical values are frequently the subject of scientific and political debate. Due to
their implications for economic activities and consequences for potential remedial actions they may
also have to be part of a broader societal debate. Hence, the IWQGES can serve as the basis for the
process of setting national standards.
Different spatial scales and classification schemes may need to be utilized to define relevant water
quality thresholds for various freshwater ecosystems. However, due to limited baseline data about
the health and functioning of freshwater ecosystems, and due to the lack of, or sparse, monitoring
12
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
networks in some remote areas in some regions, it is expected that some recommendations of
IWQGES may have to be based on best professional estimates. In this context, it is also expected
that the IWQGES will identify the need for more comprehensive and targeted monitoring
programmes and further research.
3.2. Status of Implementation of the IWQGES
The submission of the Progress Report 1 closes the first part of Phase 1 (see Section 2.3.) of
IWQGES. It started with the establishment of the Drafting Group (DG). This group had two face-toface meetings: the Inception Meeting in May 2013 in Bonn (Germany) and its first working session
in October 2013 in Budapest (Hungary).
The Inception Meeting was a crucial starting event. The project description was discussed, the
scope was clarified, and the typology to be followed was determined. Very early on, an interested
international community of scientists and stakeholders started to be interested in and supported
IWQGES. The first information event took place in May 2013 within the “Water in the
Anthropocene Conference” organized by GWSP (see Annex 6_a).
Following the inception meeting, IWQGES was discussed with UNEP’s Interdivisional Water Group
(Annexes 6_c1, 6_c2). In addition, meetings took place between the teams associated with the
other water quality initiatives of UNEP (Annex 6_f). The first version of an annotated Table of
Contents was drafted and the DG started to compile the first version of what will become the
Preliminary Draft IWQGES.
By early October 2013, an approximately 120 page long compendium was prepared which served as
the basis for the meeting of the DG in Budapest (Hungary) that same month. This meeting took
place in connection with the Budapest Water Summit which provided the appropriate platform and
policy relevant forum to launch the project officially (see Annexes 6_e1, 6_e2). This important step
of the IWQGES was implemented in the form of a side event. Ambassador R.S. Mukasa, Vice-Chair
of the UNEP Committee of Permanent Representatives (CPR) attended and contributed through a
presentation at this event. Moreover, an IWQGES press release was launched and an IWQGES flyer
distributed (Annexes 8 and 9).
As shown in Table 1 and Annexes 6, the IWQGES has been presented and discussed several times
within the last 6 months. Recommendations and comments have been incorporated into the work
of the DG and are reflected in this Progress Report 1.
Table 1: Meetings and consultations IWQGES was presented and discussed at
No.
1
2
3
Event
Conference “Water in the Anthropocene”
Conference: "Water Scarcity and Global Change"
Project meeting “Developing the International
water quality guidelines for ecosystems
13
More information in
Annex
6_a
6_b
6_c1, 6_c2
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
(IWQGES) (GC 27/3)”: UNEPs input to the
inception phase
4
Stockholm World Water Week 2013 (session)
6_d
5
Stockholm World Water Week 2013 (side event) 6_e1, 6_e2
6
Meeting with members of WP2, UNEP project
6_f
“World Water Assessment Report”
7
Young Scientists’ Seminar on the occasion of the 6_g1, 6_g2
X. Meeting of the UNU-EHS Advisory Committee
8
Budapest Water Summit (launch)
6_h1, 6_h2
rd
9
3 IWA Development congress and exhibition
6_i
During the inception phase the Terms of Reference for the Advisory Group (AG) were finalized
(Annex 7). This important group of experts is expected to be in place by end of January 2014.
14
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
4. Conceptual Approaches for Developing the IWQGES
4.1. Focus on Freshwater Ecosystem-Health
The IWQGES will focus on freshwater ecosystems. The UNEP GC/EA Decision 27/3 (Annex 1) clearly
refers to “water management” and to “water quality” which implies the focus on the aqueous
phase (see also Section 1.1.). As water use-oriented guidelines (drinking water, recreation, fisheries,
livestock, agriculture, etc.) already exist, the specific value of the IWQGES to be developed within
this project lies in the focus on freshwater ecosystems and ecosystem health.
