REFCOND EU Water Framework Directive project funded by the European Commission DG Environment Included in the EU Water Directors “Common Strategy on.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
PROJECT :EVK PROGRAMME:EESD-ESD-3 THEMATIC PRIORITY:EESD WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE.
Advertisements

Fish migration from a Water Framework Directive perspective
Mats Wallin Swedish Univ. of Agricultural Sciences Dept. of Environmental Assessment Catarina Johansson Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Development.
Water Framework Directive Implementation and Risk Analysis John Sadlier Water Quality Section.
European Commission, DG Environment Unit B.1: Water, the Marine and Soil Joachim D’Eugenio Slide 1 The Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) for the Water.
A Practical Approach: The General Physico-Chemical Quality Elements and the Classification of Ecological Status.
1 European Topic Centre on Water Workshop on: Identification of surface water bodies under the Pilot River Basin Initiative Monitoring Water Bodies Steve.
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Overall Approach to the Ecological Classification 01 July 2003 D/UK WGL CIS 2A.
NE ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP (NEA GIG)
Dave Jowett, Chair UK Marine Task Team
Marine Strategy Framework Directive: an introduction
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
Synthesis of the intercalibration process Working group 2.5.
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Claire Vincent Environment and Heritage Service United Kingdom
Intercalibration Report on State - of - play and way forward Presented by Anna-Stiina Heiskanen Joint Research Centre The Institute for Environment.
EUROPEAN UNION the “EU”
Task 1 - Intercalibration WG 2A ECOSTAT - Intercalibration
EurAqua 8th Scientific and Technical Review,
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Intercalibration process - state of play Wouter van de Bund & Anna-Stiina Heiskanen Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
EUROPEAN UNION the “EU”
Setting Classboundaries
Carolin Meier & Daniel Hering (University of Duisburg-Essen)
Development of a protocol for identification of reference conditions, and boundaries between high, good and moderate status in lakes and watercourses (REFCOND)
Claire Vincent Environment and Heritage Service United Kingdom
COAST Lisbon February Claire Vincent Environment and Heritage Service United Kingdom.
Seppo Rekolainen Finnish Environment Institute
London Water Directors Meeting
Horizontal Guidance on Wetlands Rome, 12nd June
WG 2.5 Intercalibration.
Claire Vincent Environment and Heritage Service United Kingdom
EAF - GW The EU Water Framework Directive: Statistical aspects of the identification of groundwater pollution trends, and aggregation of.
REFCOND Workshop Uppsala, May 2001
Definition and Establishment of Reference Conditions
Update on progress since last WG meeting (13-14 June 2002)
at Umweltbundesamt GmbH Wien
Outcome of 2^ Seminar of the WG 2.7 Roma, January
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
on a protocol for Intercalibration of Surface Water
Project 2.7 Guidance on Monitoring
Progress Report Working Group A Ecological Status Intercalibration (1) & Harmonisation (3) Activities Presented by Anna-Stiina Heiskanen EC Joint Research.
CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status.
of the Work Programme 17. March 2003
Legal issues in WFD implementation WD meeting 16 June 2008 Jorge Rodríguez Romero, Unit D.2, DG Environment, European Commission.
Comparison of methodologies for defining Good Ecological Potential
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.
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
IMPRESS Guidance and Policy Summary Water Directors Copenhagen, 21-22nd November 2002 Working Group leaders: Volker Mohaupt, Umwelt Bundes Amt Isobel.
Legal issues and compliance checking in WFD implementation SCG meeting 5-6 November 2008 Jorge Rodríguez Romero, Unit D.2, DG Environment, European.
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Guidance for the intercalibration process Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
WFD CIS 4th Intercalibration Workshop
WG C-1 activity Berlin – 3 May 2007
Guidelines to translate the intercalibration results into the national classification systems and to derive reference conditions Presented by Wouter.
EIONET and EUROWATERNET Common Implementation Strategy
ASSIGNING WATER BODY TYPES IN THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION Wouter van de Bund EC Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and sustainability,
EU Water Framework Directive
WG A ECOSTAT Draft Mandate
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland.
Brussels – 20 April 2007 European Commission - DG Environment
EU Water Framework Directive
Defining Reference Conditions Setting Class Boundaries
EU Water Framework Directive
History EU+Norway Water Directors meeting in Paris Oct 2000 Member States and the European Commission agreed in Paris to developed a Common Strategy.
Classification systems
Joint REFCOND and Intercalibration Meeting
Why are we reviewing reference conditions in intercalibration?
CIS - Project 2.4 Transitional and Coastal Waters
Presentation transcript:

REFCOND EU Water Framework Directive project funded by the European Commission DG Environment Included in the EU Water Directors “Common Strategy on the Implementation of the WFD”

REFCOND Lead country: Associated partners: Sweden Administration: Swedish EPA Co-ordination: Swedish Univ. of Agr. Sciences Associated partners: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and UK; JRC

Objectives To develop an operative definition of type specific reference conditions To develop criteria for selecting techniques for establishing type specific reference conditions To develop principles for setting the boundaries between high, good and moderate ecological status

WFD requirements Biological reference conditions should be identified for each type of body of water The reference conditions must satisfy certain chemical and hydro-morphological criteria

WFD requirements Criteria for reference conditions: Hydro-morphological and physico-chemical parameters should reflect totally, or nearly totally, undisturbed conditions Specific synthetic pollutants should have concentrations close to zero or at any rate below the limit of detection Specific non-synthetic pollutants should have concentrations within the range normally associated with background levels

WFD requirements Identification of reference conditions: Spatial data - existing monitoring sites Historical data Paleolimnology Models - hindcasting and/or predictive Expert judgement

Classification    Deviation Status 1 High Good Biological parameter No/minimal  Good Slight Biological parameter value observed Reference biological value EQR=  Moderate Moderate Poor Bad

Work programme Work packages: 1. Co-ordination 2. Establishment of project web-site 3. Agreement on common definitions 4. Review of techniques 5. Evaluation of techniques 6. Elaboration of first protocol draft 7. Review and validation of protocol 8. Finalisation of protocol

WORK PROGRAMME WORK PROGRAMME Evaluation of techniques Evaluation of techniques and principles used by Member states for identification of reference conditions and principles for delineation of quality classes.

First draft guidance Elaboration of first draft of guidance. Typology Reference conditions Principles for setting class boundaries

Typology (1) In the WFD implementation typology is required for different purposes: reference conditions, reporting, intercalibration Reference conditions and reporting have different typology requirements

Typology (2) System A is not suitable for type-specific reference conditions types are not ecologically meaningful within-type variability is not tested, but is likely to be too large

Typology (3) Because in System B class boundaries are unspecified, there is a risk that different countries use incomparable systems This would be an obstacle for comparison and harmonisation of assessment systems A single, transparent core typology (to be refined locally) would be beneficial

Typology (4) Reference conditions: site-specific RC preferable, but this requires models based on data and/or expert knowledge To achieve this, a European initiative to bring together the data would be required

Determining reference conditions Availability of data for water body type Suggested Approach Spatial network + predictive model Yes Minimally impacted sites available? Minimally impacted sites available elsewhere? No Borrow data and use in spatial network + predictive model Yes Historical data? No Predictive model eg.palaeoecology; hindcasting Yes No relevant sites or data? No Expert judgement model concept and test when data become available Yes

Setting Class Boundaries

WFD - the normative classification can be summarized as: high ≈ no or only minor deviations; good ≈ low levels of disturbance, but deviate only slightly; moderate ≈ moderate deviations and significant effects; poor ≈ major biological alterations and substantial deviation; bad ≈ severe biological alterations and large deviation.

Factors to be considered in setting class boundaries number of classes - scientific or political stressor - response relationship variance within and among classes errors

Quantifying ecological status: problem of errors 1 0 high good moderate poor bad EQR

Review and finalisation of guidance Review and validation of protocol. All Member States are expected to review and comment on the guidance document Will be finalised autumn 2002