Summary of the key conclusions of the Ecostat Classification Workshop 6-7 March 2008

1. Summary of the key conclusions of the Ecostat Classification Workshop 6-7 March 2008

2. Introduction • Workshop attended by 25 MS, Norway, JRC and Commission • Its purpose was to exchange information and ideas on meeting the practical challenges of ecological status classification

3. Summary of main findings (1) • Selecting biological quality elements for monitoring • Reasonable level of comparability on operational monitoring • More than one biological quality element may need to be monitored to assess impact of a pressure • Surveillance monitoring important for validating (and updating) the selection of biological quality elements • Combining results for different quality elements • Majority of MS apply one out all out principle • Some Member States appear to be planning to adopt alternative approaches which do not follow the existing CIS guidance • Different strategies to select quality elements may lead to a reduction of comparability of MS overall classification results • Further investigation of comparability issues recommended prior to second RBMP • Presentation of ecological status • General support to Commission proposal

4. Summary of main findings (2) • Dealing with uncertainty • Importance of information on confidence and precision of classifications for informing decisions and actions • Level of confidence can be used to inform decisions on exemptions; prioritising water bodies for improvement/further monitoring • Appropriate follow up action to improve confidence includes; i) further targeted monitoring and assessment; and ii) action to assess risk of, and prevent deterioration • Transparency and clear explanations important • Mismatches in biological and chemical results • Can be scientific difficulties in identifying a standard that is not too stringent or too lax for at least some of water bodies in a type, e.g. nutrients in lakes • Checking procedure should be amended to allow for the status of individual water bodies to be revised • Before revising status of water body, it is important to undertake checks to confirm absence of biological impacts (with WFD compliant method) and of upward trends in nutrient concentrations

5. Summary of main findings (3) • Spatial considerations in classification • Range of different approaches amongst MS – including taking the average status, worst status or percentage of water body affected • Clear spatial criteria are needed for classification and for assessing risk that proposed alterations will cause deterioration of status (linked to the application of article 4.7) • Criteria likely to reflect characteristics of river basin – one does not fit all • A combination of criteria based on a fixed proportion of a water body and an absolute measure (such as a length or area) was suggested as a useful approach • Challenges of classification for the first river basin management plans • Only two years of monitoring data available • Some biological tools not yet fully tested or developed • Need to use all available data to estimate status • Grouping of water bodies – to make best use of available monitoring data

6. Water Directors are invited to • Take note of the outcomes of the workshop on classification and discuss the relevance for the overall WFD implementation • Request the ECOSTAT to discuss the outcomes of the workshop and propose way forward in particular on • Further exchange of information on classification methods • How to improve transparency on classification issues