1. Ad-hoc Task Group on Hydromorphology
Information ongoing work on GEP and recent workshop on 'Significant adverse effect on use‘
SCG Meeting
17 May 2018, Brussels

2. CIS Work Programme
Ad-hoc Task Group Hydromorphology Working Group ECOSTAT
Harmonized environmental requirements and emerging good practices for HMWBs
Appendix to CIS Guidance Document No. 4 on GEP
Policy oriented HYMO issues - Workshop on ‘Significant adverse effect on use’

3. Typical uses leading to HMWB designation
Water storage
Flood protection
Agricultural drainage
Inland navigation
Uses also at coastal and transitional waters
Notes: Data from 31 Jan Based on preliminary data reported for 25 MS; no data are included for EL, IE and LT. The uses in this figure are based on the pre-defined list for reporting water uses of HMWB in WISE.
© Mair

4. Progress: Reports on GEP mitigation measures
Water storage (finalised)
Flood protection (finalised)
Agricultural drainage (finalised)
Inland navigation (workshop report)
Coastal- and transitional waters (draft)
Including inter alia
Data from questionnaires
Outlining ‚state of play‘
Overview mitigation measures for GEP
Overview reasons for ruling out measures
Link:

5. Steps for HMWB designation / GEP definition Role of ‘Significant adverse effects’ of measures
Provisional identification as HMWB
Step 7 – 9
Final designation as HMWB/AWB
Step 10 – 11
Establishment of MEP and GEP
Source: CIS Guidance Document No. 4 (2003)

6. Workshop „Significant adverse effects on use or wider environment“
Organised on April 2018 in Brussels
Objectives
Exchange experiences on assessment of significant adverse effects
Clarification on common understanding, open issues and challenges
Gain input for ongoing work on new Appendix to CIS Guidance Document no. 4 on GEP
Discussion paper
Parallel group discussions
Water storage
Flood protection
Agricultural drainage
Inland navigation
Effects on multiple uses and wider environment
Link:

7. Significant adverse effects Need for harmonized approaches
RBMPs State of Play:
Often qualitative criteria and expert judgement rather than quantitative criteria
Approach for defining 'significant adverse effects' of measures (and therefore GEP definition) often unclear and not transparent
Exchange at workshop inter alia on:
What is exactly considered as a “use”?
Types of adverse effects of measures on different uses and possibilities for quantification?
Adverse effects VERSUS significant adverse effects?
Measures frequently considered having significant adverse effects / no significant adverse effects for different uses?
Appropriate scales for assessment during HMWB designation / GEP?
Distinguishing between significant adverse effects and costs of measures (linked to exemptions)?
Results parallel working group discussions - see presentations:

8. Next steps Workshop ‘Significant adverse effects’
End May: Circulation draft workshop report to participants
End June: Deadline provision of comments
Afterwards finalization of workshop report, feeding into work on GEP Guidance
GEP Guidance (Appendix to CIS Guidance no. 4):
End May: Discussion first draft at 36th ECOSTAT meeting
Summer/autumn: Update of document and integration of workshop results
Autumn: Discussion of updated draft at 37th ECOSTAT and SCG meetings
Afterwards further development and finalization

9. Other HYMO deliverables within the ECOSTAT Work Programme
Reports on hydromorphological assessment methodologies (Rivers) available (final):
Part 1 – Summary of European country questionnaires
Part 2 – Summary report of workshop – Key conclusions & recommendations
LINK:

10. Thank you for your attention!
CIS Guidance Documents:
Disclaimer: "The views expressed in this presentation are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission."