1. Comparison of methodologies for defining Good Ecological Potential
Ursula Schmedtje
European Commission
DG Environment, D.1 Water
22nd ECOSTAT Meeting
24-25 October Brussels

2. State of reporting of river basin management plans
RBMP adopted (22)
Consultation finalised, awaiting adoption (1)
Consultation on-going or not started (4)
(all 5 MS that have not adopted are before the Court) 

3. Assessment of the river basin management plans
Aim of this presentation: to share some preliminary findings on ECOSTAT related topics
Findings are based on the plans assessed so far.
They are not comprehensive.
Validation of findings are on-going.
Not all statements apply to all countries or plans.
Provides general positive and negative impressions
Negative impressions do not necessarily equate to legal breaches! 3

4. Phased assessment of RBMPs
Phase 1: first half of 2011
AT, BG, CZ, FI, NL, SE, SK and FR, UK, DE
Phase 2: spring – autumn 2011
BE-F, EE, IT, HU, IE, LT, LV, RO
Phase 3: autumn 2011
LU, MT, PL, CY, SI assessments starting
NO (arrangement with ESA)
Pending adoption: EL, ES, PT, DK, BE (other regions)
COM cannot guarantee that it can assess anything received after November 2011 4

5. Quality of MS reporting
Quality of the COM assessment will be as good as quality of the MS reports !!
Bad reporting = bad/wrong assessment
Reporting is a big effort !
Very good examples of high quality reporting – will pay off !
RBMPs and WISE deliveries contain different, sometimes contradictory information
RBMPs contain links to other documents that are not available
Key documents on methodologies e.g. on HMWB designation were not reported 5

6. Monitoring
All Member States have monitoring programmes for surface water*
Largest ever EU-wide monitoring programme, sharing the same principles and quality elements
It appears that in some cases the monitoring programmes reported in 2007 have not been fully implemented. The amount of monitoring data available is frequently quite low.
It is unclear to what degree monitoring is sufficient for detecting existing pressures and impacts.
It is unclear how the monitored parameters for surface and groundwater have been selected in order to monitor different pressures.
Monitoring of hydromorphology is often not carried out.
_____________________
*except Malta 6

7. Classification ecological status
Some good examples of countries that have developed methods for most of the quality elements
Very significant progress in knowledge and exchange of information among MS’ experts (WFD and CIS process catalytic effect)
Criteria for the establishment of reference conditions are variable or not transparent and in some cases reference conditions have not been established for surface water types and are therefore not used for ecological status assessments!
Significant number of countries have not yet developed the WFD-compliant methods for ecological classification for all BQEs.
Ecological status assessments are often based on former non-WFD-compliant biological methods or even on physico-chemical parameters in case of absence of biological methods
It appears that hydro-morphological alterations are not being sufficiently detected by biological classification tools
It is not always transparent how the inter-calibration results have been translated into the class boundaries of the national methods
It is not clear if the status assessments are actually the starting point for planning the programmes of measures 7

8. Heavily modified water bodies
+ Good examples identified – it can be done!
HMWB designation (HMWB)
Description of designation process too general or unclear, with no clear criteria and not done per water body (despite the “water body specific” claims of the HMWB)
Assessment of significant adverse effects and of significantly better environmental option very weak or lacking
Good ecological potential (GEP)
HMWBs have generally been designated, but GEP has not always been defined
Many MS claim to have used a combination of the CIS and the Prague approach but in fact MEP and GEP are not properly defined
Some MS have only defined the boundary between good and moderate ecological potential
Some MS generally equate GEP with status quo = no measures needed (!!) 8

9. Comparison of methodologies for defining GEP
Possible questions:
HMWB designation process
Has GES of the water body been assessed?
Which physical modifications have led to the designation of HMWB?
Which measures with significant adverse effects have been excluded in the designation of HMWB?
GEP methodology
Which approach has been used to define GEP? CIS approach, mitigation measures approach, combination or alternative method?
Have all the relevant steps of CIS/mitigation measures approach been followed?
Is the approach water body specific, water body type specific or water use specific? 9

10. Comparison of methodologies for defining GEP
Some questions (cont.)
Which mitigation measures have been identified that do not have a significant adverse effect on the use or the wider environment?
Which biological values have been used to define MEP?
How has ‘slight deviation’ between MEP and GEP been defined?
CIS approach: in terms of biological values?
Mitigation measures approach: which measures have been excluded?
Have GES and GEP of the HMWBs been compared?
Are the biological assessment methods of those BQEs sensitive to hydro-morphological alterations fully developed/WFD compliant? 10