/ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D – Water & Environmental Programmes
ENV.D.1 – Water /
Meeting of WGA ECOSTAT
for the WFD Common Implementation Strategy
in Brussels 24 – 25 october 2011

Draft Minutes

The Working Group Leaders (WGLs) of Working Group A (ECOSTAT) invited delegates to the 22nd meeting of the Group on 24thand 25thOctober2011. A draft detailed agenda (see Annex 1) was distributed before the meeting. The meeting documents (see list in Annex 2) and presentations are available on WFD CIRCA using the following direct link.

A full list of the participants registered for the meeting is provided in Annex 3. A summary of the discussions under each point of the agenda and the conclusions are presented below. Minutes were compiled by Ian Codling (WRc plc, UK), with input from Wouter van de Bund, Sandra Poikane, Wendy Bonne, Nikolaos Zampoukas, and Ursula Schmedtje.

Item 1. Welcome and approval of agenda

Wouter van de Bund (WvdB) (WGLs) welcomed participants to the meeting. The proposed Agenda for the meeting (see Annex 1) was adopted.

Item 2Approval of minutes from last meeting

WvdB (WGLs) invited comments on the minutes of the last meeting. No comments were forthcoming and the minutes of the last meeting were adopted.

Item 3Activity 1 – Intercalibration – general issues

Ursula Schmedtje (US) (DGENV) provided an overview of the current status of the intercalibration process and reiterated the timetable for its completion for both batches of results.[1] She also outlined some planned work under a contract let by the European Parliament (EP) (Entitled: Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU) and expanded on the tasks of particular relevance to ECOSTAT. These include:

  • Comparison of surface water typologies.
  • Intercalibration – including the scientific peer review and an analysis of identified significant pressures in RBDs can be detected by the assessment methods applied in that RBD.
  • EQSs for specific pollutants.
  • Reality check – verification of results on the ground.

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • Queries on the timetable, and the consequences for not meeting the timetable,were referred to Agenda item 8.
  • WvdB (WGLs) noted that the work on typology and pressures has close synergy with items of the ECOSTAT mandate. US (DGENV) confirmed that ECOSTAT is intended to have an input into the results of the work planned under the EP contract before the conclusions are taken forward into the Blueprint for Water process.
  • US (DGENV) explained that the tasks under the contract were currently being formulated. She welcomed ideas for issues or approaches to be addressed in relation to the ‘reality check’ task in particular.
  • US (DGENV) confirmed that the role of the intercalibration peer review exercise was to obtain an independent third party verification of the fitness for purpose of the intercalibration phase 2 (IC2) results to inform the Commission’s decision on whether to include them in the revised Commission Decision on Intercalibration.

item 4aIntercalibration – coastal waters

Wendy Bonne (WB) (Coastal GIG coordinator) provided an overview of the state of play with the coastal intercalibration groups based on the latest milestone reports.[2]

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

Black Sea

  • WB clarified the conclusions of the work from the GIG and stated that the agreed action with the GIG was to provide improved milestone reports in time for the validation workshop in November.

Baltic Sea

  • Regarding the phytoplankton BQE, WB sought clarification on the available results for some types in the Baltic and the extent of available results on phytoplankton metrics other than chlorophyll a (chla). DK provided further clarification stating that some further material was available for biovolume though this does not add to the chla result from intercalibration phase 1 (IC1). However, blooms and composition metricscould not be intercalibrated. DK has not used biovolume for national reporting but intends to in the future.
  • Regarding the macroalgae and seagrasses, DK explained the difference between the DK and DE methods. DK tool looks only at seagrasses and these are in very good condition. The DE tool includes charophytes and these are in a bad condition in this area. The methods address different pressures and the number of sites available is limited and consequently a valid intercalibration is not possible.
  • WB highlighted an issue with the FI – EE intercalibation in type BC3 and EE agreed to refer the JRC recommendation back to the EE experts.
  • WB presented an overview of the status of the likely results from IC2 in the Baltic indicating an estimated spatial coverage of 50% based on the coverage of the types for which results could be available.
  • WvdB urged to GIG to clarify the uncertainties in time for the validation workshop.

Mediterranean

  • IT stated that meetings with ES and FR had been held and they had agreed to provide integrated milestone reports to include Sardinia and Corsica. The groups would consider whether another sub-type was appropriate. ES and FR agreed to take this forward with IT.
  • Regarding the use of a new sub-type, WB has forwarded information to assist in a proper analysis of typology.
  • WvdB (WGLs)concluded that the Med GIG would provide updated milestone reports for the validation workshop in November.

