1 / 20

WG 2.3 REFCOND Progress report for the SCG meeting 30 Sep-1 Oct 2002

WG 2.3 REFCOND Progress report for the SCG meeting 30 Sep-1 Oct 2002. Key activities, meetings, progress. The first draft guidance document submitted to WG members 8 July 2002 for comments. Available at Circa.

alphaa
Download Presentation

WG 2.3 REFCOND Progress report for the SCG meeting 30 Sep-1 Oct 2002

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WG 2.3 REFCONDProgress report for theSCG meeting 30 Sep-1 Oct 2002

  2. Key activities, meetings, progress • The first draft guidance document submitted to WG members 8 July 2002 for comments. Available at Circa. • The 3rd REFCOND workshop was held in Stockholm, Sweden, 5-6 Sept 2002. Representatives from all Member States, Norway, WG 2.1, WG 2.4, WG 2.5, Commission, EEB, WWF, Slovenia and Latvia were present at the workshop

  3. Links with other WGs • Pressure criteria for selection of potential good status sites need to be co-ordinated with WG 2.1. • GEP & MEP for HMWB and relationship with ecological status need to be co-ordinated with WG 2.2. • Reference conditions and EQR-scale need to be co-ordinated with WG 2.4. • Use of physchem in classification need to be co-ordinated with WG 2.6.

  4. Key open issues Agreement on option(s) to be used in the guidance were reached on the Stockholm workshop on all 10 key open issue listed before the meeting. For each key issue the agreed options are as follows:

  5. Type-specific vs. site-specific reference conditions Agreed option: Only use WFD terminology (type-specific RC) but include flexibility which allows for the use of values representative for individual water bodies if needed.

  6. Relationship between RC and high ecological status Agreed option: Selection of initial data for reference condition assessment may include very minor anthropogenic disturbance. The reference conditions that are derived from this initial data set should be considered equal to high ecological status.

  7. Role of physico-chemical and hydromorphological factors in high ecological status Agreed option: It was agreed that at high ecological status, each of the three quality elements (biology, hydromorphology and physico-chemistry) should be at high ecological status. Hydromorphological assessment is required for classification of the high ecological status only.

  8. Role of physico-chemical and hydromorphological factors in good ecological status Agreed option: Good ecological status means that biological and physico-chemical factors should comply with WFD requirements for good ecological status.

  9. Specific pollutants and RC (detection limit) Agreed option: Setting of DLs is not an issue to discuss in REFCOND WG. The EAF PS sub group AMPS is looking into the issue of setting practical detection limits. Give reference to ongoing work in EAF.

  10. Common European, [eco]regional typology? Agreed option: No common European typology can/will be produced in REFCOND. Member States should engage activities to harmonise typology for inland waters on the most appropriate (eco)regional scale (e.g. Nordic countries).

  11. Different typologies for different purposes? Agreed option: Guidance gives recommendations on typology for establishing RC as well as for intercalibration and reporting. One typology for all purposes should be recommended.

  12. The use of pressure and ecological criteria for setting class boundaries Agreed option: Pressure criteria for high and good status is strictly a screening tool. Ecological criteria remains test of status. REFCOND should develop further practical guidance on the definitions of ecological criteria and how to use them.

  13. Agreed option (continue): Pressure criteria should be listed for high status to be used to select potential sites for reference condition. Pressure criteria for good status should be in tool box and/or in IMPRESS guidance. Pressure criteria for good status should be regarded as concepts and principles (eg. use of critical loads) but not threshold values. Tables on pressure criteria in REFCOND guidance should be co-ordinated with the outline of table 3.2 and 3.3 in IMPRESS guidance.

  14. Final classification – the “one out – all out” principle and choice of quality elements Classification should be on the quality element level. How to compare physico-chemical and biological monitoring results is still an open issue. Especially if if EQR:s are not calculated for physico-chemical quality elements and if physico-chemical classification systems are not included in Intercalibration.

  15. Other issues – calculation of RC values. Agreed: RC can be considered as a range of values. Benchmarks are necessary to calculate EQR, therefore a reference value is required (not a range of values). The reference value for EQR calculation should be the most robust statistical parameter (median or mean value).

  16. Still open points for discussion/clarification • Alien species – allowed at reference conditions or not (problem: should the presence of alien species alone be considered as a significant pressure)? • The role ofhydromorphology in the potential failure to reach good ecological status. • How can physico-chemical and biological monitoring results be compared if EQR:s are not calculated for physico-chemical quality elements and if physicochemical classification systems are not included in Intercalibration? • Can physico-chemical quality elements be used as surrogatefor biology in classification?

  17. Time-Table • 30 Sept – 2nd draft (section 2 and 3.1-3.3) • 3-4 Oct - Complete 2nd draft • 7 (10?) Oct – Last date for comments on 2nd draft • 15 Oct – Final version to SCG • Time reserved for extra meeting in Brussels (to solve any still open issues) • 4 Nov – Deadline for still open issues • 1 Dec – Termination of REFCOND project – final project report to Commission

  18. Future work 2003-2004 • Typology. Activities to harmonise typology for inland waters on the most appropriate (eco)regional scale. • Ecological criteria. Further development of the interpretations of the normative definitions for the biological quality elements. • Use of physchem in classification. How to compare physchem and biological monitoring results. • Hydromorphology. How to use the CEN standards. • Calculating EQR values.

  19. Future work 2003-2004 • Sampling methodologies (especially lakes). • Alien species. Role of and how to use. • Relationship between measures and status/impacts. Which are the most efficient measures to achieve the environmental objectives? • Ecological potential. GEP & MEP for HMWB and relationship with ecological status. • Review of guidance by 2004.

More Related