By adopting the ecosystem health approach, the IWQGES subscribes to the precautionary principle.
It acknowledges that freshwater ecosystems also have a legitimate demand for an appropriate part
of the resource enabling them to sustain their natural functions. Only healthy water bodies can
secure and provide their respective ecosystem services sustainably. The IWQGES will highlight that
the precautionary and no further deterioration principle is more often than not the cheaper option
compared to the prevailing “impair and then repair” paradigm with regard to ecosystems still
widely practiced in water resources engineering and development (Vörösmarty 2013).
The integrity of freshwater ecosystems also enables the potential use of freshwater resources by
humans and by other components of the terrestrial ecosystems (flora and fauna). Freshwater
ecosystems can be seen as the backbone of the entire cycle, as they reflect what is going on in the
surrounding terrestrial system and connected groundwater bodies as well as deltas, coastal and
marine waters. Steps for improvement/remedy of freshwater ecosystems including setting specific
targets will have to consider human water uses in the entire catchment.
Groundwater and surface waters are intricately intertwined with e.g. groundwater contributing to
base flow of rivers. While groundwater bodies themselves have recently been considered as
ecosystems, their biodiversity is not well known. Less than 10% of the estimated number of species
is described. The number of described species in the surface water realm alone exceeds that in
groundwater more than 26 fold (Balian et al. 2008, Stoch and Galassi 2010). Hence at this stage the
IWQGES will focus on surface water bodies (lakes, reservoirs and water courses) and the related
transitional ecosystems such as deltas, estuaries, coastal zones and palustrine wetlands.
Groundwater will be dealt with implicitly. For example, from the perspective of ambient water
quality, the quality of groundwater is manifested mainly in terms of natural outflows into surface
water systems or through its links with the water use cycle whereby groundwater is abstracted first
for utilitarian purposes and discharged into surface waters after use.
As not only water quality related problems threaten the health and functioning of freshwater
ecosystems, the IWQGES will not be restricted to chemical, physical, biological and biodiversityrelated aspects. Water quantity, its adequate spatial availability, its temporal distribution, the
morphology of water bodies and the maintenance of environmental flows are critical factors codetermining the health of freshwater ecosystems to sustain biodiversity and their potential to
provide and support essential ecosystem processes and services.
15
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
The IWQGES is a science-based manual helping to establish new, or to assist with the adaptation of
existing, water quality, quantity and hydromorphological standards for sustainable freshwater
ecosystems. It needs to be developed within the broad context of climatic, biogeographic,
ecoregional, geomorphological, hydrographic/hydrological and hydraulic conditions within which
freshwater ecosystems exist. Forms, composition, functions and services may vary. These
combinations should be all-encompassing, yet not overly complex or unnecessarily detailed. It
should be kept in mind that every standard, parameter and monitoring requirement will have
serious and long lasting costs and capacity implications. These burdens cannot be shouldered by a
number of countries. The IWQGES will therefore offer stepwise development options for indicators
and monitoring practices.
A key aspect that will/has been considered from the beginning of the development of the IWQGES
is that freshwater ecosystems are entities with their own specific water demands both in quality
and quantity. Only after having satisfied these ecosystem water requirements can we expect the
freshwater ecosystems to function and provide services to other systems sustainably.
