Draft Minutes: 30th Meeting of the WFD CIS Working Group A on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT)14 October 2015 9:00–18:00; 15 October 2015 9:00-13:00

Norwegian Environment Agency, Oslo, Norway.

The Working Group Leaders (WGLs) of Working Group A (ECOSTAT) invited delegates to the 30 th meeting of the Group on 14th and 15th October 2015. A draft agenda was distributed before the meeting. The meeting documents and presentations are available on WFD CIRCABC using the following link.

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/7fa9be42-7766-480f-9ffa-ee14e67a4f03

A summary of the discussions under each point of the agenda and the conclusions are presented below. Actions are identified throughout this meeting record. This record was compiled by Eleanor Hall (HR Wallingford, UK), with input from Juan-Pablo Pertierra, Sandra Poikane, Fuensanta Salas Herrero, and Wouter van de Bund.

AgendaN Issue Presentation Documents

14 October

1 9:00 Adoption of the agenda Agenda

2 Minutes of the previous meeting

Minutes of the previous meeting

3 9:15 ECOSTAT activity on nutrient standards:

- Nutrient work for freshwaters

- Nutrient work for saline waters

Sandra Poikane

Geoff Phillips, Uli Claussen

Progress report

Report on freshwaters

Report on saline waters

10:30 Coffee

4a 11:00 Information Exchange on Good Ecological Potential: progress update, planning of further activities

Jo Halvard Halleraker

Johan Kling, Martina Bussettini

Progress report on Water Storage

GEP water storage paper from REFORM conference

Progress report on Drainage/Floods

4b Reservoirs: Assessment methods used by MS for reservoirs;

Mediterranean GIG reservoirs, fish fauna

S. Poikane Overview of assessment methods used for reservoirs

Justification for not using fish in reservoirs (PT) + review

12:30 Lunch

5 14:00 Intercalibration of Wouter van de Overview of intercalibrate gaps

N Issue Presentation Documents

Ecological Status: overview of gaps and way forward (based on information collection from the MS)

Bund

6 14:45 Intercalibration of Ecological Status: progress, review, finalised results of ongoing work in the GIGs

intercalibrate overview work plan

6a Coastal and transitional waters :

- Overview

- GIG results + reviews

Fuensanta Salas (JRC) and GIG experts

Overview on work progress

Intercalibrate COASTAL final results:

1. CW NEA (1/26) benthic invertebrates report + review

2. CW Baltic macroalgae and angiosperms report (BC5)

3. CW Baltic Phytoplankton report (BC5)

4. CW Baltic macroalgae and angiosperms report BC4

5. CW MED GIG Phytoplankton (types shared by IT,HR,SI) and review panel report

16:00 Coffee

6a 16:30 Coastal and transitional waters (continued)

- GIG results + reviews

- remaining issues

Fuensanta Salas (JRC) and GIG experts

Overview on work progress

intercalibrate TRW final results:

1. TRW MED phytoplankton report

2. TRW MED benthic invertebrates report

3. TRW NEA fish fauna report-new UK-IE method

intercalibrate not possible :

1. CW BC1, BC6 and NEA 8 macroalgae and angiosperms) justification + review

6b 17:15 River intercalibration

- Progress Very Large Rivers

- Progress Northern GIG macrophytes

- Remaining issues

Wouter van de Bund

Progress report on Very large rivers

Progress report on Northern river macrophytes

15 October

6c 09:00 Lake intercalibration

- Overview

- CB Fish GIG final results

- Remaining issues

Sandra Poikane

Andreas Kolbinger

CB Lake Fish Intercalibration report + reviews

EastCont Phytoplankton and Macrophyte reports + reviews

09:30 Intercalibration: Justifications on the use of BQEs

6d Coastal water - Phytoplankton

Fuensanta Salas Joint paper on phytoplankton issue (only chl-a) + review

2

N Issue Presentation Documents

6e Transitional waters: Baltic GIG, benthic invertebrates

Fuensanta Salas Justification for not using benthic invertebrates + review

6f Lakes and rivers - phytobenthos

Sandra Poikane

Martyn Kelly

Report on phytobenthos issue

10:30 Coffee

7a

7b

11:00 Typology:

Brief info on CTRW

Brief info on freshwaters

Fuensanta Salas, Monika Peterlin

Anne Lyche Solheim, Sandra Poikane

Work progress report on CTRW typology

Freshwater typology report

Report on national typologies

8 11:30 Future CIS work programme

9 12:00 Other issues

3

Meeting Record1. Adoption of the agenda There were no comments on the agenda for the meeting.

2. Minutes of the previous meetingComments were received earlier in the week from RO, these have been taken into account already.

There were no further comments on the minutes from the previous ECOSTAT meeting.

3. ECOSTAT activity on nutrient standardsSandra Poikane (SP) introduced the work on nutrients to date. A study in 2011-2013 and a workshop in Birmingham, UK in 2013 identified a discrepancy among Member States (MS) with respect to nutrient boundaries. The links between nutrient boundaries and Biological Quality Elements (BQE) were also not clear. Meaningful conclusions were not possible at that time because of the different water body types used by MS. The first step was to identify consistent water body types; which has been completed.

Progress reports on current status of freshwater and saline water have been prepared. Further discussions will take place during an ECOSTAT nutrient workshop to be held in Berlin: 18-19 November 2015.

