1. Water Directors meeting Warsaw, 8-9 December 2011
Agenda point 2 b) Intercalibration of good ecological status and good ecological potential
Water Directors meeting
Warsaw, 8-9 December 2011
Ursula Schmedtje
WFD Team
DG Environment, D.1
European Commission

2. Intercalibration of good ecological status (Phase 2)
Recalling the aims
to close the gaps assessed in the first phase ( ) and
to improve the comparability of the results in time for the second river basin management plans due in 2015.
Guidance
The Water Directors endorsed the ‘Intercalibration Guidance Document – Phase 2’ at their meetings in Dec 2010 and May 2011.
Extension of deadlines
For selected groups Water Directors agreed to grant an extension of deadlines for the delivery of final results until December 2011.

3. State of play – November 2011
rivers
lakes
Geographical regions (GIGs)
Biological quality elements
transitional waters
coastal waters
This slide gives an overview of the state-of-play of intercalibration in November 2011.
A detailed overview is annexed to the information note on this agenda item.
Explain figure: current state of play is illustrated using the traffic light approach:
The assessment is made taking into account the agreed extension of deadlines until December 2011.
green – completed and approved by ECOSTAT, yellow – delayed, not approved by ECOSTAT, may still finalise by end Dec 2011, red – no results. White cells: open issues, e.g. not clear if intercalibratable.
Each table shows one of 4 water categories. Across: GIGs, downward BQEs.
Each cell is an intercalibration group.
The picture in comparison to May 2011 has changed: some groups have finalised (now green), some groups have progressed but not completed, some have dropped behind.
For rivers, intercalibration has been completed for most groups (main exception is the large rivers group, which started late and is one of the most difficult ones).
For lakes, 8 groups have completed intercalibration, 5 groups have no results, a large number of groups is still working on the finalisation of the results but there are a number of unresolved issues.
For transitional waters, here no results have been finalised so far, but 5 groups intend to finalise the work by end December. 4 groups will have no results. For another 3 groups the situation is unclear.
For coastal waters, 2 groups have finalised intercalibration, one group will have no results. Most groups are still working on the finalisation by end of December.
In summary,
it is expected that around 80% of the intercalibration groups will be able to complete the work on time and submit their finalised results by 31 December 2011.

4. Assessment of intercalibration results and preparation of COM Decision
31 December deadline for delivery of intercalibration results
January-March compilation of the Technical Report on the intercalibration results by JRC
7 March discussion of first draft of COM Decision at WFD Committee meeting (mainly results that can be approved)
April-May assessment of results by independent Scientific Peer Review Panel
Scientific review of results achieved including an assessment of the justifications provided where results were not achieved
June discussion of second draft of COM Decision at WFD Committee meeting (all results)
Autumn expected adoption of Commission Decision

5. Intercalibration of good ecological potential
Request by Water Directors
At their meeting in December 2010 Water Directors recognised that intercalibration of good ecological potential is included in the Water Framework Directive but that it poses technical challenges that should be discussed at expert level.
Water Directors therefore requested WG A ECOSTAT to draft a concept paper on possibilities to intercalibrate GEP.
The concept paper has been drafted by an ad-hoc group and finalised during the meeting of ECOSTAT in October 2011.

6. Intercalibration of good ecological potential
Conclusions of the Concept Paper
A comprehensive intercalibration exercise that seeks to define a complete set of numeric class boundaries for good ecological potential is not considered possible.
The reasons for this are that:
Member States' definitions of good ecological potential will always be influenced by their national judgements about the significance, and hence acceptability, of adverse impacts on the water use or on the wider environment;
Scientific understanding of the ecological impact of hydromorphological alterations is less well developed than is the understanding of the impact of pollution;
There is considerable variability in the nature and extent of hydromorphological alterations, because of the wide range of uses for which water bodies have been designated heavily modified and the wide variation in the associated hydromorphological modifications.

7. Intercalibration of good ecological potential
Conclusions of the Concept Paper
There are practical steps that can be taken to assist comparability in the spirit of the Directive, including an exchange of information between Member States.
The proposed approach has the following three components:
review of the current state of play on defining good ecological potential;
development of an updated methodological framework for defining and assessing good ecological potential; and
simple comparisons of Member States' definitions of good ecological potential for common water uses.
Because of the fundamental difficulties in intercalibrating good ecological potential, complicated and resource-intensive approaches are not considered warranted. A simple, pragmatic approach is recommended.

8. Intercalibration of good ecological potential
Workshop on hydromorphology and GEP
A workshop is planned to be held on June 2012 in order to exchange information on methodologies for
assessing the hydromorphological conditions in natural and heavily modified water bodies
defining and assessing good ecological potential, and for
setting minimum flow requirements to reach good ecological status/potential.
The planned work is covered by the mandate of ECOSTAT’s work programme until end 2012.

9. The Water Directors are invited to
take note of the progress achieved in intercalibration (Phase 2) in November 2011,
take note of the further process leading up to the Commission Decision on the intercalibration results,
take note of the fact that Member States that have not completed intercalibration of ecological status due to time reasons can continue work on their own but that no further support from the Commission or ECOSTAT will be provided,
endorse the concept paper „Good ecological potential – Recommendations on assessing and improving comparability“.