Fig. 1 depicts the possible feedbacks and links between the status of ecosystem health and the in
situ and/or ex situ water use by humans. Freshwater ecosystems can be affected through alteration
of the water body through in situ uses and infrastructure built to facilitate withdrawals and
diversions for ex situ water uses. Ultimately, water bodies are recipients of the return (waste) water
flow and other residues. The concept of “ecosystem health” acknowledges the coexistence of
human activities with ecosystem functions and dynamics. The incorporation of human activities
seems relevant, especially when considering current human population density and demographic
development. Furthermore, through the hydrological cycle even remote “natural habitats” are
linked to intensively used water bodies. In fact, this strong coupling between socioeconomic and
socio-ecological subsystems and the water cycle is much more pronounced for the surface water
compartment than for the subsurface compartment of the terrestrial part of this cycle. As an
example, the interaction of these two compartments with the nitrogen cycle can be cited. Nitrate
enrichment in water bodies is the consequence of intensive use of fertilizers in agriculture. In
surface water bodies this can lead directly to (toxic) algal blooms and eutrophication, especially in
lakes. The occurrence of these phenomena is a warning that the health of the freshwater
ecosystem can be further and potentially irrevocably compromised. Remedial and protective
measures are then urgently needed to tackle the problem, preferably at its source. The Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) provides an excellent conceptual framework to address these
issues at the level of a global guideline. Nitrate levels can also increase in ground water bodies
through seepage from agricultural areas ultimately rendering them unfit for human consumption.
However, both the occurrence of the problem and its reversal are slower processes than in surface
waters. Remedial actions preventing deterioration of surface waters are also beneficial to mitigate
the threat for groundwater bodies and the coastal and marine environment.
in situ / ex situ uses
directly and indirectly linked
feedbacks on freshwater
freshwater ecosystems
16
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
ecosystem health
Figure 1: Links between water uses and freshwater ecosystems
4.2. Classification Schemes by Freshwater Ecosystem Types
A preliminary classification scheme is described in this section. This is the result of a long iterative
selection process within the DG. The following sections describe this evolution of concepts and
proposed classifications. As such they reflect the status as of end of 2013 and represent work in
progress. It considers three categories of freshwater bodies (ecosystems):



Running waters (permanent and temporary streams and rivers)
Standing water bodies (lakes and reservoirs)
Palustrine wetlands (e.g. swamps, groundwater-dependent wetlands)
There is a need to make the distinction between temporary and permanent water bodies in
different climatic zones, where the phenomenon of drying could occur naturally and healthy
ecosystems are able to cope with this intermittency. Running waters (watercourses) can also be
subdivided as wadable and non-wadable streams to account for the differences in applicable
monitoring techniques (see also Section 4.4. and Annex 2).
The three categories of freshwater bodies need to be considered under different climatic factors:


Temperature: cold, temperate (moderate), sub-tropical, tropical
Hydrology/precipitation: arid (dry), semi-arid, sub-humid, humid (wet)
Finally, and especially for streams due to their profound morphological changes, but also for lakes
due to their different stratification patterns, the following three zones will be considered:



4.3 .
Upland/Mountain
Mid-reach/Mid-level (piedmont or plain),
Low land (including delta, estuary and coastal zones)
Characterization of the Health of Freshwater Ecosystems
The IWQGES will consider several categories/classes to subdivide the water quality continuum.
These classes are associated with different levels of the health of the respective freshwater
ecosystem. One (green bar) threshold (see Fig. 2, blue arrow) will separate ecosystems of high
integrity from the other ones. Another threshold (red bar; marked also by a blue arrow) demarcates
at the lower end of the quality continuum, the zone where water quality no longer sustains higher
life forms. Higher life forms correspond with good aerobic status of the freshwater bodies.
17
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
Figure 2: Categories of ecosystem status along the water quality continuum
The IWQGES will present linkages of classes of water quality to ecosystem services and uses. As Fig.
3 illustrates ecosystem functions and withdrawal of water for various uses may be compromised
with deteriorating water quality.
Figure 3: Different utilizations of water along the water quality continuum (curves are illustrative)
The two middle classes (minimally to moderately and highly disturbed ecosystems) can be further
subdivided into several sub-classes in order to detect (and reward) if the status of freshwater
18
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
ecosystems is gradually improved. Blue bars in Fig. 4 illustrate the position of potential additional
class boundaries. It is advised however that the IWQGES will focus on the simpler classification
scheme which could then be refined if deemed appropriate.
Figure 4: Potentially refined categories of ecosystem status along the water quality continuum (in
total 4 categories plus the “dead zone”)
In the following, the proposed freshwater ecosystem health categories are explained in more detail.