Nutrient work is one of the three main ECOSTAT tasks.

It is expected that the deliverable from this work will be guidance on how to use of nutrients for the assessment of ecological status.

DE commented that the aim presented for this work seems to differ from the original aim of the work. The original aim was to undertake information exchange and harmonization of nutrient standards. The aim presented was to achieve “consistent and comparable nutrient boundaries across Europe “. DE proposed that the wording be clarified in the reporting and this was agreed.

ACTION: Description of ECOSTAT nutrient work will follow the original mandate set during reporting and for the workshop in Berlin in November.

Nutrient work for freshwaters Geoff Phillips (GP)GP presented the approach and broad conclusions for the nutrient work on freshwater so far. The broad conclusions for this work are:

Relatively wide variation of boundary values; More variation for rivers than lakes; and, More variation for nitrogen than phosphorus.

GP presented comparison of boundary values with pressure response relationships from the intercalibration process. Few technical reports were found to contain sufficient information to allow prediction of boundary values, however:

There is a better relationship for lakes than rivers There is a better relationships for TP and for TN

4

The results reflect the variation in the reported boundary values

The work explored the use of different regression approaches and compared this with categorical approaches. Although regression and multivariate methods provide the best results, the categorical methods produce very similar values.

IE confirmed that the results presented were carried out for both total nitrogen and total phosphorus.

DE requested that comment from MS were included as an annex in the reporting as some of their comments had not been included. They consider some of their comments to be substantive, particularly with respect to the use of boxplots; they are concerned that this type of plot skews the results, particularly when ranking MS. GP confirmed that there had been discussion on the use of boxplots earlier on in the process, but at this late stage, it would not be possible to change the format of these results. GP did not think that an alternative format would produce substantially different conclusions. GP confirmed that it may be possible to include a few substantive comments as an annex, but not all comments from all MS.

ACTION: GP to edit the Freshwater report with final substantive comments that had not been included thus far. Delivery of the report within 1 month.

ACTION: All MS to raise any errors in the Freshwater nutrients report within the next 2 weeks with GP.

Nutrient work for saline waters Uli Claussen (UC)UC presented the progress on nutrient work for saline waters, including TRaC and marine waters. Main conclusions were:

Despite an excellent level of responses there is still a lack of data that makes the comparison challenging. In general these differences are:

o Different parameters are measured;o Different seasons are measured;o Huge variety in metrics used; and,o Less feedback for marine waters than for TRaC and coastal waters.

Most MS set type specific boundaries; Some MS have more than one boundary for one type as these are related to different levels

of salinity; Only 1 MS has set the same boundary for all types of waters; It is unclear from the data provided whether inorganic nitrogen and DIN are the same thing; A few countries show consistency in their boundaries i.e. boundaries that reflect increased

dilution from rivers to the sea i.e. declining metric boundaries; The methods used for setting the reference values is very heterogeneous across the

different MS; Use of pressure-response relationships: The extent to which these relationships have been

taken into account, and the amount of detail provided, is variable across MS.

NO highlighted that they were missing from the results presented even though they submitted a response. UC reminded the delegates that they are reliant on the responses provided in the questionnaires and not material that is published in any other source.

5

ACTION: UC to correct the omission of NO in the results.

The new comon types for saline water have not been included in this analysis to date but ALS felt that this information would be useful to the Commission even if the overall message wouldn’t change; this may also be a useful topic for discussion at the workshop in Berlin in November. The boundaries between Good and Moderate Ecological Status (GES and MES) have not been included in this analysis because the usual method for defining these is to simply add a certain percentage on top of the reference condition.

ACTION: All MS to provide high level comments in the next three weeks on the draft nutrient work for saline waters document including noting any errors or omission in the data presented.

ACTION: UC will distribute the expert list for nutrients to saline waters. All MS to confirm that this is the correct person to contact on this subject.

Note:

NL have sent their data twice but are still listed as not having been included. NL noted that OSPAR is considered separate in the Netherlands, so that may be why there doesn’t appear to be linked.

AP noted that both micrograms and milligrams are used in the document. Internal consistency and consistency with freshwater metrics would be helpful.

WVB posed the question “What should be the final product for the work on nutrient standards in the next CIS period? Is it appropriate to work towards harmonization of nutrient boundaries?”

AT, UK, ES and DE are of the opinion that harmonization is not possible:

There is a need to interpret the differences in the boundaries and the reasons for these differences i.e. use to downgrade Ecological Status or for risk assessment.

There is a need to clarify the purpose of such supporting elements. Guidance on how to derive good nutrient boundaries would be helpful. Typology must be used to achieve harmonization.

ES posited that nutrients should fall under the remit of the WG on Chemicals. WVB explained that nutrients are supporting elements for ecological status, and therefore have historically fallen under the remit of ECOSTAT and that, in any case, the resources available to WG Chemicals was insufficient to include nutrient work as well.

It was agreed that a realistic goal was guidance on nutrient standards rather than harmonization and that this needed to be detailed in the next CIS work programme. It was suggested by ALS that MS should use nutrient standards in the POMs and that this could be a discussion for the November workshop in Berlin.