North East Atlantic

  • WB noted that the milestone report was large and difficult to assimilate and, consequently, the presentations may not represent true status of work.
  • WvdB (WGLs) indicated that the phytoplankton group needs to reach firm conclusions on the results after the validation workshop.
  • A query on biotypes in relation to the macroalgae results is also to be addressed at the validation workshop.
  • In response to a question from NL, WB reiterated that the summary status of the result in the presentation was subject to uncertainty due to the lack of clarity in the milestone report. WvdB (WGLs) reiterated the intended process and role of JRC in the verification of the checking of results that should be done by the GIGs. The validation workshop is the last opportunity for JRC to assist in the verification of results. For coastal water GIG results, this process has not been adhered to and the workshop is offering a chance to further the work to generate some results that might be included in the revised Decision.
  • The discussion on the role of ECOSTAT in approving these results was deferred to Agenda item 8.

item 4bIntercalibration – transitional waters

Nikolaos Zampoukas (NZ) (Transitional Waters GIG coordinator) provided an overview of the state of play of the transitional water intercalibration groups.[3]

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • NZ reported many issues remain with the phytoplankton results across all GIGs. The validation workshop offers a last opportunity to address as many of these as possible.
  • WvdB (WGLs) reiterated the role of each MS to provide details of methods used and the extent to which they cover the normative definitions. If this is not provided, then the method cannot be evaluated.
  • NZ reported a range of issues with the macroalgae and angiosperm results and indicated that unless some criteria can be relaxed then new results might be unlikely.
  • NZ clarified that expert judgement was a valid approach if sufficient justification is provided.
  • WvdB (WGLs) reiterated the need for the GIGs to make clear conclusions and recommendations on results for JRC to evaluate and for ECOSTAT to approve.
  • The validation workshop will be used to assist in the finalisation of results.

Isabel Pardo (IP) (Med GIG invertebrate BQE lead) provided an overview of the work undertaken on the benthic invertebrates quality element.[4]

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • IP described the issues with the lack of data and the poor correlation with a pressure gradient. Some possible further work was identified in liaison with the large rivers group but the possibility for some results for benthic invertebrates in the Med GIG is less than earlier discussions indicated.

Angel Borja (AB) (NEA GIG benthic invertebrates BQE lead) provided an overview of the work on the NEA transitional waters benthic invertebrates quality element[5].

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • SE acknowledged the reasons for the exclusion of their method in the results.
  • AB confirmed that boundary checking and continuous benchmarking could be used to improve the results in time for the validation workshop.
  • WvdB (WGLs) confirmed that if the additional work did not improve the results then the results as presented would be the final outcome.

item5Intercalibration - rivers

WvdB (Rivers GIG coordinator) provided an overview of the state of play with the rivers intercalibration groups.

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • In response to some specific issues raised in the presentation, FR indicated they currently had no answer regarding the phytobenthos issue and BG confirmed that their experts would address the benthic invertebrates issue in the Eastern Continental (EC) GIG.

Jürgen Böhmer (JB) (Large rivers intercalibration group) provided an overview of the work in the large rivers intercalibration group[6].

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • JB explained the attempted use of large rivers types in the work and the reasons for not using them to complete the intercalibration.
  • JB confirmed that large rivers were defined as those with catchments greater than 10,000 km2and, that while fish data was collected, there was insufficient to complete an intercalibration.
  • JB explained that FR diatom data was included in the analysis but that the method was not used in the comparison. Regarding compliance assessment of methods, those applied to large rivers were applied only in the main channel and did not include floodplain waters.
  • WvdB (WGLs) indicated that a position paper on large rivers had been produced that concluded that consideration of the floodplain was required and that MSs were developing such methods. This needs to be referred to in the report of the work.
  • WvdB (WGLs) recommended that the group completes and reports the work by 31 December 2011.
  • JB indicated that the data for large rivers suggest that benthic invertebrate metrics respond more to hydromorphological than nutrient pressures.
  • US (DGENV) questioned the handling of large river typologies in the work undertaken and indicated this would need further explanation. WvdB (WGLs) requested that feasibility check information is included in the milestone reports.

Pavla Wildova (PW) and Matúš Maciak (MMac) (EC GIG coordinator and expert) provided overviews of the phytobenthos results for this group[7][8].

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • PW indicated that RO data is awaited for inclusion in the analysis and to whether this improves the outcome.
  • WvdB (WGLs) recommended that the result on the table be approved by ECOSTAT pending inclusion of the RO data should that be available in time.

Teresa Ferreira (TF) (Med GIG coordinator) provided an overview of the results for the phytobenthos, macrophytes and benthic fauna quality elements for the Mediterranean GIG[9].

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • FR indicated some issues with official agreement on the boundaries. WvdB (WGLs) confirmed that the key issue is the definition of the boundary and then MSs above the boundary need to decide whether to harmonise, or not, by 31 December 2011.
  • WvdB (WGLs) raised a technical query on the harmonisation work whereby the results could be potentially biased by values from PT and ES as these MSshave values by type rather than by country. This approach needs justification.
  • SI explained their position in relation to harmonisation of boundaries.
  • WvdB (WGLs) recommended that ECOSTAT approve the results subject to some small issues to be addressed in the validation workshop.

item 6comparability of good ecological potential

Peter Pollard (PP) (WGLs) provided an overview of the contents of the discussion document on “Good Ecological Potential – Recommendations on Accessing and Improving Comparability.”

PP explained that the ideas from the ad hoc hydromorphology group that met during the last ECOSTAT meeting were used to contribute towards the concept paper in response to Water Directors’ request. The concept paper has been commented on by the ad hoc group and was distributed to ECOSTAT in the meeting papers for this meeting. The paper needs to be finalised for submission to the Water Directors’ meeting in December.

