CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Polsko-Norweski Fundusz Badań Naukowych / Polish-Norwegian Research Fund Integration of different metrics to a whole water body classification for all.
Advertisements

WS4 outcomes Lukasz Hoppe Paris 16 September 2012.
Mats Wallin Swedish Univ. of Agricultural Sciences Dept. of Environmental Assessment Catarina Johansson Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Development.
EUROPATOUR 2011 Saturday 28 May - Monday 13 June 2011.
JOINT STATEMENT FOLLOW UP MEETING `09 Horst Schindler, Ivana Tomic Budapest, January 29, 2009 Danube Commission, Budapest.
Stephen Fennell The Role of the Regulatory Body
DISTRIBUTION AUTOMATIC - GENERATION
Task on Harmonisation of Freshwater Biological Methods
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.
IC network selection process
Agenda Item 8(b): Progress with data collection template
Project Objectives, Workplan and Timescales
Dave Jowett, Chair UK Marine Task Team
Marine Strategy Framework Directive: an introduction
Consultation process on Milieu's national technical reports Part of Commission Assessment process on art. 11 On technical country reports : Letters and.
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.
Task 1 - Intercalibration WG 2A ECOSTAT - Intercalibration
Water Directors meeting - Dresden
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT WFD CIS Strategic Coordination Group meeting, October 2005 Progress in the intercalibration exercise.
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)
One-out-all-out and other indicators
Philippe QUEVAUVILLER
Proposal for MSFD risk-based approach project in OSPAR region
Seppo Rekolainen Finnish Environment Institute
London Water Directors Meeting
WG 2.5 Intercalibration.
Cost Effectiveness Analysis Questionnaire Results
REFCOND Workshop Uppsala, May 2001
CBriv GIG Macrophyte Intercalibration Status Overview
Update on progress since last WG meeting (13-14 June 2002)
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT State of play in the intercalibration exercise Water Directors Meeting, November 2005.
Outcome of 2^ Seminar of the WG 2.7 Roma, January
Meeting of Water Directors Future Work Programme of the CIS
Project 2.7 Guidance on Monitoring
HYDROMORPHOLGY WORKSHOP
CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status.
of the Work Programme 17. March 2003
Activities of WG A Ecological Status
WG A Ecological Status Progress report April-October 2009
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT SCG Meeting in Brussels
Comparison of methodologies for defining Good Ecological Potential
EU Water Framework Directive
Water Directors meeting Mondorf-les-bains, June 2005
Working Group A ECOSTAT progress report on Intercalibration Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
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
Exemptions and Disproportionate Costs
Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive
Preparation of the second RBMP in Romania
Organisation Water Directors Strategic Co-ordination Group
WFD CIS 4th Intercalibration Workshop
EU Water Framework Directive
Concept paper on the assessment of WFD River Basin Management Plans
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT WFD CIS Strategic Coordination Group meeting, 22 Febraury 2006 Progress Report.
WG A Ecological Status Progress report April-October 2010
EU Water Framework Directive
The UMBRA Eight-Step Benefit-Risk Framework
EU Water Framework Directive
WFD CIS WG ECOSTAT meeting on 8-9 October 2007 Objectives What do we need to achieve during this meeting?
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.
Summary overview of methods used to define GEP in practice by countries represented in the ad-hoc group Dr. Ursula Schmedtje.
WG A Ecological Status Progress report October 2010 – May 2011
History EU+Norway Water Directors meeting in Paris Oct 2000 Member States and the European Commission agreed in Paris to developed a Common Strategy.
Why are we reviewing reference conditions in intercalibration?
Presentation transcript:

CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status. CIS workshop – 11&12 June 2007 - Paris national classification systems for the assessment of ecological status of surface waters CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status. 50 participants from 18 countries + EC 11 presentations : DGENV, Austria, Estonia, Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, UK, France 3 sessions : ecological significance and combination of the biological quality elements role and place of the physico-chemical elements effect of aggregation, uncertainty, confidence & precision 11-12 June, Paris

CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status. General principles set in the guidance are valid Differencies in implementing in practice the guidance Part of those differencies is coming from different levels of maturity How to ensure the comparability of MS approach for classification Focus on practical aspects Selection of QE can influence the results of the classification CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status. 11-12 June, Paris

CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status. Main conclusion State of play : different approaches and methods within national classification systems (aggregation of data, combination of QE, automatic OOAO on BQE, use of expert judgement, place of chemistry…) Therefore, despite the huge ongoing work in the frame of IC, we have no final guarantee of « comparable levels of ambition » between MS CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status. 11-12 June, Paris

CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status. Possible follow-up Need for common views about the classification : « complement » to the classification guidance (in the frame of ECOSTAT activity 4) ? If agreement, the complement could be based on practical case-studies, in 3 directions : How to ensure comparability between MS whereas different QE can be used for the classification ?? How to manage risks of misclassification (combination of biological elements, checking procedure for chemistry) ? How to better communicate about the results of the final assessment ? CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status. 11-12 June, Paris