Announcement of an additional conference next year: European conference on plastics in freshwater environments, Berlin, 21-22 June 2016. Four sessions:

Source and sinks Environmental concern Risk perceptions Management concerns

6

4a. Information Exchange on Good Ecological Potential: progress update, planning of further activities GEP activity summary Johan Kling (JK)JK presented the progress in the ECOSTAT GEP activity.

Designation of Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWB) across Europe is a combination of CIS methods, the Prague method, or a combination of the two. Very few MS are able to fully define the “wider environment” or “navigation and ports” or “equally important sustainable human development activities” and therefore identifying the risk of significant impact is also difficult to ascertain.

MS are currently struggling with the link between HyMo and ecology and measuring significant impact on water use. A few MS are also struggling with mitigation measures, i.e. their effectiveness and the ecological response time.

MS would like help with the issues above and they would like practical guidance.

Progress report on Drainage/Floods summary Martina Bussettini (MB)MB presented the progress in the GEP drainage/floods group.

All MS can detect the HyMo impacts of flood defence structures, even though not all MS have national HyMo assessment methods.

Most MS do not have a procedure for estimating Good Ecological Potential (GEP), therefore the relevant questions were not answered.

MB raised the following questions:

Was the questionnaire too technically difficult in relation to floods and drainage? Is there enough familiarity with the jargon regarding floods and drainage.

Some MS have a definition of drainage, but this is not consistent across Europe. Correspondingly, there is little on the significant impacts of drainage.

Responses on the questionnaires are still missing from a few Member States.

ACTION: Remaining MS please submit responses to the questions posed by ECOSTAT in relation to water storage, drainage and floods.

Good ecological potential in water bodies impacts by water storage across Europe Jo Halvard Halleraker (JHH)JHH presented the progress in the GEP water storage group

Water storage is a dominating factor across Europe, more than 5000 across Europe. Hydropower is the dominant purpose for reservoirs in Europe.

Working towards a harmonized understanding of GEP:

There is a need to achieve ecological improvements with little / no impact on water use There is a need to ensure ecological continuity (particularly for fish) The threshold for adverse effect cannot be that there is no effect allowable

7

There is now guidance on Eflows (CIS guidance no 31). Note that there is EFlows for natural water bodies and ‘GEP’-flows for HMWBs.

The project has defined terminology, impacts and conceptual links between HyMo alteration, BQE impacts and potential mitigation measures

Nine countries haven’t responded to the questionnaire to date. Responses from all MS is crucial to enable a full understanding of this topic.

Measures normally expected for reaching GEP can be grouped as follows:

Upstream continuity – Nearly all countries have this in place. This rarely has a significant adverse effect on water use.

Mitigate low flow – All countries include this. This mitigation has more common significant adverse effects on water use, particularly hydropower.

Downstream continuity Mitigation of variable flow

There is a common range of similar impacts recognized. Most countries have libraries of mitigation measures however, most countries have also found knowledge exchange of possible mitigation measure useful to identify more potential option. Most MS agree that GEP should not be a very bad situation, it should be suitable for fish.

Comparability is challenging for a number of reasons including:

The impacted scale that is considered important varies between MS Few MS have significant adverse effect on water storage level specified It is not known whether mitigation measures are the same as restoration measures and

could result in GES.

The report for this work will be completed in draft by the end of October.

ACTION: All MS to provide responses to the questionnaire by 20th November if this task hasn’t already been completed.

Another revision of the report, taking into account all MS responses, will be completed before Christmas. Comments will be required in the New Year and the final draft by the next ECOSTAT meeting in 2016.

ACTION: IE, SI and FR will send the completed templates through.

ACTION: RO and ES need the template to be resent to them. They will complete these and send back as soon as possible.

There was discussion on the planned content of the report. JHH confirmed that the report will contain an assessment of the common understanding and rules that MS use in their understanding of achieving GEP. This will include criteria for ruling out certain measures and identification of those MS that already follow these common rules.

ALS asked whether this process was really intercalibration. It was determined that this is harmonization and comparability; one step in the intercalibration process and all that has been possible given the available resources. A numerical boundary between GES and MES may never be

8

possible (DK) as this requires additional work on typologies. A lower numerical limit may be possible though.

SI asked about the process for such ‘harmonisation’ becoming an obligation on MS. Juan-Pablo Pertierra (JPP) said that the intention is that this work will result in decisions being made by the Commission. The precise legal process for this is currently unknown.

FR support the idea of knowledge transfer on this topic.

Lakes and TRaC waters still need to be addressed in the next CIS work programme – it will not be realistic to finalise in 2016.

4b. Reservoirs: Assessment methods used by MS for reservoirs S. Poikane (SP)Overview of biological assessment methods used for reservoirsThe ecological assessment of reservoirs has been neglected in WFD implementation. There is little common understanding of BQEs for reservoirs. The WFD states that the BQEs for reservoirs should be the same as for the most similar water bodies i.e. lakes in many cases, but not all.

Phytoplankton is used by 23 MS. For other BQEs, the usage is not very clear.

In reservoirs, eutrophication is often the only issue of concern.

Mediterranean GIG reservoirs, fish faunaSome countries, such as Portugal, exclude fish from their assessment of reservoirs. They may do this for a number of reasons, in particular, there may be a lack of reference sites in the country, fish may comprise many alien species, or the pressure-response may be unclear. Phytoplankton is often considered sufficient in these instances as the principle pressure is eutrophication.

PT were clear that their position opposes the results of the review. They believe that their decision to exclude fish and focus on phytoplankton is one that they can justify scientifically to the Commission.

There was considerable discussion on this topic. The main discussion points are summarised below:

This issue is wider than simply the issue faced by PT. Not all reservoirs are the same and therefore it should not be assumed that the BQEs for lakes will always be suitable. Sometimes the BQEs for rivers may be more suitable; or another method entirely.

It may be necessary to define typologies for reservoirs:o The expected ‘natural’ previous form of the reservoir i.e. lake or river, might be

helpful in determining the BQEso The current use of a reservoir may be useful in defining the BQEs that are potentially

useful and the specific ecological conditions that may be desirable for example, fish may be undesirable in a small reservoir that is used for drinking water or may not be present in the reference conditions in that location.

MS may benefit from knowledge exchange on this topic, a workshop may be helpful. For example, NO have developed a macrophytes index that is sensitive to water level fluctuations.

Where MS do not use the full composite of BQEs to assess their reservoirs, they should justify their position, with scientific evidence, to the Commission.

9

ACTION: This issue will be discussed further at the next ECOSTAT meeting.

5. Intercalibration of Ecological Status: overview of gaps and way forward (based on information collection from the MS) Wouter van de Bund (WVB)WVB introduced an overview of the process that ECOSTAT has carried out to understand the outstanding methods for intercalibration.

Next steps:

Gap 1: Current GIG work:

GIGs have to submit finalised intercalibration report: 1st July 2016 Final agreement by end 2016 Update of Commission Decision early 2017

Gap 2: intercalibrate of individual methods according to already published intercalibrate results

MS has to intercalibrate the methods according to the intercalibrate manual by the same deadlines as Gap 1.

Gap 3: Not possible to intercalibrate the method

Description of the assessment method Evaluation of the WFD compliance Description of the reason why the intercalibrate was not feasible (or refer to GIG support)

By the same dates as Gap 1 and 2.

Gap 4: Method not developed

Justification explaining why the development of the WFD compliant method was not feasible MS are encouraged to make common justifications where issues are shared

By the same dates as Gaps 1, 2 and 3.

ACTION: A template for reporting on the gaps will be provided to the MS within the next few weeks.

It was confirmed that whilst the current review panel comes to an end in November this year, another review panel will be in place in 2016.

ES raised the issue that once the gaps have been properly justified and accepted, that the topic needs to be closed. WVB and the JPP support this however, if the Commission are not satisfied that an issue has been properly justified, then the topic will not be closed until the proper scientific justification is provided. WVB encouraged all MS to provide scientific evidence to justify their positions.

ACTION: ES and ECOSTAT to review the position of ES and ensure that documentation correctly reflects the position.

DE and NL queried how to report methods that cannot be intercalibrated or haven’t yet been fully developed. There is concern regarding the programme for completing this task. Whilst it is desirable to have fully intercalibrated methods where this is not possible, for whatever reason,

10

justification is required. Where many countries face the same issue, for the same reason, justification may be provided jointly.

ACTION: A number of MS highlighted during the meeting that there is a need to make corrections the tables presented to update on progress. All MS need to contact JRC if there is information in the tables presented that is incorrect.

ACTION: Any queries or corrections to the tables presented in the meeting need to be provided to WVB by the end of next week.

6. Intercalibration of Ecological Status: progress, review, finalised results of ongoing work in the GIGs Fuensanta Salas (FS) and GIG experts6a. Coastal waters intercalibration overview, GIG results and reviewsBaltic Sea GIG Phytoplankton BC5 (LT, LV, PL): Chlorophyll-a boundary harmonisation is complete, the technical report has been provided and the results accepted. PL does not have the data to complete this task, so this is a gap. If PL have this data in the future, then they will have to ensure that they intercalibrate to the agreed method.

Baltic Sea GIG Macrophytes BC5 (LT, LV): Boundary harmonisation is complete, the technical report has been provided and the results accepted. PL does not have macrophytes to measure, therefore this is not a gap.

MED GIG Phytoplankton (IT, HR, SI): There was a significant problem defining the class boundaries for chlorophyll-a in Types shared by IT, HR, SI (this work was about establishing the common boundaries, not intercalibration). The boundaries were considered to be too high in the case of Type I and subsequently, this was altered. The JRC also requested further testing of the boundaries. This was also carried out. This work has now been accepted.

NEA GIG Benthic Invertebrates NEA1/26 (coastal waters): Ten different assessment methods had to be compared. Boundaries levels and reference values were all clearly defined by each MS. During evaluation, it became necessary to discriminate two sub-types for intercalibration (below and above 30 metres). Fisheries pressure was not investigated in this context because the data does not exist Couldn’t use one method of measurement was validated but could not be intercalibrated. Benchmark standardisation was undertaken, boundary harmonisation is complete, technical report was provide and results have accepted.

6a. cont. Transitional waters intercalibration overview, GIG results and reviewsNEA Fish – NEW UK-IE Method (UK and IE): A new updated method was intercalibrated following the intercalibration guidance for new methods. Compliance checking was positive. A good significant relationship between the pressure-impact was found. Harmonized and intercalibrated boundaries were possible at the end of the exercise. The Technical Report has been provided and results accepted.

