1. EU Water Framework Directive
Outcome of WFD Committee meeting 1 March 2007
ECOSTAT meeting
Ispra, April 2007
Jorge Rodriguez Romero
European Commission, DG Environment
Unit D.2 – Water and Marine, WFD Team

2. Contents Intercalibration: draft Commission Decision version 3.1
Harmonisation activity: adaptation of section of Annex V to scientific and technical progress (list of standards relevant to WFD)
(Full minutes of the meeting in CIRCA)

3. Intercalibration: issues raised at the Committee
Need to have a calendar for the continuation after 2007, in particular for fish
→ To be addressed later this year
General support to develop the guidelines. Some delegations asked to have a greater involvement in the drafting.
General support to the approach to assess the uncertainty of results presented by JRC

4. Intercalibration: discussion of draft Commission decision 3.1
General agreement that the text has improved since last version
Need to state explicitly that Chl-a is a parameter, not a full quality element
→ This is already address by introducing the results as relevant for “biomass of phytoplankton” only, not the full extent of the quality element.
Need to further harmonise the way the results are presented in the Annex, e.g. using the text “countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated”
According to DK, the use of EQRs in the draft Decision is not in line with the WFD as it fails to “ensure comparability of Member States monitoring systems”. For example, the results for rivers macroinvertebrates present different values for the same boundary of the different Member States monitoring systems

5. Intercalibration: use of EQRs (I)
We believe EQR definition in paragraph ii in Section is fulfilled because
the EQRs represent the relationship between the values of the biological parameters observed for a given body of surface water and the values for these parameters in the reference conditions applicable to that body, and
The ratio shall be expressed as a numerical value between zero and one, with high ecological status represented by values close to one and bad ecological status by values close to zero

6. Intercalibration: use of EQRs (II)
In addition, we can refer to guidance document on intercalibration process, endorsed in 2005, in particular in paragraph 1.2:
“The essence of intercalibration is to ensure that the high-good and the good-moderate boundaries in all Member State’s assessment methods for biological quality elements correspond to comparable levels of ecosystem alteration. Intercalibration is not necessarily about agreeing common ecological quality ratio (EQR) values for the good status class boundaries as measured by different assessment methods. Common EQR values only make sense, and are only possible, where very similar assessment methods are being used or where the results for different assessment methods are normalised using appropriate transformation factors. This is because different assessment methods (e.g. using different parameters indicative of a biological element) may show different response curves to pressures and therefore produce different EQRs when measuring the same degree of impact.”

7. Main conclusions relevant for ECOSTAT
The results presented in the Annex to version 3.1 are agreed in principle by the Committee, subject to corrections or clarifications from ECOSTAT that may become necessary.
The results produced in 2007 will be added to the Annex to the Decision once agreed by ECOSTAT. This will be presented at the next meeting of the Committee in May or, if delivered later, consulted in writing.

8. Harmonisation activity: background
Thorough consultation with ECOSTAT in 2006
Only 6 countries replied
As a result three groups of existing standards were identified:
1. standards for which there is consensus that they are relevant for inclusion in WFD Annex V (5 standards)
2. standards for which comments were made regarding the scope and applicability of the method to certain types of water bodies or certain ecoregions (7 standards)
3. standards for which there is consensus that they are not relevant for inclusion in WFD Annex V at this stage, mainly because they are under review or their scope is not included in the assessment of WFD ecological status (8 standards)

9. Harmonisation activity: options presented and conclusions
Group 1 is too limited to deserve an amendment to WFD
Two options were presented:
Adding the following sentence in the introductory text to section of WFD: “The application of the standards listed below shall be based on expert judgement, in particular regarding their scope of application to specific ecoregions or water body types”. This may allow adding “group 2” standards
Take out this item for the moment from WFD Committee work programme and prepare a guidance document to be presented to SCG/Water Directors
The Committee unanimously decided to ask ECOSTAT to present to the next SCG a work plan to develop a guidance document on this issue