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

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Eutrophication Guidance

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

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

13. Harmonisation of biological methods

14. 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