MED GIG Phytoplankton: Only for polyhaline coastal lagoons was possible the Intercalibration. Spain has not developed methods for this common type. For the rest of common types was not possible the intercalibration due to few water bodies and stations for intercalibrating the methods.

11

Croatia has not developed method for Estuaries type. Benchmark standardisation was made through continuous benchmarking. General Linear Modelling was used to calculate offset values for the Intercalibration Common Metric. Boundary harmonisation is complete with some minor changes and technical report has been provided and results accepted.

MED GIG Benthic Invertebrates: Only for polyhaline restricted and mesohaline chocked coastal lagoons was possible the Intercalibration. Benchmark standardisation and boundary harmonisation is complete, the technical report has been provided and the results have been accepted. No enough data (low number of water bodies and/or stations) for the intercalibration of the common types “Coastal lagoons olighaline, poly-euhaline chocked” and Estuaries. Spain has not developed methods for the common types mesohaline and Poly-euhaline coastal lagoons.

Review of where intercalibration has not been possibleMacroalgae and angiosperms: data and sites available but intercalibration is still not possible. Compliance checking is positive and justifications have been accepted by the review panel:

SE data mainly represents high status, FI present a range; No common metric; and, Methods focus on different macrophtye species.

Coastal and transitional waters: remaining issues NEA GIG Coastal Waters Phytoplankton harmonization of Chlorophyll-a boundaries NEA GIG Transitional Waters Phytoplankton harmonization of Chlorophyll-a boundaries NEA GIG Coastal and transitional waters, Seagrassess and saltmarshes: Comparable analyses

is complete. A draft report will be distributed to MS for discussion very soon. Expected final report in November. Intercalibration work will start end-October; expected results end-2015 or early-2016.

NEA GIG Coastal Waters Benthic Invertebrates (Common type 34) pressure-response is currently relying on literature review only and benchmarking will start soon.

NEA GIG Transitional Waters Benthic Invertebrates – Compliance check is positive. Pressure-impact response relationship hasn’t been found. The work failed to find data with similar pressure levels so bench marking failed. Expert judgement is currently used for assigning sites as GES or HES. More data and investigation is needed and this is in progress.

The UK stressed the importance of stabilising the phytoplankton data as soon as possible as the changes alter the class boundaries significantly. The UK also deem it important to take natural variability into account, the 0.25 limit may be too ambitious. They also have concern regarding the timeline, the end of the year may be too ambitious; national experts need time to react to the conclusions. The UK also would like clarity on the methods for saltmarshes as soon as possible in order to justify actions to those they regulate.

With respect to MED GIG Transitional Waters Fish, IT developed and has validated a method. GR has finished compiling a dataset. ECOSTAT urgently need to know if GR will adopt IT’s method.

ACTION: GR will contact FS regarding the transitional water fish method.

MED GIG Coastal waters phytoplankton common type III-E (GR and CY): No communication has been received from either EL or CY.

12

ACTION: GR and CY to contact FS regarding Coastal waters phytoplankton common type III-E

6b. River intercalibration Wouter van de Bund (WVB)Progress report on Northern GIG macrophytesWork ongoing, should complete as planned.

Progress report on Very large rivers Phytobenthos: MS level gaps, common effort Benthic fauna: Intercalibration ongoing in GIGs, a few MS have no method. This should be

finalised by the end 2015 Phytoplankton: Intercalibration ongoing, but many MS do not use BQE. Fish fauna: most MS have methods, intercalibration planned in the GIGs but still has to

start. Should finalise in this year. Macrophytes: not many MS with method, Intercalibration unlikely in this phase – too few

methods, no coordinator or view on use of macrophytes in large rivers.

ACTION: CY and EL raised queries regarding inputs relating to their countries in the tables presented. WVB to discuss bilaterally to ensure that no mistakes have been made.

Note:

The large river group has a lot of work still to do. MS are requested to provide DE with the support they need to complete the task.

6c. Lake intercalibration overview Sandra Poikane (SP) Alpine GIG: all intercalibration finalised; Central Baltic GIG – all intercalibration except fish fauna finalised; East Continental GIG: Phytoplankton, macrophytes, benthic in progress (fish fauna not

started as no methods developed); Mediterranean GIG: Phytoplankton for reservoirs finalised, other BQEs intercalibration not

possible; and, Northern GIG: all intercalibration finalised (except bilateral comparison of fish methods

between Norway and Sweden).

Central Baltic Fish GIG final Results and remaining issuesThe Intercalibration faced several major challenges:

Huge geographic range; Different methods; and, No biological common metric and therefore intercalibration with a non-biological common

metric was developed:o Total Anthropogenic Pressure Index (TAPI) split into two pressure groups made up of

32 metrics: Eutrophication Hydromorphological

The reporting has been finalised. Eight of 11 MS have intercalibrated.

Note:

13

LV and the UK did not participate in the intercalibration because they had no data or too small a dataset respectively. The method for Belgium is valid and compliant but no significant pressure-response relationship was found.

The UK highlighted ongoing work to improve their data; reviewing methods from IE and NL for use in the UK and testing the suitability of new approaches such as eDNA.

Intercalibration: justifications on the use of BQEs6d. Coastal Water – Phytoplankton Fuensanta SalasIs it acceptable to focus the assessments on chlorophyll-a only?

