4
EAU ET MILIEUX AQUATIQUES 11-12 June, Pa ris CIS workshop : assessment of the ecologica l status. CIS workshop 11&12 June 2007 - Paris national classification systems for the assessment of ecological status of surface waters 50 participants from 18 countries + EC 11 presentations : DGENV, Austria, Estonia, Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, UK, France 3 sessions : ecological significance and combination of the biological quality elements role and place of the physico-chemical elements effect of aggregation, uncertainty, confidence & precision

50 participants from 18 countries + EC

  • Upload
    admon

  • View
    38

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

CIS workshop – 11&12 June 2007 - Paris national classification systems for the assessment of ecological status of surface waters. 50 participants from 18 countries + EC 11 presentations : DGENV, Austria, Estonia, Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, UK, France - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: 50 participants from 18 countries + EC

EAU ET MILIEUX AQUATIQUES

11-12 June, Paris

CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status.

CIS workshop – 11&12 June 2007 - Paris national classification systems for the

assessment of ecological status of surface waters

50 participants from 18 countries + EC 11 presentations : DGENV, Austria, Estonia, Czech Republic, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, UK, France 3 sessions :

ecological significance and combination of the biological quality elements role and place of the physico-chemical elements effect of aggregation, uncertainty, confidence & precision

Page 2: 50 participants from 18 countries + EC

EAU ET MILIEUX AQUATIQUES

CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status.11-12 June, Paris

General principles set in the guidance are valid

Differencies in implementing in practice the guidance

Part of those differencies is coming from different levels of maturity

How to ensure the comparability of MS approach for classification

Focus on practical aspects Selection of QE can influence the

results of the classification

Page 3: 50 participants from 18 countries + EC

EAU ET MILIEUX AQUATIQUES

CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status.11-12 June, Paris

Main conclusion

State of play : different approaches and methods within national classification systems (aggregation of data, combination of QE, automatic OOAO on BQE, use of expert judgement, place of chemistry…)

Therefore, despite the huge ongoing work in the frame of IC, we have no final guarantee of « comparable levels of ambition » between MS

Page 4: 50 participants from 18 countries + EC

EAU ET MILIEUX AQUATIQUES

CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status.11-12 June, Paris

Possible follow-up

Need for common views about the classification : « complement » to the classification guidance (in the frame of ECOSTAT activity 4) ?

If agreement, the complement could be based on practical case-studies, in 3 directions :

How to ensure comparability between MS whereas different QE can be used for the classification ??

How to manage risks of misclassification (combination of biological elements, checking procedure for chemistry) ?

How to better communicate about the results of the final assessment ?