EU Water Framework Directive

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Framework for the intercalibration process  Must be simple  Aiming to identify and resolve big inconsistencies with the normative definitions and big.
Advertisements

DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
REFCOND EU Water Framework Directive project funded by the European Commission DG Environment Included in the EU Water Directors “Common Strategy on.
EU Water Framework Directive
Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive Working Group A ECOSTAT Ecological Status 7th Meeting Stresa, Lago Maggiore, Italy
CIS guidance document on E-Flows
Synthesis of the intercalibration process Working group 2.5.
Improving assessment of GES Draft conclusions and Way forward
Strategic Coordination Group Eutrophication Guidance
Task 1 - Intercalibration WG 2A ECOSTAT - Intercalibration
Progress report Working Group D - Reporting SCG meeting May 2008 Unit D.2 Water and the Marine - WFD Team.
EU Water Framework Directive
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Intercalibration process - state of play Wouter van de Bund & Anna-Stiina Heiskanen Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT WFD CIS Strategic Coordination Group meeting, October 2005 Progress in the intercalibration exercise.
Task on harmonization WFD Annex V 1.3.6
Development of a protocol for identification of reference conditions, and boundaries between high, good and moderate status in lakes and watercourses (REFCOND)
Philippe QUEVAUVILLER
Harmonisation Activity Progress report
Horizontal Guidance on Wetlands Rome, 12nd June
WG 2.5 Intercalibration.
Progress report Working Group D - Reporting SCG meeting May 2008 Unit D.2 Water and the Marine - WFD Team.
EU Water Framework Directive
Common Implementation Strategy for the
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.
on a protocol for Intercalibration of Surface Water
Draft Mandate and Proposed Approach for the Drafting Group on
Project 2.7 Guidance on Monitoring
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Progress Report Working Group A Ecological Status Intercalibration (1) & Harmonisation (3) Activities Presented by Anna-Stiina Heiskanen EC Joint Research.
Intercalibration Decision and Technical Report
WFD – CIS Working group A ECOSTAT
EU Water Framework Directive
EU Water Framework Directive
Water Directors meeting Mondorf-les-bains, June 2005
EU Water Framework Directive
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.
ECOSTAT 2013 – 2015 Tasks and Deliverables
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
Meeting of the WFD Strategic Co-ordination Group 11 March 2009
Water Directors meeting Spa, 2-3 December 2010
WG E on Priority Substances
Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive
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.
River groups with extension
WG A ECOSTAT Intercalibration guidance : Annexes III, V, VI
WFD CIS 4th Intercalibration Workshop
Status of the Nutrient Best Practice Guide
Guidelines to translate the intercalibration results into the national classification systems and to derive reference conditions Presented by Wouter.
EU Water Framework Directive
Concept paper on the assessment of WFD River Basin Management Plans
Activity on Eutrophication
Working Group D Reporting, Brussels 31 March – 1 April 2008
EU Water Framework Directive
Common Implementation Strategy for the
Planning to develop the CIS Work Programme
EU Water Framework Directive
WFD CIS WG ECOSTAT meeting on 8-9 October 2007 Objectives What do we need to achieve during this meeting?
Guidance document on the identification of water bodies
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.
SCG May 2005 CIRCA review.
EU Water Framework Directive
WG A Ecological Status Progress report October 2010 – May 2011
Environmental Objectives and Exemptions State of Play
Intercalibration state of play WD meeting 16 June 2008 Jorge Rodríguez Romero, Unit D.2, DG Environment, European Commission.
Presentation transcript:

EU Water Framework Directive Outcome of WFD Committee meeting 1 March 2007 ECOSTAT meeting Ispra, 12-13 April 2007 Jorge Rodriguez Romero European Commission, DG Environment Unit D.2 – Water and Marine, WFD Team

Contents Intercalibration: draft Commission Decision version 3.1 Harmonisation activity: adaptation of section 1.3.6 of Annex V to scientific and technical progress (list of standards relevant to WFD) (Full minutes of the meeting in CIRCA)

Intercalibration: issues raised at the Committee Need to have a calendar for the continuation after 2007, in particular for fish → To be addressed later this year General support to develop the guidelines. Some delegations asked to have a greater involvement in the drafting. General support to the approach to assess the uncertainty of results presented by JRC

Intercalibration: discussion of draft Commission decision 3.1 General agreement that the text has improved since last version Need to state explicitly that Chl-a is a parameter, not a full quality element → This is already address by introducing the results as relevant for “biomass of phytoplankton” only, not the full extent of the quality element. Need to further harmonise the way the results are presented in the Annex, e.g. using the text “countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated” According to DK, the use of EQRs in the draft Decision is not in line with the WFD as it fails to “ensure comparability of Member States monitoring systems”. For example, the results for rivers macroinvertebrates present different values for the same boundary of the different Member States monitoring systems

Intercalibration: use of EQRs (I) We believe EQR definition in paragraph ii in Section 1.4.1 is fulfilled because the EQRs represent the relationship between the values of the biological parameters observed for a given body of surface water and the values for these parameters in the reference conditions applicable to that body, and The ratio shall be expressed as a numerical value between zero and one, with high ecological status represented by values close to one and bad ecological status by values close to zero

Intercalibration: use of EQRs (II) In addition, we can refer to guidance document on intercalibration process, endorsed in 2005, in particular in paragraph 1.2: “The essence of intercalibration is to ensure that the high-good and the good-moderate boundaries in all Member State’s assessment methods for biological quality elements correspond to comparable levels of ecosystem alteration. Intercalibration is not necessarily about agreeing common ecological quality ratio (EQR) values for the good status class boundaries as measured by different assessment methods. Common EQR values only make sense, and are only possible, where very similar assessment methods are being used or where the results for different assessment methods are normalised using appropriate transformation factors. This is because different assessment methods (e.g. using different parameters indicative of a biological element) may show different response curves to pressures and therefore produce different EQRs when measuring the same degree of impact.”

Main conclusions relevant for ECOSTAT The results presented in the Annex to version 3.1 are agreed in principle by the Committee, subject to corrections or clarifications from ECOSTAT that may become necessary. The results produced in 2007 will be added to the Annex to the Decision once agreed by ECOSTAT. This will be presented at the next meeting of the Committee in May or, if delivered later, consulted in writing.

Harmonisation activity: background Thorough consultation with ECOSTAT in 2006 Only 6 countries replied As a result three groups of existing standards were identified: 1. standards for which there is consensus that they are relevant for inclusion in WFD Annex V (5 standards) 2. standards for which comments were made regarding the scope and applicability of the method to certain types of water bodies or certain ecoregions (7 standards) 3. standards for which there is consensus that they are not relevant for inclusion in WFD Annex V at this stage, mainly because they are under review or their scope is not included in the assessment of WFD ecological status (8 standards)

Harmonisation activity: options presented and conclusions Group 1 is too limited to deserve an amendment to WFD Two options were presented: Adding the following sentence in the introductory text to section 1.3.6 of WFD: “The application of the standards listed below shall be based on expert judgement, in particular regarding their scope of application to specific ecoregions or water body types”. This may allow adding “group 2” standards Take out this item for the moment from WFD Committee work programme and prepare a guidance document to be presented to SCG/Water Directors The Committee unanimously decided to ask ECOSTAT to present to the next SCG a work plan to develop a guidance document on this issue