FS described the expert position provided in the justification:

Bloom frequency and composition indicators are available but these carrying inherent uncertainty with respect to the way they react to changing nutrient levels. Therefore such indicators are not operational for setting boundaries according to the WFD;

Chlorophyll-a used as a proxy for phytoplankton biomass is the most precise indictor and is most sensitive to nutrient pressure; and,

Efforts should be directed towards improving the sampling and analysis procedure for phytoplankton to reduce sources of uncertainty, and new cost-effective techniques for monitoring phytoplankton should be considered.

The justification for the exclusion of phytoplankton composition and/or bloom frequency has now been accepted by the review panel.

DE cannot support the view of the experts in this case as they have developed indicators of bloom frequency and species composition. DE requested to know whether the Commission would support the review panels conclusions. The NL highlighted that if chlorophyll-a is the only metric that is intercalibrated then perhaps MS will stop recording anything else.

The UK uses both cell counts and chlorophyll-a but suggests a need for the group to be pragmatic regarding what is possible to intercalibrate. WVB concurred, highlighting the need to separate compliance and intercalibration in this discussion.

JPP expects a final position of the group on the basis of the scientific adviceand expressed concern on other BQEs and/or other BQEs components that may be dropped by MS . It is apparent that the sampling frequency requirements for chlorophyll-a need to be revisited. JPP also considers it prudent to finish this intercalibration exercise and then revisit this discussion.

There was considerable discussion regarding:

The legal ramifications if all MS agree to support this paper; Clarity on what the Commission’s decision might be; Clarity on what the MS are supporting by publicly agreeing to this paper; and, The requirement to reach such agreement soon, in order to continue intercalibration work

by the required deadlines.

DECISION: The group agreed that they can support this document from a scientific perspective only. JPP agreed to raise this issue from a political and legal perspective in the SCG.

14

6e. Transitional Waters: Baltic GIG, benthic invertebrates Fuensanta Salas

The original expert position was that the lagoons are characterized by low species diversity and predominance of low salinity tolerant species, therefore this cannot be used to identify reduction in ecological status.

The JRC and review panel did not accept this position and recommended that MS improve the use of the data in order to find pressure gradients (following the intercalibration guidance).

MS (LV and PL) agreed to alter monitoring frequency and location in order to get the data that will enable the intercalibrate to be completed. This will influence the time in which they will be able to complete the intercalibration process but the JRC are content with this way forward. This remains a gap.

PL asked how the altered monitoring strategy would help as they understood the lagoons in question were homogenous in character; additional data would not show a gradient any better. FS confirmed that the PL experts were the ones to identify this solution and that it was the sampling location that needed to be improved. Whilst the intercalibration process will continue to review other methods of analysing the data until December 2015, it is expected that new data will be required and the intercalibration process will have to continue into the next phase of ECOSTAT work.

6f. Lakes and rivers – phytobenthos Sandra Poikane (SP) and Martyn Kelly (MK)SP presented the overview for “Macrophytes and phytobenthos”:

All countries, except Germany, have separate methods for this one BQE;o Rivers: 23 phytobenthos methods are intercalibrated, others have plans to

intercalibrate;o Lakes:

10 countries have phytobenthos intercalibrated methods; Some countries have argued that phytobenthos assessment is unnecessary

(AT, EE, EL, LV, NO, NL and ES); Other countries have methods in development.

The WFD states that MS can exclude a BQE if the range of natural variability prevents its use or if the MS can demonstrate that the impact of existing pressure can be properly identified using only the remaining component. This paper has been developed to inform this technical discussion.

Martyn Kelly (MK) presented the results of the paper developed, summarized below:

When is a BQE redundant?o Redundancy exists if the two sub elements are each classifying 80% of water bodies

in the same way, the remaining 20% should be no more than 1 class away from one another;

o Macrophytes are the more stringent element. Phytobenthos (and phytoplankton) and jointly second most stringent. Therefore fairly low risk of missing an impacted lake.

Is it enough to include filamentous algae in macrophyte assessments?

15

o Macro algae, in the UK example, do contribute to the assessment. It may be said that they contribute a ‘phytobenthos element’ to the macrophyte assessment.

Given the results above, why use phytobenthos in assessment?o Better indicators of nutrient effects in littoral zones where macrophytes are

compromised by strong hydrologic pressure;o Macrophytes can be poor metrics where communities are naturally species poor;o Phytobenthos is more sensitive at detecting hotspots;o Phytobenthos are more sensitive to acidification, particularly in low alkalinity lakes;

and,o Phytobenthos responds more rapidly to environmental changes than macrophytes.

Conclusions:

There is a low risk of MS that do not have a phytobenthos method missing impacted lakes;

MS which include macro algae in macrophytes assessment are in compliance with normative definition; and,

There are several benefits to lake management from the use of phytobenthos.

ACTION: MK to check whether the macrophyte methods in the analysis included macro algae.

The group were very interested in the results of this preliminary assessment and wanted more detailed conclusions and recommendations from the work. However, MK and SP are keen that the data that informs any European-wide recommendations and conclusions is more wide-ranging than what has been used to date. In particular, there are few data from the Mediterranean region. NO highlighted that they has a macro algae method for rivers and that perhaps this might inform the development of a macro algae method for lakes.

