Water Directors meeting Mondorf-les-bains, 20-21 June 2005 Working Group A ECOSTAT Progress report

Eutrophication guidance Harmonisation of biological methods Contents Intercalibration Eutrophication guidance Harmonisation of biological methods

Intercalibration Obligation for MS foreseen in Annex V Objective: comparable understanding of “good ecological status” consistent with WFD Starting point: publication of the intercalibration register of sites

Expected outcome Some MS will need to adapt their current “good ecological status” to the EU-wide level Boundary Setting Protocol: how to make “good ecological status” consistent with WFD definitions Basis for Commission final report Significant gaps have been already identified, due to lack of national monitoring systems

Lack of resources All MS participate but commitments are highly variable Only a few MS have planned monitoring data collection to support the exercise Need to send experts to attend the GIG meetings Proposal: prepare an overview for next WD meeting

Communication Highly technical task, difficult to communicate BUT high interest/expectations Misunderstandings about the process, the role of the register and the expected outcome Proposal: prepare a short paper outlining a communication strategy

Elements for a communication strategy on intercalibration EU level and National level Target groups Stakeholders, the public, CIS participants, Water Directors, regional/RB authorities Levels of detail: strategic to technical Contents: Process Role of the register of sites Outcome

Eutrophication Guidance

First part of the Guidance Steering Group: general agreement on the first four chapters Consultation among experts - March 2005 Revisit open issues after the completion of the second part of the guidance

Open issues I Interpretation of key concepts of UWW and Nitrates Directives and related Court decisions “Whole territory approach” (para 41 and 41a) “Significant contribution” (para 126d, first bullet) “Cause-effect link” (para 126c, second bullet) Suggested way forward: attach to the literal wording of the legal documents to avoid interpretation issues that will be addressed elsewhere

Reading across directives Open issues II Reading across directives Interpretation of “may become eutrophic” in relation with status assessment under WFD the need for a distinction between “current assessment” and “trend assessment” (Table 5) Work on second part will help to clarify these points

Second part of the Guidance Calendar Workshop 7-9 September in Brussels SCG 26-27 October WD 28-29 November Contents Current assessment methods Harmonisation of criteria Monitoring Case studies Next steps

Harmonisation of biological methods

Harmonisation of biological methods A task team (JRC/CEN) has produced an overview of current methods There is a need to clarify the role of the four actors involved in the updating of the standards list in Annex V WFD Committee DG Environment CIS/WG A ECOSTAT CEN