Dutch approach for setting GEP (and MEP) Marcel van den Berg Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment / Rijkswaterstaat

In this presentation General description development of GEP in 4 steps Methods for estimation of effect of measures Examples of GEPs Measures and more Discussion and Conclusions

Method GEP: CIS guidance 2003 Alternative approach (Prague, 2005) all possible measures minus measures with small ecological effect Reference condition ecological status/EQR hydromorphological alteration mitigation MEP GEP Present ecological status

GEP derived in 4 steps 1: all measures 2: all possible measures EC and national policies (Nitrate- and Urban Wastewater Directive, national program on diffuse pollution, etc) All other measures (derived from a national database) Chem-istry Hydro-morphology Phyto-plank-ton Other flora Macro-inverte-brates Fish Waterlevel management x Repositioning of dykes Fish management Fish migration Wastewater treatment + etc 3:

Step 4. Calculation GEP Estimation effect for measures in EQR units per body Added to present ecological status (for each quality element) Correction for combined effect Validation by 2nd opinion of experts Result of the 4 steps: a national database with for each water body All measures Size Costs Responsible authority Numerical GEP

Methods for estimation of effect of measures Ex-ante evaluation (=multi-variate/statistical model) National data Used for national policies and decision making Method not used in the RBMPs WFD explorer (=tool kit with different types of models) Practical knowlegde / expert judgement In principle: quantitative and expressed at metric for natural water body

Comparability GES and GEP Natural river IC type RC1/4 national type R5 GEP Modified river 1.0 GES 0.8 0.6 0.28 0.42 0.15 Objective in RBMP EQR 0.4 0.2 EQR

Comparability GES and GEP - results (Rhinedelta, 490 of 723 Dutch waterbodies) Lakes GES GEP (avg.) phytoplankton 0.6 0.58 other flora 0.53 macro-invert. 0.42 fish 0.51 Rivers GES GEP (avg.) phytoplankton other flora 0.6 0.54 macro-invert. 0.45 fish 0.41

Example Haringvliet and GEP for fish Haringvliet sluices: fish migration obstacle Dam function is: safety and fresh water supply RBMP: sluices are allowing passive and active migration of fish (e.g. 75% of time open) Effect is estimated for fish metric as 0.20 EQR units (=improvement of one quality class) Direct connected above stream waters have get similar effect

GEPs of Haringvliet/ Hollandsdiep in RBMP (now tidal River former Estuary)

Overview all measures: RBMP’s Hydromorphological measures (WFD art 11.3i) 1727 km restoration of land-water gradients in lakes and canals (3357) 729 km restoration of land-water gradients and re-meandering in rivers (930) 1362 ha creation of wetlands (704) 635 solutions for fish-migration at weirs (884) Water level management, creation of side channels, etc Supplementary measures (WFD art 11.4) Fishmanagement (‘biomanipulation’) Management of macrophytes Education, further research, etc Since 1970 water purification .. (p125), at least 3 decades working on eutrophication, international agreements (Sandoz, rhine Action Program), since two decades attention for hydromorphology  4.2 billion € extra costs

Discussion Numerical GEPs help us to be: compliant with WFD transparent about the expected effect of measures taken/planned flexible in measures as long as same effect is achieved The method and value of deriving GEPs is less important than its result: a set of measures and its positive effects (potential) negative effects on the use costs of measures