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • PP confirmed that any additional comments on the paper should be communicated to him in person at the meeting to ensure that it is finalised and sent, initially, to SCG.
  • Regarding the protocols for defining Good Ecological Potential (GEP), PP confirmed that the impression is that MSs have used a mix of the available methods and that these need to be reviewed to look into the need for a refined protocol.
  • WvdB (WGLs) confirmed that ECOSTAT agrees that the paper can be submitted to SCG subject to any changes agreed during the meeting with PP.

US (DGENV) provided an overview of on the issues emerging from the initial assessment of the RBMPs with particular reference to Good Ecological Potential and introduced a study to address a comparison of methodologies to define GEP to answer a range of potential questions.[10]

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • PT noted the scale of the challenge with respect to GEP with the focus to date on GES.
  • US (DGENV) confirmed that the proposed study would compare methodologies among MSs based on information submitted with the RBMPs and supplemented with clarifications gained from bi-lateral meetings between DGENV and MSs to answer the set of questions posed in support of the ECOSTAT activity on the intercalibration of GEP.
  • WvdB (WGLs) confirmed that comments and suggestions for further questions should be addressed to US by email by 15 November 2011. Comments from all MSs are welcome.
  • PP explained that the proposed hydromorphology workshop in June 2012 is aimed at an exchange of information and that the ad hoc group would produce a paper for approval by SCG in March 2012 and ideas for inclusion were welcomed either directly to PP at the meeting or via the ad hoc group. The work of the FP7 project REFORM will form part of the workshop.

item 7intercalibration – lakes

Sandra Poikane (SP) (Lakes GIG coordinator) provided an overview of the state of play in the lake GIGs.

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • The support of the WISER project in relation to lake intercalibration was explained with particular reference to common metrics. Information is available in factsheets downloadable from the WISER website.
  • FR raised the issue of the intercalibration of eulittoral benthic fauna methods in the alpine GIG. SP clarified issues surrounding feasibility and a lack of available resources has prevented intercalibration of these methods and that the GIG would need to provide a justification for this. US (DGENV) confirmed that the justification for this is very important for the GIG to provide to allow evaluation by JRC and DGENV.
  • SI explained the activity in the EC GIG. They have focussed on macrophytes rather than phytobenthos and hope to tackle some open issues by the validation workshop and present some results. WvdB (WGLs) urged the GIG to include justifications in their milestone report.
  • NO confirmed that they can take the lead in the Northern GIG group needing a new task leader.
  • HU explained their work in the EC GIG and will provide an update to the milestone report.
  • SI provided a reminder that they are not in the lake Central Baltic (CB) GIG.
  • WvdB (WGLs) confirmed that much work had been finalised and a large amount remains to be finalised. He cautioned GIGs only to submit results that they were comfortable with regarding the quality of the results. The GIGs need to decide and justify this in the reporting of the results.
  • FR sought clarification on how to proceed with intercalibration of lake types not covered by the two phases of intercalibration to date. WvdB (WGLs) referred to the guidelines produced at the end of the first phase of intercalibration regarding later intercalibration and indicated that these principles would apply.

Martin Kelly (MK) (lake phytobenthos cross-GIG lead) provided an overview of the lake phytobenthos results.

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • MK indicated that the potential effect of a confounding acid pressure gradient in the phytobenthos needs to be resolved in the low alkalinity lake types.
  • SP welcomed the results and identified two issues to be resolved: reference sites for macrophytes need to be better defined and confirmation is needed on the status of methods marked as ‘not finalised.’
  • WvdB (WGLs) reinforced the importance of only including finalised and approved methods and confirmed that this approval needs to be in place by 31 December 2011.
  • WvdB (WGLs) concluded that these results are not ready to be approved by ECOSTAT but that the expectation is that they will be ready by 31 December 2011.

Karin Pall (KP) (alpine GIG macrophyte group leader) presented an overview of the macrophyte results from the alpine GIG.

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • KP explained the approach to defining reference conditions and the use of transects.
  • SP noted that work was complete subject to further explanation of the use of benchmark standardisation, better description of MS approaches to boundary setting and the provision of calculation sheets for verification. SP also clarified that only submerged macrophyte metrics had been intercalibrated and not phytobenthos.
  • KP confirmed that these issues can be addressed prior to the validation workshop.
  • WvdB (WGLs) confirmed acceptance of the results by ECOSTAT subject to the open issues being resolvedby 31 December 2011.

Rob Portielje (CB GIG macrophytes) presented an overview of the results from this groupwith a summary of issues to be resolved by 31 December 2011.[11]

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • SP congratulated the groups and recognised the particular challenges of many participating countries with varied and disparate methods. She recommended that ECOSTAT approve the results providing the outstanding issues are satisfactorily resolved.
  • WvdB (WGLs) confirmed acceptance of the results by ECOSTAT subject to the open issues being resolvedby 31 December 2011.

Geoff Phillips (CB GIG phytoplankton BQE lead) presented an overview of the results from this group.[12]