Category 1 (green domain)
Ecosystems may provide goods and services. Although these goods and services are possibly used
by humans, the ecosystems are fully functional regarding processes such as nutrient dynamics,
decomposition, and movement of biota. Their condition is unstressed. The systems have the
capacity to fully recover from naturally recurring stresses without external human interventions.
This near natural or intact state corresponds to a certain extent with the so called “reference state”
as defined by the European Water Framework Directive (EU WFD, 2000).
While the “AA” sub-domain could be a “set-aside” part of “top-quality” ecosystems, class “A” would
have slightly less stringent thresholds and objectives within the same category. Minimal additional
human uses have potentially strong deteriorating impacts on both classes.
Categories 2 and 3 (white domain)
Here, the freshwater ecosystem health objective is to have “minimally to moderately disturbed”
systems. Direct human contact through swimming, recreation, and water withdrawal for drinking
purposes with minimal treatment needs are allowed. Indirect human water uses, like irrigation
withdrawal, artificial recharge, absorbing treated sewage, water transportation, and hydropower
can be accepted, though these may already imply hydromorphological stresses. In this category
there is a clear trade-off between ecosystem integrity/functions and ecosystem uses. The full
functionality of the ecosystems might be affected. This category is expected to provide habitat for
the salmonid to cyprinid group of fishes in moderate and cold climates and equally sensitive sets of
indicator taxa in subtropical and tropical water bodies.
Category 4 (orange domain)
This category represents highly disturbed ecosystems. There is a clear negative impact of land and
water use on ecosystem integrity/functions. Ecosystem services may no longer be available for the
purpose of drinking water supply, recreation or fisheries and aquaculture, whereas freshwater
quality may be sufficient for insensitive industrial utilizations, navigation and potentially
19
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
hydropower generation.
An ecosystem bottom line (red bar in Fig. 4) is defined. Ecosystem quality status should be above
this threshold, since a quality status below the bottom line no longer sustains higher order aquatic
life.
Red domain
This represents an unacceptable status of ecosystems whereby the status is characterized by
threshold values indicating the urgent need of remedial action to restore the ecological functions of
the respective water body. The resilience of these ecosystems is low and the status is possibly at a
point of no return without massive remedial actions resulting ultimately in man-made ecosystems.
It is acknowledged that water quality conditions corresponding with characteristics of the ‘red
domain’ may occur naturally due to volcanic activities or other geogene processes. However these
water bodies are usually not considered for their ecosystem service function.
4.4. Freshwater Ecosystem Health Restoration: How Should We Go About It?
The so called reference state condition of freshwater ecosystems (see Section 4.3) would be
reached if there were no disturbance by humans at all. But if, for example, a catchment is densely
populated, it is unlikely that even with the best management practices in place (e.g. mitigation of
point and diffuse source pollution, restoration of river site habitats), the reference condition would
be reached, since the human population cannot be removed from the system. In this case, the
reference condition cannot be achieved. Even the reference conditions-based European Water
Framework Directive provides alternative options for highly modified water bodies (EU WFD 2000).
In this situation, instead of setting an unreachable level like the reference condition, the so-called
best attainable condition (BAC) should be targeted.
The BAC is the potential state of the freshwater ecosystem which could be achieved and protected
sustainably upon implementing the best management practices available. The establishment of the
BAC as a target state starts with the assessment of the present (initial) status of the ecosystem
health of the respective water bodies. Further, it is based also on an analysis of pressures and
consequences of water uses at a relevant scale, including the assessment of their importance for
the economic and human development aspirations. Available measures (like appropriate
technological solutions, regulatory steps and their enforcement opportunities, behavioural change
and their costs) should also be considered. Setting a BAC is ultimately a societal choice, balancing
the trade-offs between costs, development targets and ecosystem health goals. This process should
be assisted by scientific evidence based information and impact analysis. In a highly populated
catchment, the BAC would rather have a lower end point value along the water quality continuum
than the highly intact reference condition. This BAC end point is preferably still located in the
highest ecosystem category (Category 1, green domain). In some landscapes and settings the BAC
end point will, however, be in a lower category of water quality (Category 2 or 3, white domain in
Figs. 2, 3 and 4). With the application of the BAC, unreachable targets in some landscapes and
20
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
settings can be avoided. This is due to the fact that the BAC approach incorporates the notion of
existing utilization of ecosystem services in the form of in situ and ex situ water uses as shown in
Fig. 1. It is important to note that the IWQGES will not come up with fixed values for the BAC, but
explain and define the process of how a range of “top end points”- i.e. the reference condition
and/or the BAC end points - can be set and reached. There will therefore not be one BAC value, but
depending on the setting, the BAC may have different end points; thus the BAC is a moving target
but within a narrow range of the water quality continuum.
The reference state condition and the BAC concept follow different philosophies: while the
reference condition concept measures the deviation of ecosystem health from the highest status,
the focus of the BAC concept is on which ecosystem status can be achieved by best management
practices. However both concepts send a clear message regarding the improvement of the
ecosystem health status, which relates to the precautionary principle. The consideration of both
concepts together provides insights into the differences between the ecocentric and the more
utilitarian approaches and their respective targets. The reference state identifies the “natural
optimum” of the freshwater body as far as ecosystem health and integrity are concerned while BAC
considers the exigencies of existing or planned uses of the said water body and identifies realistic
targets to be achieved through mitigation of the stresses caused by societal uses.
The IWQGES is building on both approaches. Technical guidance will be proposed to allow water
managers to set the BAC adequately (use “what if” scenarios, for example). Since the BAC shows
what can be reached in a given setting, it shows how close one can get to the reference condition if
everything that is possible regarding remediation is actually implemented. As voluntary guidelines
they will not prescribe that an administration has to set the BAC as its target. Specific objectives can
be set lower. While this would certainly not be an “optimal” choice as far as ecosystem health is
concerned this is a management decision depending on specific settings, societal aspirations and
financial resources.
4.5. Thresholds, Resilience and Possible Tipping Points
In connection with ecosystem health classification and transitions between domains, the resilience
of the respective system plays an essential role. Resilience has several definitions. In ecology it
stands for the robustness of the system to remain in its “original” state irrespective of stresses
impacting the system (Holling 1973). In general systems theory, resilience is defined as the ability of
the system to bounce back into its “original” state, irrespective whether temporarily it deteriorated
into a “lower status” state. In this context, resilience is measured by the time needed for recovery
(Hashimoto et al. 1982). Furthermore, resilience is increasingly characterized as “the capacity of a
system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain
essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks” (Walker et al. 2004). This
definition is the one considered in the IWQGES. Linked to this concept is the notion of thresholds or
tipping points which can be defined as “a breakpoint between two regimes of a system” (Walker
and Meyer 2004). IWQGES will therefore look at resilience as a measure of the likelihood of a
tipping point (irrevocable shift in the ecosystem health class) is being passed.
21
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
Thresholds of water quality and ecosystem health as defined by IWQGES do not necessarily
constitute tipping points in ecological systems, although the threshold between category 4 and the
red zone could be considered as a tipping point especially under consideration of the corresponding
utilitarian and ecosystem service dimension of this transgression. Obviously being close to a
category limit increases the chance to slide below it. Resilience depends on how far an ecosystem is
away from the reference condition and how far a system is destabilized (quantifiably). This term will
be discussed in detail in the scientific part of the IWQGES. Biological indicators (e.g. groups of
species, redundancy in traits, trophic/functional indicators, etc.) are especially capable to
comprehensively assess the status that an ecosystem is in. Consequently they may give the best
estimate for its resilience. This implies that higher biodiversity status is likely to correspond with
better resilience.
In order to assess the health of ecosystems it is imperative not to focus only on physical-chemical
parameters, but to moreover monitor the biota. The focus of IWQGES will be on flagship and
indicator species, based on knowledge of their distribution and physiological tolerances. The
IWQGES follows the idea that biota of the “green” domain is different from the biota at sites and
ecosystems which are affected by disturbances through human activities and use.
If a set of indicator values indicates that the quality status of a freshwater ecosystem is within the
middle categories 2 to 4 (“AB”, “BB” and “BC”) this implies the potential need for improvement. The
more so if the ecosystem health status is close to the red bar (as shown in the preceding figures).
