1. CIS guidance document on Eflows
State of play & proposed framework for today's discussion
Spain DG Environment
Victor Arqued Thomas Petitguyot
3rd (final) meeting of CIS WG on Eflows
24th October 2014 1

2. BluePrint Communication(2012)
Priority n°1 : better implementation of existing EU law
better address water quantity issues and link with quality
account for the amount of water required for the aquatic ecosystem to continue to thrive and provide the services
= identification and enforcement of ecological flows

3. Eflows in the CIS work programme
Deliverable: Guidance on Ecological Flows (Eflow) by 2014
Description: A guidance on ecological parameters/ecological flows and hydrological parameters for assessing quantitative aspects (the volume and level or rate of flow) and the link to GES are defined, allowing for an assessment of pressures from all abstractions and climate change.
Leads: COM, ES and FR
Interlinkages with other WGs: Ecostat, Floods, Groundwater, Programme of Measures, Agriculture and Water Accounts work under KID cluster

4. Drafting process 2 meetings of the ad hoc WG (October 13, April 14)
1 workshop (June 14) – learning recent outcomes from science + discussion on case studies
Calls with the drafting group (11 MS&SH+COM& consultants…)
ES, EL, IT, NL, PT, WWF volunteered to lead the drafting of the different chapters
Discussion in SCG meetings (May and October 14)

5. Drafting process Since the Madrid meeting: Discussions in SCG (May)
New versions of the chapters circulated and commented in June/July new drafts by chapters leads by end August
Improved versions of case studies collected during summer
New version of the draft guidance prepared by DG ENV and discussed with the drafters (22/9) draft version V3.1
Discussion in SCG (October) and further additions agreed with drafters  draft version V3.1
Consultation WG on GW and ECOSTAT (23rd October!)

6. Main changes in the new draft versions supported by the SCG
Revision of the scope: now only rivers (not lakes and estuaries) + strong focus on natural water bodies (addressing very limitedly and conceptually HMWB& exemptions)
Revision of the working definition for ecological flows: now only covers Article 4(1) environmental objectives (excluding GEP and less stringent objectives)
Revision of the outline: all considerations on HMWB & exemptions grouped in a dedicated and final chapter
Key messages highlighted at the beginning of each chapter + in the policy summary

7. Way forward supported by SCG
New version of the draft guidance (V3.2) to be circulated to SCG + WG Eflows ca. 9/10  written comments by 16/10
Consultation of WG ECOSTAT (in written + discussion 23/10)
Meeting WG Eflows 24/10: agreement on changes to be made
Achieve the best document possible in the given timeline (guidance by 2014 for consideration in the 2nd cycle); SCG will consider whether this is endorsable by the WDs

8. Draft working definition for Eflows in WFD implementation
"an hydrological regime consistent with the achievement of the environmental objectives of the WFD in natural surface water bodies as mentioned in Article 4(1)”.
non deterioration of the existing status
achievement of good ecological status in natural surface water body,
conservation of related protected areas, habitats and species under the Birds and Habitats Directives.
Flow requirements should be considered in HMWB & exemptions but not called "ecological flows"

9. Outline Policy summary Concepts
Ecological flows in the WFD implementation
Setting the scene
Eflows in status assessment and environmental objective
Assessment of hydrological pressures and impacts
Establishment of monitoring programmes
Defining ecological flows and analysing the gap with the current situation
Measures for the achievement of ecological flows
Heavily modified water bodies and exemptions
Public participation
Annexes
Case studies : separate document (not to be endorsed as CIS document)

10. Comments received on the last drafts
Tables
(21)
• AT
• BE (Fl)
• DE
• FI (Agency) • FR
• IT (Ministry and Agency)
• LV
• NO
• PL
• RO
• SE
• SI (Water Institute and Environment Agency)
• UK (Environment Agency)
• UK (Scotland)
• CIS WG on GW
• CEEP
• ESHA
• Eureau
• Eurelectric
s with general comments
• CZ
• FI (Ministry)
• SK
• COPA COGECA
• Navigation task force
Corrections on MS legislation from
• DK
• HU
• IS

11. Framework for discussion today
Basis: written comments provided in the template
Focus on the substance of the guidance
Not discussing the relevance of the guidance and its timing
Not reopening discussion on the working definition
Not discussing the principle of some existing chapters/sections but their substance
Focusing on open issues (amber)
(possibly remaining) open issues on these areas can be discussed in SCG
Discussion chapter by chapter
Save time for discussing the pending issues/ further steps!

12. Consultation of WG ECOSTAT
In yesterday's meeting
Focused on parts specifically relevant to ECOSTAT:
4.1 Hydrological regime in ecological status assessment
6.1. The need for combining biological and hydrological monitoring
9. Heavily modified water bodies and exemptions
Basis: written comments provided in the template
Only 2 replies from WG ECOSTAT members  also on issues raised by WG Eflows members

13. 4.1 Hydrological regime in ecological status assessment
How to address failures in existing biological methods in most MS to reflect hydrological alterations
"For other status classes, because biological assessment methods developed so far in most of the Member States are to a large extent insensitive to hydrological pressures, available monitoring data on hydrological regime should be carefully considered when assigning the ecological status to a water body subject to hydrological alteration; evidence of severe hydrological alteration, when not reflected in the status of biological quality elements, should be reflected in the overall classification of ecological status either by downgrading the overall status or the level of confidence attached to the assessment results"
 Supported; can be regarded as an addendum to the CIS guidance n°13 on classification

14. 4.1 Hydrological regime in ecological status assessment
Combination of biological information with habitat (quality, quantity and distribution)? Pb: no "habitat" QE in Annex V
 No comment
Recommendation for further developments of biological methods should aim at providing metrics more specifically sensitive to hydrological pressures
 Strong support; should be further stressed with mention of flow component that should be reflected and example of relevant fish metrics (age&size population structure)
Mention of Eflows relevance to GW quantitative status asssessment
 No opposition

15. 4.3. Eflows to achieve Good Ecological Status (GES)
"The WFD does not specify the flow regime required to achieve the Good Status but requires that the flow regime should provide conditions ‘consistent with the achievement of the values specified for the Biological Quality Elements’. The hydrological regime deviates from the nearly natural range but is sufficient close to it not to impact biological quality elements beyond the values specified for GES. An hydrological regime consistent with GES shall ensure the good functioning of the ecosystem according to surface water body type-specific biological conditions. The means that hydrological regime values identified should be appropriate for the water body type to which it applies."
 No opposition

16. 6.1. The need for combining biological and hydrological monitoring
Consideration for small WB (beyond WFD monitoring)
Specific studies
Relation to GW monitoring (connexion to GW)
 Focus on surface water monitoring, partly a pending issue
 No opposition
Recommendation on length of time series ("preferably longer than 20 years")
 Make clear that this is not for all flow parameters (eg velocity)
Recommendation on denser hydrological monitoring network in ungauged Mediterranean river basins (high hydrological variability, limitation of hydrological modelling)

17. 9. Heavily modified water bodies and exemptions
Possible conflicts with further work to be developped in WG ECOSTAT on GEP
Only basic messages, stemming from CIS guidance n°4 and considerations on Eflows developped for natural WB
No definition of flow required for GEP, no specification of expected mitigation measures
No identification of any possible conflict
Some expressions of opposition to the principle
Unclarity about HMWB designation for hydrological alterations without substantial change in morphology
Quotation of CIS guidance n°4 CIS
 No comment

18. 9. Heavily modified water bodies and exemptions
Cost of measures for the "specified" uses non relevant for HMWB designation/GEP setting
correction, cost to be considered for exemptions only
 No comment
"As a result, depending of the severity of morphological alteration, the hydrological regime consistent with GEP may be very close to the ecological flows that would have been required in the same water body before its morphological modification."
 Use "the nature and the severity"

20. Eflows in the Blueprint
To address the issue of over-allocation, there is a need in many EU river basins to put quantitative water management on a much more solid foundation: namely the identification of the ecological flow, i.e. the amount of water required for the aquatic ecosystem to continue to thrive and provide the services we rely upon. Fundamental to this is the recognition that water quality and quantity are intimately related within the concept of ‘good status’. However, there is no EU definition of ecological flow, nor a common understanding of how it should be calculated, even though these are preconditions for its consistent application. To address this gap, the Commission proposes developing a guidance document in the framework of the WFD CIS, using its open and participatory process. Once a common definition and a methodology for the calculation are agreed, they should be implemented in the next cycle of RBMPs due for adoption by the end of 2015.