DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D – Water, Marine Environment & Chemicals
ENV.D.1 – Protection of Water Resources /
25thMeeting of Working group A on ecological status (ECOSTAT)
for the WFD Common Implementation Strategy
in Ispra, Italy 23rd – 24th April 2014
Minutes
The Working Group Leaders (WGLs) of Working Group A (ECOSTAT) invited delegates to the 25thmeeting of the Group on 23rd and 24th April 2013. A draft agenda (see Annex 1) was distributed before the meeting. The meeting documents (see list in Annex 2) and presentations are available on WFD CIRCABC 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. Actions are identified throughout the minutes and listed at the end of the document. Minutes were compiled by Valerie Bain (HR Wallingford, UK), with input from Wouter van de Bund, Ulrich Claussen,Sandra Poikane and Claire McCamphill.
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, with an additional point under Item 5 to cover discussion of issues relating to the Baltic Sea GIG.
Item 2Approval of minutes from last meeting
WvdB (WGLs) invited comments on the minutes of the last meeting.
Henning Karup (Denmark) highlighted a correction for page 4, item 5b; the Baltic Sea GIG benthic invertebrates are identified under Annex 2 in the minutes but they are actually in Annex 1.
No other comments were received and the minutes were accepted with this one revision.
Item 3Update on the Process towards a new CIS mandate 2013-2016
Claire McCamphill (CMcC; Commission) explained that the Commission (COM), SCG and the Water Directors are currently looking at how the CIS mandate for 2013-2016 will be structured. This will be discussed at the SCG meeting next week and a final decision will be made at the end of May 2013. They are looking at how the work of ECOSTAT can be communicated to other parts of the CIS and particularly the groups working on measures. A number of proposals are being considered, including (i) keeping the current CIS structure with improved communication between groups and (ii) restructuring the groups.
Ivan Karottki (Denmark) expressed the view that the ECOSTAT group should not be split up as continuity of the work being carried out in the group is important. He suggested that ECOSTAT should make this clear to the Water Directors.actionaaa
CMcC responded that it would be useful to have a list of the core activities that must be done by this ECOSTAT group in on-going and future work so that we can clearly identify what activities need to be done by ECOSTAT in the next mandate. Action 1.
item 4Update on finalisation of the Round 2 intercalibration results
Sandra Poikane (SP; JRC) presented an update on the Round 2 intercalibration (IC) results. The COM decision was endorsed by the Article 21 Committee on 28th January 2013. It is expected that the Decision will be published in the Official Journal in August or September following a 3-month period of scrutiny by the European Parliament (15 May - 18 August).
The JRC is editing the technical reports and plans to finalise reports for rivers and lakes in June 2013 and reports for coastal and transitional waters in August 2013. The JRC started to collect IC data from each GIG to ensure that the methods that have not yet passed IC can do so by applying the IC process with the IC data from the relevant GIG. There have been, however, few contributions of datasets following the JRC request for data to GIG leads. Some GIG leads have responded with a number of concerns and SP presented the JRC’s response to those concerns:
- There was concern that the IC data is not owned by the GIG leads and they are therefore not able to release it for any other purpose. SP explained that the data will only be used for IC and that for use for any other purpose, the permission of the Member States (MSs) would always be required.
- GIG leaders had highlighted that they did not have the time or resource to prepare the data for handover to the JRC. SP explained that no additional effort in data preparation is expected, it can be delivered in the format that the GIG lead has it in. Only the GIG level data is required, not the full MS datasets.
- GIG leaders had questioned whether this data was really needed. SP explained that the IC of new methods relies on this data so it is certainly needed for the completion of IC.
Romania asked whether IC data should be sent to the JRC if the IC work for the GIG has not yet finalised. SP responded that IC data is only being collected for GIGs where the IC decision has passed and the method is in Annex 1.
Geoff Phillips (UK) suggested that the data request is resent with a clear set of instructions on what is needed and a realistic timescale for responding. Action 2. Also see Action 13.
Marta Martinez-Gil (Spain) asked how to address the situation where IC is not possible for a method because it classifies a typology that no other countries have methods for. SP responded that where IC is not possible due to lack of common typologies, this conclusion needs to be presented to ECOSTAT. ECOSTAT can then provide an overview of which methods can be intercalibrated and which methods can’t.
item 5Intercalibration of ecological status – Remaining open issues
Sandra Poikane (SP; WGLs) presented an overview of the open issues (gaps) remaining for IC of ecological status. A number of tables were presented to show where the gaps are (which can be found in Document 5, see Annex 2).
In relation to GIG level gaps, there are two situations:
- The GIG has not finalised its IC results. In this case, the GIG is advised to continue efforts to achieve IC and must present its plan by October 2013. The plan should set out what activities will be carried out to achieve IC.
- The GIG can’t finalise its IC results as it is not technically possible – for example, the method is for a typology not represented by other countries or their methods. In this case, the GIG is advised to present its conclusions to ECOSTAT in October 2013 to seek agreement from ECOSTAT. They should demonstrate that the methods that have not passed IC are nevertheless WFD compliant.
There are some GIGs where IC has finalised but where there are some MSs that have not yet joined the final set of intercalibrated methods. SP explained that all MS are required to IC their methods by 2016. The JRC plans to develop a guidebook or workflow to explain to remaining MSs how to do IC. This guidebook will be developed by October 2013 and will be prepared with the collaboration of the GIG leaders. In relation to the MS level gaps, the situations are:
- The MS has not completed development of their classification method. In this case, the MS should outline their plans for achieving IC by October 2013 and have completed the IC process by 2016.
- The MS method has not been included in the GIG IC because it is not technically feasible, for example, where the method is significantly different from others in the GIG. In this case, the explanation should be provided to ECOSTAT by October 2013.
- The MS has no intention to develop a method. In this case, the MS is advised to provide justification in writing with data based evidence to demonstrate why a method for classification cannot be developed.
It was noted in the discussion that there are corrections to be made to the tables of gaps. WGLs will provide a template to MSs and GIG leads for them to fill in to update this information. MSs and GIG leads are asked to email any corrections using this template to WGLs. Action 3.
SP stated that the MSs who have already provided justification for not developing methods or for not intercalibrating their methods do not need to do so again. JRC is still setting up the process for deciding whether the justifications provided are acceptable.
WvdB explained that the JRC will provide a template to MSs and GIG leads for providing the information for IC plans and justification of not intercalibrating. Action 4. MSs and GIG leads are then requested to provide this information by October 2013. Action 5.
Marcel van den Berg (Netherlands) requested clarification on whether the guidelines on IC will be applied to the 2nd Round decision as they were to the 1st Round and also on whether there were any changes to the guidelines. WvdB agreed to check the minute of the Article 21 Committee and confirm that the 1st Round guidelines on IC still apply to the 2nd Round. Action 6.
JRC put forward a proposal for setting up an IC review panel. The panel’s role would be to review IC results and review justifications for not intercalibrating or not developing methods. The panel would comprise a mixture of independent experts and selected members of ECOSTAT with experience of IC. The panel will not be expected to revisit the decisions for IC methods in Annex 1. There was support from the meeting attendees for this proposal. JRC will approach the DGENV to discuss how the panel may be funded. Action 7.
For the on-going work of IC within the new CIS mandate, it was agreed by the meeting attendees that IC work will continue in the structure of the GIGs. The GIGs that have not yet passed IC are therefore advised to continue their work on IC. The GIGs that have already passed IC do not need to continue their efforts, it will be the MS responsibility to IC if they belong to a GIG that has already passed IC and their own methods have not yet passed.
Update on Large Rivers
Sebastian Birk (Germany) gave a presentation on the IC of large rivers. The MSs that are participating in the large rivers XGIG were listed. The question of how to assess ecological status for large rivers is important. Does an assessment based on the main channel comply with the WFD? A method has been developed that focuses on the main channel and does not consider secondary channels or floodplains. Those involved in the group have questioned whether this is appropriate since the condition of secondary channels and floodplain habitats is important in large river systems. We seek an ECOSTAT or COM decision on whether the pragmatic approach of just considering the main channel is WFD compliant. The proposed schedule for work is:
- A method overview will be provided in May 2013.
- A check on WFD compliance on national methods will be carried out in Autumn 2013. The COM will be involved in this.
- A working typology for large rivers will be presented in Autumn 2013. A summary document will be provided to MSs and the COM.
- Invertebrate IC will be reviewed in Autumn 2013.
- The large rivers XGIG will meet in November 2013.
- IC of other biological quality elements (BQEs) will be achieved by 2016.
MSs are requested to allocate resource to participation in the large rivers XGIG. It was also highlighted that volunteer experts are needed to lead the work on phytoplankton and fish.
WvdB noted that it was very helpful that Germany is taking a leading role in the work for the large rivers XGIG.