It should be clear which management practice needs to be in place in order to improve the
ecosystem health status. The guidelines will compile a list of indicators and present three threshold
values characterizing the lower limits of the green domain (green bar), white domain (blue bar
dividing category 3 and 4) and the orange coloured ecosystem health domain (red bar).
The thresholds should be set based on scientific principles and on the reference condition of a
system, thus the first step is an ecocentric view: what is best and worst for an ecosystem (green
and red bars). The level that a water management authority wants to reach within the middle
category (categories 2-4) is a political decision which brings in the utilitarian view, the value system
and readiness to pay for improvements or conservation.
4.6. Proposed Indicators and Monitoring Options for National Water Quality
Standards
In order to define targets such as the reference condition or the BAC and to set the class boundaries
to subdivide the water quality continuum, the questions to be addressed are:

How to identify the attributes characterizing the state and how to use these to establish
a practical classification scheme (selection of indicators and thresholds)?

How to measure/monitor these descriptors of the state of the health of freshwater
ecosystems?
22
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
These are essential questions to be answered during the setup phase of national standards.
Without reliable monitoring being implemented, the enforcement of the standards remains
hypothetical. The present Section 4.6. reflects work in progress as of November 2013.
The IWQGES manual will outline different levels of activities to be implemented for the setup of
standards by national authorities. These refer to the preparatory phase as well as the continuous
monitoring and enforcement phases. This multi-level approach distinguishes between essential and
advanced options as far as number and type of indicators and monitoring efforts are concerned.
This model allows also staged development and phased introduction of standards and their
respective enforcement mechanisms. Selecting what and how frequently to monitor is a decision of
the implementing agency. Achieving and maintaining high ecological status for freshwater bodies
implies an elaborate and regular monitoring of selected indicators and the subsequent
implementation of remedial actions should they be needed.
Some indicators will have values in the Guidelines which are valid across all freshwater ecosystems;
others will need to have separate sets of values as specific threshold values will be valid for specific
contexts (climatic and/or geomorphic zones). Not all of the indicators will need to be measured
regularly. Basic and advanced field and laboratory water chemistry indicators will be considered as
well as bio-indicators, toxic constituents, system variables, hydromorphological indicators, processbased indicators, key stressors and research indicators (novel indicator development).
The proposed schemes for biological, chemical-physical and hydromorphological indicators are
reflecting the state of deliberations as of November 2013. They are attached to this Progress
Report, along with a “how to use” description in Annex 2. They follow a phased approach with
three levels for both indicator setting and subsequent monitoring:

Level 1 is the fundamental step to start the process of awareness raising, target setting
and the implementation of the process described in Section 4.4. Level 1 will be a prescreening step using remote sensing/screening data. This level is associated with desktop
studies and the preparatory phase of formulating standards and the corresponding
monitoring programme. Level 1 has two functions. It is the preparatory stage preceding
Levels 2 and 3 and the initiation of the elementary programme. It can be complemented
with simple, volunteer observers (like schools or engaged citizens) networks using a few
selected proxy indicators. This approach is essential to start the process of freshwater
ecosystem health remediation.

