Alternative Methodology for Defining Good Ecological Potential (GEP) for HMWB and AWB Comments on 2nd/3rd Versions and Changes of 3rd Version

1 Introduction 1.2 …… The ecological conditions defined for GEP are expected to be the same whichever method is used. 1.3 Practical experience of defining GEP is currently very limited. In the course of implementation, knowledge and understanding of the approaches will develop and improve. Member States may also identify other alternative approaches. Where Member States wish, new approaches can be discussed in the Common Implementation Strategy and, if appropriate, included in future CIS guidance. 1.4 Defining GEP is a necessary step before heavily modified or artificial water bodies can be classified and before objectives can be set for them as part of the river basin management planning process.

2 Background COMMENT France: As a consequence, mitigation measures necessary for achieving MEP, GEP or other objectives expressed in ecological potential classes should not have adverse effects on the specified use(s). But, that doesn’t mean that financial costs or socio-economic impacts should be considered in setting the ecological potential classification. HMWB Guidance document:…. MEP should: (a) not have a significant adverse effect on the specified use (including maintenance and operation of the specified use; see Section 6.4.2). This consideration includes an assessment of possible economic effects incurred by mitigation measures but not an assessment of disproportionate cost of the measures themselves or on the wider environment. … (7.2.2)

2 Background Version 3 2.6 GEP therefore represents a state in which the ecological potential of a water body is falling only slightly short of the maximum it could achieve without significant adverse effects on the wider environment or on the relevant water use or uses. 2.7 In contrast, the definition of good ecological status is independent of any consideration of the socio-economic impact of the measures that may be needed to achieve it. Next Version 3.1 2.6 GEP therefore represents a state in which the ecological potential of a water body is falling only slightly short of the maximum it could achieve without significant adverse effects on the wider environment or on the relevant water use or uses. An assessment of disproportionate costs of the mitigation measures should not be considered. 2.7 In contrast, the definition of good ecological status is independent of any consideration of the socio-economic impact of the measures that may be needed to achieve it. Costs of these measures are also not considered.

3 Difficulties with CIS GD No. 4 COMMENT Spain: ….The key issue is to acknowledge that the search for “values associated to the closest comparable body type” should aim at data from HMWB or AWB of the same type to which the concerned HMWB or AWB is ascribed. ….. 3.3 In circumstances where there are no closely comparable natural surface water bodies, the Guidance Document No. 4 notes that it may be possible to use other similar HMWBs, which are at, or close to, MEP, in defining MEP values. Where the other HMWBs are close to MEP, this would include modelling the effect of taking ‘all mitigation measures’.

4 Description of alternative approach COMMENT Euroelectric: It should however be noted that there is a risk, that in practise, defining GEP through measures without further analysis, may cause an overestimation of the number and effects of mitigation measures … 4.11 It should be noted that the alternative method does not define the mitigation measures that have to be included in the programmes of measures. The mitigation measures included in any programme of measures will depend on the objective set for the water body[1] and the combination of measures Member States consider to be a cost-effective way of achieving that objective. [1] See CIS paper on Environmental Objectives under the Water Framework Directive

5 Comparability issues COMMENT Spain: The biological quality elements at GEP will be same in each HMWB or AWB, since it will largely depend on the type it belongs to. However, the range of GEP values (in particular the G/M boundary value) will be the same for those gathered within the same type. 5.1 The purpose of setting out guidance on how to derive MEP and GEP is to promote comparability and consistency across Member States. This does not mean however that the values of the biological quality elements at GEP will be same in each HMWB or AWB. This will depend on the similarity of the MEP hydromorphological and physico-chemical characteristics of different HMWBs. Where these characteristics are very similar, the HMWBs can be considered to be of the same ‘type’ and their MEP and GEP biological values will be equivalent.

6 Comparability issues COMMENT France: The alternative approach focuses only on GEP, defined through mitigation measures. It skips the definition of biological reference conditions that are the basis for classification, since classes are defined as deviation of relevant quality elements from reference conditions. Therefore, the alternative approach is not-WFD compliant. 6.3 Member States can choose the method most suited to their circumstances or use a combination of both. Further methods may be identified as implementation progresses.