ACTION: All MS to provide high level comments on this report by 1st December 2015. MS should lso indicate whether they would like to attend a workshop on this topic. Where possible, MS should also get in touch with MK and SP if they are able to provide scientific evidence and data as to why, a) they include both macrophytes and phytobenthos in their assessments, or b) they do not include either macrophytes or phytobenthos in their assessments.

DE and HU highlighted several reasons for their support of the use of multiple BQEs:

The WFD aspires to an ecosystem approach; reliance on only one BQE does not achieve this. The use of phytobenthos provides additional information on the temporal scale of pressures,

particularly short-term pressures. NO highlighted that early warning systems in ecology are useful to prevent long-term damage.

Phytobenthos is more sensitive to eutrophication and macrophytes are a better indicator of general degradation, hence their joint use is beneficial for management.

AT support the report and the use of macrophytes only. AT highlighted the importance of aiming to restore ecosystems, not just to classify them. Hence, the only indicators required are those that allow the pressures to be identified and mitigated. They also highlighted that all additional monitoring must bring added value.

SP and JPP reiterated that MS need to justify, supported as far as possible with scientific evidence, their choice to not use phytobenthos in their assessments. The purpose of this work has been to

16

gather evidence on this topic to determine the scientific justification of this choice and whether Key Principle 7 is true i.e. “the impacts of the existing pressures are being sufficiently detected by that [remaining] component.”. However, the dataset gathered does not yet cover enough MS to draw conclusions with confidence.

Typology7a. Brief information on coastal and transitional waters

Fuensanta SalasFS presented an update on the progress of the work developing Broad Types (BT) from National Typologies (NT) for coastal and transitional waters.

Coastal waters:o NE Atlantic: 66% of NT into 10 BT;o Mediterranean: 48% NT into 4 BT; ando Baltic and Black Sea: No BTs.

Transitional Waters: o 13 BT reported

Next steps:

ACTION: All MS to provide comments on the results; Link intercalibrate types to nutrient standards; Link BT, intercalibrated types and NT with other Directives; Produce maps to support communication, including data such as (MS will be contacted if this

data is not already held):o National typeso Intercalibrate typeso National types / biological elementso MSFD GIS layerso Regional seas boundarieso River basin catchmentso Information of typology and links of NT to common intercalibrate types

JPP highlighted the importance of the work to connect the different Directives.

7b. Brief information on freshwaters Anne Lyche Solheim and Sandra PoikaneThe work on typology for freshwaters is now complete, the comments received early in the year have been incorporated into the report which, is now published. The report presents:

Type specific assessment: not been possible before now, so this is a significant step forward. Comparison of ecological status and conservation status: a significant challenge. Worth

noting that FI use the WFD in their assessment of freshwater ecosystem structure and function to inform their conservation status assessments – this may be a good way forward for other MS.

20 BT rivers include 575 NT (87% WBs in Europe); 15 BT lakes including 290 NT (73% lake WBs in Europe);

17

All common intercalibrate types can be linked to a BT for rivers and lakes; There is a good match between BT and the Habitats Directive lake habitats, for rivers, it is

more difficult to link to habitats; and, Several important applications are possible for European assessments.

It is critical that countries stick to the typologies outlined in this assessment for the next RBMP. Where countries plan on making changes, these changes must be incorporated into this document.

ACTION: PO, CZ, HU, CY and possibly UK may change their NT. FR will check that their typologies are correct. These MS must make the necessary changes in the Excel spreadsheet that will be sent out to them by 1st November. FI may also make a very minor change. Responses are required by 1st December (UK expressed concern over this date; January is the latest that changes can be accepted without causing problems to the analysis).

There are a number of further steps to consider:

WFD reporting guidance asks for a NT and link to intercalibrate type for each water bodyo What to do for NT with no link to any intercalibrate type?

WFD reporting guidance does not ask for typology factor, only reference to NT documentso It is difficult/impossible for ETC/EEA to review every NT document from every MS.

ALS expressed disappointment that ES and DK are not included in the report on NT. ES confirmed that they do not think it possible to include their NT due to the method they used to develop them. DK confirmed that they do participate for lakes, but are unable to participate for rivers. However, DK do intend to participate for the 3rd RBMP round.

IT confirmed that like ES, they used method B not A for determining their NT and therefore, the translation to BT is not perfect. They has concerns regarding the upscaling process in particular. However, they have been able to participate in the process and the report has a disclaimer to highlight such issues. Chapter 2.1 of the REFORM project may be informative on this topic.

8. Future CIS work programme Juan-Pablo PertierraJPP described the draft work programme for the period 2016-2018. The draft programme document was circulated previously, with a deadline for comment: 9th October 2015. Some comments have also been received this week.

The group discussed the proposed main tasks:

Complete Intercalibration of Good Ecological Status (particularly for coastal and transitional waters)

Intercalibration of Good Ecological Potential Continuation on the work on nutrients, establishment of consistent and comparable

boundaries

DECISION: There was agreement from the group that these three main tasks were suitable.

The group discussed the proposed ‘other’ tasks (discussion points in italics):

Presentation of ecological status results (comparability and enhancing progress)ALS requested confirmation of what this task means in practice. It was determined that ECOSTAT and the ETC need to discuss this task to ensure that there is no duplication of effort.