Level 2 will be a state of the art monitoring scheme using a basic set of indicators. The
decision, which indicators to use will most likely depend on the assessed level of risk of
water quality deterioration as determined during the Level 1 screening step. The overview
of indicators in Annex 2 is quite comprehensive. Some of the proposed indicators can be
selected for Level 2 monitoring while the complete set is rather relevant for high accuracy
requirements at Level 3, which may be relevant only at specific high value freshwater
ecosystems or for particular project impact monitoring. The indicators are grouped to reflect
the biological, chemical/physical and hydromorphological features of the freshwater bodies
23
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
to be classified and monitored (Table 2). Within these groups the following categories of
indicators are considered:
Biological indicators → stressors (mainly anthropogenic ones) and fish, invertebrates, algae,
macrophytes
Chemical/Physical indicators → metabolic, trophic, toxicants
Hydromorphological indicators → aquatic habitat, riparian habitat
Monitoring schemes have to consider differences in and accessibility of the water bodies to
be monitored. Thus the recommendations are grouped according to lakes/reservoirs (lotic
water bodies); wetlands (palustrine areas); wadable rivers (watercourses, lentic, coastal);
and non-wadable rivers (watercourses,(lentic, coastal)
Table 2: Proposed Biological, Physical/Chemical and Hydromorphological indicators
(refer to Annex 2)
System feature
Indicator categories
Fish
Biological
Invertebrates
Algae
Indicators
Sensitive taxa; Relative richness;
Size/age structure; Disease
incidence; Alien species; Trophic
structure; Life history traits;
Reproductive traits
Relative richness; Size/age
structure; Life history traits;
Sensitive taxa; Trophic structure;
Community composition
Taxa composition; Sensitive taxa;
Algal biomass
Macrophytes
Oxygen (DO, BOD, COD);
Temperature; pH; Light penetration
(Secchi depth);
Conductivity/salinity; Microbial
pollutants (E. coli, total coliform
count)
Nutrients (N, P, NH4, NOX, soluble
P) ; Chlorophyl A
Heavy metals (Cd, Hg, Cr, Cu etc);
Pesticides; Other organic pollutants
(oil, phenol, PCBs, endocrine
disruptors)
Colonizable substrates; Substrate
condition; Velocity and depth
Metabolic
Physical/Chemical
Trophic
Toxicants
Hydromorphology
Aquatic habitats
24
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
variability; Sediment deposition;
Channel flow; Habitat diversity;
Aquatic vegetation; Off channel
aquatic habitats
Bank stability; Bank vegetative
protection; Human influence
Riparian habitats

Level 3 will be the advanced monitoring scheme with a more comprehensive set of
indicators, using all, or most of the indicator groups listed under Level 2. Level 3 monitoring
can serve the purpose to zoom in into areas of concern.
Since most ecosystems face simultaneously multiple stressors, the IWQGES will provide advice on
how to account for the potential interactions of parameters. The EU Water Framework Directive,
for example, associates the assessed quality class of a water body with the worst score of any of the
indicators applied (“one out, all out” principle). Other potential approaches, such as the Australian
“Ecosystem Health Monitoring Programme5” and its Reporting Cards6 will be presented and
analyzed allowing the users of the Guidelines to make an informed choice.
The confidence with which the monitoring objectives are achieved is dependent on the set of
indicators assessed. Reaching the objective of “high ecosystem integrity” thus requires the
monitoring of numerous indicators. The level of monitoring efforts and costs is objective
dependent. IWQGES focuses on simple indicators sets, especially at Level 2 monitoring. This level
can be considered as the entry level for countries without an extensive observation network,
institutional and professional capacity. Level 2 can gradually be upgraded to Level 3.
5
http://www.healthywaterways.org/ehmphome.aspx
http://www.healthywaterways.org/EcosystemHealthMonitoringProgram/ProductsandPublications/AnnualReportCards
.aspx
6
25
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
5. Outline of the Content of IWQGES
Annex 3 presents the proposed Table of Contents of the IWQGES as of November 2013. This
consolidated outline of the IWQGES is the result of an in depth iterative deliberation by the Drafting
Group (DG). Yet, it has to be considered as a work in progress.
An introductory chapter (Chapter 1) sets the overall scene and describes the objectives and scope
of IWQGES. It contains the pertinent features already presented in this Progress Report 1:
challenges, status quo and perspectives of freshwater ecosystems. It describes the development of
IWQGES, its role and relationships with similar UN and scientific initiatives. This chapter also
outlines the structure of the report.
Chapter 2 presents the conceptual framework and scientific basis of the Guidelines. This includes
the most pertinent scientific principles, definitions and methods potentially used to set freshwater
ecosystem health objectives, indicators and classifications. Chapter 2 addresses the question of
monitoring requirement and its practical implementation. Problems which may be encountered in
practical applications like uncertainty and data scarcity are also discussed in Chapter 2. Potential
tipping points of ecosystem health status are addressed as well as capacity (institutional and
professional personnel) constraints and the need for a phased approach.