CMcC explained that to answer the issue of whether assessment of the main channel only is WFD compliant, the COM would need a clear set of options to be presented. She requested that an options paper be prepared to set out the alternative approaches and explain the time requirements, technical feasibility and scientific pros and cons of each potential approach. It was noted in discussion that the agreed approaches for each BQE may vary; for nutrients, for example, it may be appropriate to focus on the main channel only, whereas for fish, for example, it may be necessary to include the secondary channels and floodplains in the assessment. Sebastian Birk suggested that IC would not be achieved by 2016 if it is necessary to include the secondary channels and floodplains as methods for doing so do not currently exist. If this is, however, considered important for understanding the ecological status in large rivers then it is appropriate to recognise that and work towards methods and IC to take this into account within the longer term. It was agreed that an options paper would be presented. This will be put forward at the October ECOSTAT meeting so that it can be reviewed and endorsed by ECOSTAT and then put forward to the COM. Action 8.
There was some discussion as to whether there were any MSs missing from the large rivers XGIG. Roger Owen (UK) explained that the largest rivers in the UK are just below the threshold of catchment size for rivers classified as large rivers. Martin McGarrigle (Republic of Ireland) confirmed that this was also the case in Ireland. WvdB concluded that the large rivers XGIG therefore seems to have the appropriate group of MS participants.
Update on IC of Northern GIG river macrophytes
Ansa Pilke (Finland; coordinator of the Northern GIG) provided an overview of progress on IC of Northern GIG river macrophytes. The Northern GIG covers Finland, Sweden, Norway and parts of the UK and Ireland. Finland, Sweden and Norway have national monitoring plans in place to collect data on river macrophytes over the next few years. This will provide sufficient data for IC by 2016. In 2013/14 the GIG will consider issues such as typology, compile data and develop a common metric if appropriate. When monitoring data becomes available, they will check the national methods and reference conditions. In 2014/15 they will have the final comparison of methods and IC.
WvdB asked that all plans for IC activity be provided in writing for the October ECOSTAT meeting. (See Action 5.)
Update on IC of Lakes
SP (WGLs) provided a brief overview of the gaps in IC of lakes. It was noted that Germany has agreed to coordinate the IC of fish for the Central Baltic GIG and a response to confirm participation is awaited from Lithuania, Poland and the UK. It was noted that the situation regarding IC of fish for the East Continental GIG and the Mediterranean GIGrequires clarification.
There were some short updates on activities relating to data checking and meetings from Romania and Denmark. The Netherlands and Denmark noted some corrections are required for the summary tables presented (see Action 3). Spain was asked whether they can continue to lead the Mediterranean GIG. They took an action to confirm this. Action 9.
Update on coastal and transitional water bodies
SP (WGLs) presented an update on IC of coastal and transitional water bodies. The JRC will have a new coastal coordinator from 1st June 2013. A table was presented to show where the GIG level gaps for each BQE were and also to identify whether there were leads in place to coordinate the work to address the IC gaps. It was noted that there is currently no lead for the North East Atlantic GIG. Leads are also needed for each BQE in the Black Sea and Mediterranean GIGs. France agreed to confirm whether they can lead the IC of fish for transitional waters in the Mediterranean GIG. Action 10.
CMcC explained that IC is a WFD obligation so there is an urgent need to identify leads for the BQEs and GIGs that do not currently have leads. WGLs agreed to contact the previous/current leads to confirm whether they are still leads and provide an overview in advance of the next SCG meeting. Action 11.
Spain noted that work on the Mediterranean GIG has been slow due to lack of data and lack of input from MSs. They have received comments that IC is not possible within a short timeframe due to lack of data.
Update on NE Atlantic GIG
Peter Holmes (UK) presented an update of the situation regarding IC for the NE Atlantic GIG. It was noted that there are a number of BQEs where more work is needed to achieve IC. Peter explained that he has retired and has therefore stepped down as GIG lead and a replacement has not been found. A number of the BQE leads have said that they will be stepping down. It will be difficult to find replacement leads given that individuals are not allocated appropriate time or resource to carry out the role. It was also noted that there is some frustration with the process as the group considers that the Round 1 COM decision was not appropriate. The group requests that the COM applies flexibility in the guidance so that the statistical procedures are not rigidly enforced at the expense of ecological principles. All groups need time with a statistician to support their work and the statistician’s time must be funded somehow.
Alison Miles (UK) cited an example of needing flexibility in the guidance; for seagrass, we would like to combine the data for transitional and coastal water bodies as pressures act on this element in the same way for each water body type. By combining the data we can make progress with the method but if we split the data then we can’t. There are other issues like this where we need clarity on what the COM will accept to comply with the WFD.