1. Typology and Intercalibration Typology System
Need for a single typological framework ?
In general yes, but impossible with regard to time scale
Use of system A ? no
Use of System B ? Which version ?
Most MS have abiotic typology (obligatory factors as minimum))
Important: range of size, altitude, latitude etc
WRc suggestion is supported as approach (grouping of MS)

2. Typology and Intercalibration Selection of Types
How many types and sites should be included ?
as much as possible; sites are recommended covering high to moderate status, not focus on the border

3. Typology and Intercalibration Selection of Types
Considerations to select types
all ecoregions should be covered
WRc proposal is suggested in principle
all important pressures should be covered
all biological elements should be included in principle
data of current monitoring programmes should be used for selection

4. Typology and Intercalibration Selection of Types
Suggestions for possible types
WRc draft proposal is recommended in principle as good starting point for further discussion (14 types for rivers)
STAR project are also very helpful

5. HMWB and Intercalibration Legal Requirements (1)
HMWB - what is the reference ? => II 1.3 ii: MEP is the reference as defined in Annex V, table 1.2.5
HMWB in context with types => V 1.2.5: Comparison with closest comparable surface water water type defines MEP
HMWB in context with categories => V 1.1.5: Quality elements applicable to hmwb shall be those applicable to the 4 natural surface water categories

6. HMWB and Intercalibration Legal Requirements (2)
HMWB in context with intercalibration V i: In applying the procedure set out below to hmwb, references to ecological status should be constructed as references to ecological potential
What is the procedure ? [a] EQRs have to be used (ii) [b] Classification has to be done (iii) [c] Boundaries for classification: high/good and good/moderate (iii) [d] Monitoring system shall be applied to those sites which are both in the ecoregion and of a surface water body type (vi)

7. HMWB and Intercalibration Types and References (MEP) of HMWB (1)
1. Example: Wide shallow river changed to a lake (caused by weir)
category has been changed
type has been changed (i.e. shallow lake)
MEP = at HES or below
2. Example: Wide shallow river changed to a wide shallow river with dykes (i.e. without oxbow lakes)
category and type have not been changed
GES can not be met by mitigation measures
MEP = at GES or below

8. HMWB and Intercalibration Types and References (MEP) of HMWB (2)
3. Example: Wide shallow river changed to a narrow deep river
category has not been changed
type has been changed
MEP = at HES or below

9. HMWB and Intercalibration Types and References (MEP) of HMWB (3)
Consequences
The categories and types of natural water bodies and hmw bodies are in general identical
Biological assessment methods are identical
Intercalibration of natural waters covers the aspects of hmwb - chosen boundaries are valid for hmwb
MEP is normally below HES, but deviation GES and GEP is identical
Sometimes hmwb intercalibration could be useful, if hmwb is the dominating water body within a type

10. HMWB and Intercalibration Types and References (MEP) of HMWB (3)
Consequences
Examples of artificial and hmw bodies that could be included

11. HMWB and Intercalibration Provisionally Identification until 2004
Problems