Alternative Methodology for Defining Good Ecological Potential (GEP)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Module 3: Environmental Objectives, Programme of Measures, Economic Analysis, Exemptions Environmental Objectives Yannick Pochon Afyon, 2015.
Advertisements

Mats Wallin Swedish Univ. of Agricultural Sciences Dept. of Environmental Assessment Catarina Johansson Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Development.
Indicators to communicate progress towards good status WG DIS, April 2015.
MODULE 1 Water Framework Directive, Relation of WFD with Daughter Directives, River Basin Management Planning, Water Bodies, Typology, Classification River.
Wetlands in the Water Framework Directive main arguments and issues Bruxelles January 29, 2003.
THE MANAGEMENT PLAN IN PRACTICE Case study. RBMP Detailed publication process in the directive...  art. 13: general rules  annex VII: detailed contents.
HMWB-Workshop „Heavily Modified Water Bodies: Information Exchange on Designation, Assessment of Ecological Potential, Objective Setting and Measures”
Water.europa.eu Water Framework Directive - a framework for Community action in the field of water policy Marieke van Nood WFD Team, DG ENV.D.2, European.
© WRc plc 2010 Agenda item 3b: Summary of WISE electronic delivery: presentation of an example.
Water Director Meeting 30th November 2006, Inari / SF WFD and Hydromorphology Technical report on “Good practice in managing the ecological impacts of.
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Overall Approach to the Ecological Classification 01 July 2003 D/UK WGL CIS 2A.
Building WFD into impact assessment Richard Sharp Geomorphology IEMA webinar Thursday 31 March 2016.
Principles and Key Issues
Environmental Objectives- Article 4.7
REFCOND EU Water Framework Directive project funded by the European Commission DG Environment Included in the EU Water Directors “Common Strategy on.
on Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and
CIS guidance document on E-Flows
Daughter Directive Groundwater - Working Procedure -
Water Framework Directive and Flood Risk Management
Synthesis of the intercalibration process Working group 2.5.
Agenda item 6e) Update on progress elaboration of Article 4.7 Guidance
Purpose Independent piece of legislation, closely integrated in a larger regulatory framework (complement to WFD): prevent deterioration protect, enhance.
GEP vs. GES.
Guidance on application of Article 4.7
CIS-Workshop on River Basin Management Plans
WG ECOSTAT: Good Ecological Potential (GEP)
Philippe QUEVAUVILLER
WG 2.9 Best Practices in River Basin Planning
Pilot River Basin Outcome Report of Phase 1b.
Horizontal Guidance on Wetlands Rome, 12nd June
Update on RBMP&FRMP adoption and reporting Assessment of RBMP&FRMP
EU Water Framework Directive
CIS guidance document on Eflows
Commission report on Art. 8 WFD Monitoring programmes
Update on progress since last WG meeting (13-14 June 2002)
Project 2.7 Guidance on Monitoring
HYDROMORPHOLGY WORKSHOP
1st Implementation Report of the Water Framework Directive
Ongoing work on CIS Guidance Article 4.7
Which is the real scope of the Guidance ?
Pilot River Basin Water Framework Directive.
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT SCG Meeting in Brussels
on Identification and Designation of Heavily Modified and
Comparison of methodologies for defining Good Ecological Potential
EU Water Framework Directive
Environmental objective document –
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
Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive and Inland Waterway Transport Marieke van Nood WFD Team, DG ENV.D.2, European Commission.
Preparation of the second RBMP in Romania
Legal issues and compliance checking in WFD implementation SCG meeting 5-6 November 2008 Jorge Rodríguez Romero, Unit D.2, DG Environment, European.
THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (WFD)
PIANC, Chair of WFD Navigation Task Group
Compliance checking of RBMP An inventory of questions
WFD CIS 4th Intercalibration Workshop
UK Technical Advisory Group
Water Quality 台灣地區河川污染特性 污染來源 工業廢水污染:老街溪、中港溪、大甲溪、北港溪、八掌溪、二仁溪、花蓮溪。
Intercalibration: problems of selecting types
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
WISE – Freshwater WFD visualization tool
WG A ECOSTAT Draft Mandate
EU Water Framework Directive
Typology and Intercalibration Typology System
Ad-hoc Task Group on Hydromorphology
Results of the screening of the draft second RBMPs
Assessment of Member States‘ 2nd River Basin Management Plans
Horizontal Guidance on Wetlands Brussels, 5th May
Presentation transcript:

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.