ECOSTAT workshop “Hydromorphology and WFD classification Oslo, Norway, 12-13 October 2015 (back-to-back with ECOSTAT) Organised in close collaboration.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Goals and Challenges
Advertisements

WFD Stakeholder Meeting 2 February 2007 WFD Environmental Standards Rob Hitchen WFD Team, Defra.
The EU Water Framework Directive and Sediments The Water Framework Directive was transposed into law in EU Member States at the end of Nearly two.
Stepping Forward Population Objectives Partners in Flight Conservation Design Workshop April 2006 and Delivering Conservation.
Marine Strategy Framework Directive Consultation on Good Environmental Status Descriptor 7 – Hydrographical Conditions Dr Alejandro Gallego Marine Scotland.
A forum for coordinating state, federal, and tribal aquatic monitoring programs in the Pacific Northwest Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership.
Hydropower and the Water Environment Peter Gammeltoft European Commission DG Environment, D.1 Water 2nd Workshop on Water Management, WFD & Hydropower.
Mats Wallin Swedish Univ. of Agricultural Sciences Dept. of Environmental Assessment Catarina Johansson Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Development.
REFORM NIKOLAI FRIBERG Norwegian Institute for Water Research Gaustadalléen 21, NO-0349 OSLO, Norway Nikolai Friberg1.
Indicators to communicate progress towards good status WG DIS, April 2015.
Biological methods to detect the effects of hydrological and morphological pressures Introduction and overview of questionnaire responses.
Add your Logo in the slide master menu GLOBAQUA Meeting, January 13th-14th, Freising IMPLICATIONS Module Reporting back Implications Module: WP8, WP9,
LAKE HYDROMORPHOLOGY. BACKGROUND No standard methods for assessing lake hydromorphology No standard methods for assessing lake hydromorphology Work began.
Framework for the intercalibration process  Must be simple  Aiming to identify and resolve big inconsistencies with the normative definitions and big.
HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan Northern Dimension and the oceans and the seas Mieczysław Ostojski, Prof. WSS Chairman Helsinki Commission 15th Baltic Sea.
Comparison of freshwater nutrient boundary values Geoff Phillips 1 & Jo-Anne Pitt 2 1 University of Stirling & University College London 2 Environment.
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Overall Approach to the Ecological Classification 01 July 2003 D/UK WGL CIS 2A.
WISER Water bodies in Europe: Integrative Systems to assess Ecological status and Recovery.
The French National Agency on Water and Aquatic Environments
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Principles and Key Issues
REFCOND EU Water Framework Directive project funded by the European Commission DG Environment Included in the EU Water Directors “Common Strategy on.
‘Work of the EEA aimed at streamlining marine assessment processes’
Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive Working Group A ECOSTAT Ecological Status 7th Meeting Stresa, Lago Maggiore, Italy
CIS guidance document on E-Flows
Synthesis of the intercalibration process Working group 2.5.
Purpose Independent piece of legislation, closely integrated in a larger regulatory framework (complement to WFD): prevent deterioration protect, enhance.
WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
GEP vs. GES.
WFD and Hydromorphology - 4/5 June 2007, Berlin, Germany -
Delivering Conservation
USING ALIEN SPECIES DATA FOR THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
WG ECOSTAT: Good Ecological Potential (GEP)
WFD and Hydromorphology
Progress report ATG Hymo 1 May – 20 October 2016
One-out-all-out and other indicators
Philippe QUEVAUVILLER
Meeting of the WFD CIS Working Group on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT)
Agenda Item 3d Ad-hoc Task Group (ATG) Hydromorphology
Nutrient Standards: Proposals for further work
Update on progress since last WG meeting (13-14 June 2002)
on a protocol for Intercalibration of Surface Water
Project 2.7 Guidance on Monitoring
HYDROMORPHOLGY WORKSHOP
Activities of WG A Ecological Status
Comparison of methodologies for defining Good Ecological Potential
EU Water Framework Directive
WFD and Agriculture Activity under the CIS 2005/2006 Work Programme
Alternative Methodology for Defining Good Ecological Potential (GEP)
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
ECOSTAT 2013 – 2015 Tasks and Deliverables
Water Directors meeting Warsaw, 8-9 December 2011
WG 2.3 REFCOND Progress report for the SCG meeting 30 Sep-1 Oct 2002
EU Water Framework Directive
Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive
Update WG Eflows activity and link with EcoStat
Metadata analysis.
WFD CIS 4th Intercalibration Workshop
Guidelines to translate the intercalibration results into the national classification systems and to derive reference conditions Presented by Wouter.
HMWB-Workshop „Heavily Modified Water Bodies: Information Exchange on Designation, Assessment of Ecological Potential, Objective Setting and Measures”
Concept paper on the assessment of WFD River Basin Management Plans
Natural Water Retention Measures
The Blueprint and Council Conclusions:
WG A ECOSTAT Draft Mandate
Harmonisation Activity Progress report
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland.
Research on Climate Change on Water, including Natural Hazards Contribution to SSG discussions and science-policy interfacing Philippe QUEVAUVILLER European.
WG A Ecological Status Progress report October 2010 – May 2011
Why are we reviewing reference conditions in intercalibration?
Item 4 b) Marine Strategy Framework Directive and CIS WFD
Presentation transcript:

ECOSTAT workshop “Hydromorphology and WFD classification Oslo, Norway, October 2015 (back-to-back with ECOSTAT) Organised in close collaboration with REFORM project Focus on RIVERS

THEME 1: WFD assessment methods for Biological quality elements: possibilities and limitations to detect hydromorphological pressures

REFORM presentations (Nikolai Friberg, Matthew O’hare) MS presentations (Germany, Netherlands) Breakout discussion groups

THEME 2: Hydromorphological assessment methods – use as a supporting element for status assessment and beyond

Presentation from CEN on standards REFORM presentation (Massimo Rinaldi) Presentation from JRC on use of remote sensing information 4 MS presentations Breakout discussions

All presentations are available at CIRCABC Summary conclusions agreed upon shortly after the workshop

Agreed Conclusions (1) Hydromorphological processes are a key component of fluvial ecology, as they create the hydrodynamic and habitat conditions to support biota. Pressure on hydromorphology is one of the most common causes for water bodies to fail the WFD environmental objectives

Agreed Conclusions (2) There are many good examples of biological indicators responding to hydromorphological pressures. – Response depends on choice of metrics – Targeted indicators needed – current WFD methods include good but also poor examples – Spatial and temporal scale of monitoring should be in line with hymo processes – Quantification of hymo pressures and their effect on biology in multi-stressor environment needed to understand the cause of problems and to design appropriate measures

Agreed Conclusions (3) River typologies should reflect natural variability in hydromorphological characteristics and processes. This is crucial because differences in natural hydromorphology result in different reference conditions for the biological quality elements BQE assessments need to be supplemented with information from the supporting elements in order to identify inconsistencies between hydromorphological and biological assessment, to diagnose problems and to identify effective restoration measures. A clear understanding of what is meant by “supportive element”, how it should be used, how it is reported is needed

Agreed Conclusions (4) Hydromorphological assessment is crucial for the designation of HMWB, the development of methods to quantify ecological potential, and for the design and monitoring of mitigation measures. It will not be possible to achieve this if information on hydromorphology is available for “high status” only. Hydromorphological processes occur at different spatial and temporal scales. Hydromorphological assessment methods are needed to account for variations in time and space (multi-scale methods).

Agreed Conclusions (5) Until recently, there were few shared and standardized multi-scale hydromorphological assessment methods. This has been an obstacle for a proper analysis of the linkages with BQEs so far. Recent scientific work (including the REFORM project) has resulted in new and better approaches and tools, which could now be used and further standardised. To achieve real progress on this topic it is necessary that experts on hydromorphology and biology need to work together at different levels – scientifically, within Member States, and also within the WFD common implementation strategy.

Agreed Conclusions (6) Data from remote sensing are increasingly available from many sources, including EU space programs. This data has a great potential to be used in hydromorphological assessments at different scales, in combination with field data and other existing relevant information. The main challenge is not data availability and acquisition, but to solve issues with data processing and interpretation.