Chapter 3 provides an overview of existing water quality standards including their principles,
typology, classifications, indicators and threshold values for different quality classes. This chapter
will focus primarily on freshwater ecosystem health oriented standards.
In contrast to Chapter 2 which outlines the scientific background and addresses the general
questions of standard development, Chapter 4 focuses on the detailed description of how to
proceed in setting up (binding) standards for the water quality requirements of freshwater
ecosystems. Chapter 4 is the core part of the IWQGES. It goes through a long chain of “to do’s” and
provides related recommendations of “how to do’s”. Objective setting, typology of freshwater
ecosystems, climate, regional specificities as well as threats and stressors, human water use and
other relevant activities are among the starting issues. They are followed by selection of indicators
and setting numerical thresholds to distinguish ecosystem health classes and the identification of
particular conservation areas. Defining reference conditions and/or approximating the best
attainable conditions (BAC) are among the priority tasks of this chapter. Chapter 4 will elaborate
the phased development concept as outlined in Section 4.6 of this Progress Report 1, identifying
different levels of objective achievement, indicators and monitoring schemes. This chapter will
address more than the classification and monitoring of water bodies. Essential features such as
cost-benefit considerations, institutional and manpower capacity issues, stakeholder involvement,
including citizen science approaches and the deployment of volunteer observers, are among the
topics to be covered. Both chapters 2 and 4 will be illustrated with examples and explanatory
boxes.
Chapter 5 constitutes a detailed checklist. It gives the suggested step by step procedures to be
26
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
taken for developing and implementing standards for freshwater ecosystem health. Chapter 5 will
rely heavily on Chapters 2 and 4 but will be written in a more direct, practical user-oriented
language. Following the sequence of steps described in Chapter 5 and referring back to Chapter 4
for details and to Chapter 2 for scientific background, is the recommended course of action.
Chapter 5 will also refer to additional sources and the experience gained in application of
freshwater ecosystem health standards in pioneering countries as summarized in Chapter 3.
Chapter 6 will present some concluding remarks and outline issues and ideas for further
development of the IWQGES beyond the present phase of the project.
27
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
6. Outlook of the Development of the IWQGES
After the submission of the Progress Report 1, the new version of the Preliminary Draft Guidelines
will be compiled and prepared as a background document for the forthcoming next meeting of the
DG in late February 2014 in Nairobi (Kenya). In connection with this meeting, interactions are
planned with the Interdivisional Water Group (IDWG) of UNEP and with the representatives of the
water quality initiatives of UNEP (see Section 2.4. of this Progress Report 1). Following the meeting
and consultation in February 2014, the Preliminary Draft IWQGES will be prepared and submitted in
June 2014. It will serve as a basis for further interaction with the AG later in 2014.
The Draft IWQGES, which is expected to serve as basis for the regional consultations in 2015 is
planned to be finalized by the end of 2014 based on the Preliminary Draft Report and the
comments and recommendations received from the AG. This report will be presented as part of the
progress report to the governing organ of UNEP, the UNEA. After the 2015 session of UNEA the
regional consultations with Member States, stakeholders and UN Water partners will be initiated.
Recommendations and contributions received during this phase will be incorporated into the
IWQGES which will be presented at the 2016 session of UNEA for approval. Receiving this approval,
the IWQGES will be released for general use. It is envisaged that the document will be cyclically
updated upon new scientific results and feedback from the practical application of the Guidelines.
28
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Environment Programme concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or
area or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily
represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme; nor does citing of trade names or
commercial processes constitute endorsement.
Annexes
1. UNEP GC decision: International Water Quality Guidelines for Ecosystems
2. Excel sheets on Indicators (Recommendations for biological, physical-chemical and
hydromorphological monitoring)
3. Annotated Draft Table of Content of IWQGES
4. Glossary
5. References
6. Programmes and records of meetings of events where the IWQGES Project was
presented at
7. Terms of Reference for the Advisory Group of IWQGES
8. Flyer of IWQGES
9. Press release on occasion of the official project launch of IWQGES
29