18

ACTION: ALS to raise this request for dialogue at the next meeting in Berlin.

Information exchange on litter in aquatic environments (linked to D10, MSFD)There was uncertainty expressed to the relevance of this discussion to the ECOSTAT group. It was suggested that the WG Chemicals could cover this item.

Contributions to the update of the Commission's Decision on MSFD Good Environmental StatusThe Commission needs support ensuring that synergies between the WFD and MSFD are properly considered. ECOSTAT do not feel that the group contains the correct composition of experts in the marine environment in order to support the Commission fully. It was suggested that this bullet should be re-phrased, to represent the need for support in identifying the synergies between the two directives without the implicit expectation that ECOSTAT would be able to provide complete technical support on MSFD issues. It was suggested that a regular (yearly?) joint meeting to facilitate cross-working on WFD and MSFD may be suitable detail to add to the work programme.

Recommendations on biological monitoring methods, including on biological monitoring methods for which harmonisation is needed and where standardisation is possible, and on which standardised methods should be added to Annex V 1.3.6 of the WFD (development of new WFD relevant standards through the work of the CEN Technical Committee 230 Working Group “Biological and Ecological Methods). The group was happy with the inclusion of this task.

Exchange of information ono Nutrient standards and EQS for River Basin Specific Pollutants (RBSPs) o Physio-chemical standardso Harmonized standards for RBSPso Approaches to combine BQE and WB classification level (dealing with uncertainty)

It is not clear how ECOSTAT would be able to assist with the specific topics highlighted for information exchange. The expertise on RBSP (even where nutrients might have a toxic influence on biota) is not held within this group. Instead it rests in the WG chemicals. Obviously, the results of the work by WG Chemicals will influence ecological status assessment though. It was suggested that this task was rephrased, to be less specific and instead encourage dialogue between the two groups generally.

Issues specific to coastal and transitional waters.The inclusion of this task was not explicitly discussed

Scaling/delineation of water bodies: Issue related to status monitoring and assessment, but also critical impact assessment, non-deterioration and exemptionsThe inclusion of this task was not explicitly discussed

The group raised the importance of HyMo in the future tasks for ECOSTAT:

AT suggested that the final main task should actually be for all supporting elements and therefore would include both nutrients and HyMo.

19

RO considered HyMo to be a wider consideration than simply for ECOSTAT and that HyMo should form a group that would report directly to SCG and would be heavily supported by ECOSTAT (and therefore form an ‘other’ task).

There was concern that the list of tasks was too long and that prioritization exercise would be necessary. The UK suggested that the tasks could be split into a) ECOSTAT activities and b) a list of activities that ECOSTAT will do to support SCG. Then prioritization could be carried out.

A number of important items are not currently included in the draft programme (discussion points in italics):

Ensure good coordination among other related directives (HB, MSFD, Biodiversity strategyThe group agreed that this should be added to the ‘other tasks’ list.

Contribution to D5 MSFD on eutrophication (make it more explicit into the COM Dec) DK asked where climate change effects on elements was considered. NL suggested that knowledge exchange on best practice in monitoring and use on new

techniques such as eDNA would be helpful. NL volunteered to lead this other task.

Programme

New version of the work plan will be drafted for discussion at the SCG meeting 9-10 th November

Final amendments will be made for submission to Water Directors in November

9. Other issuesNo issues were raised.

20

List of registered participants

First Name Last Name

Christine ARGILLIERJens ARLEIvana BEDERKOVAJappe BEEKMANMorten BROZEKTom BUIJSEMartina BUSSETTINIColin BYRNEGabriel CHIRIACUli CLAUSSENFrançois DARCHAMBEAUCecile DELATTRESzilvia DÃ �VIDSebastian DÖBBELT-GRÃœNEGerald DÖRFLINGERSTEFANIA ERBAWim GABRIELSPrzemyslaw GRUSZECKIEleanor HALLJO HALVARD HALLERAKERKatarina HOLUBOVAANDERS IVERSENIlse JONKERGraziella JULAIfigeneia KAGALOUIvan KAROTTKIMartyn KELLYJohan KLINGAndreas KOLBINGERMaria LAZARIDOUMarek LISKAPaul LOGANglenn MAASJoa MADEIRAlaura MANCINIstefania MARCHEGGIANIAnne Christine MEAASAlison MILESMariarita MINCIARDICarole MOLITORValerija MUSIC

21

Gisela OFENBOECKLibuse OPATRILOVARoger OWENPiotr PANEKmarina PENNAJUAN-PABLO PERTIERRAGeoff PHILLIPSAnsa PILKEJo-Anne PITTSandra POIKANECarole PONSAudrone PUMPUTYTERune RAUN-ABILDGAARDYorick REYJOLHENRIK RYE JAKOBSENMaria Fuensanta SALAS HERREROjavier SANCHEZ MARTINEZSteinar SANDÖYAnne Lyche SOLHEIMIgor STANKOVIĆInger STAUBOJonas SVENSSONBenedetta TRABUCCOIrja TRUUMAAElena TUCHIUGorazd URBANICWouter VAN DE BUNDmarcel VAN DEN BERGGert VAN HOEYClaudia VENDETTIAndrea ZAGYVA

22