1. CIS guidance document on E-Flows
Elaboration of
CIS guidance document on E-Flows
Spain DG Environment
Victor Arqued Thomas Petitguyot
SCG meeting
5th November 2014 1

2. Eflows in the CIS work programme
Deliverable: Guidance on Ecological Flows (Eflow) by 2014
Description: A guidance on ecological parameters/ecological flows and hydrological parameters for assessing quantitative aspects (the volume and level or rate of flow) and the link to GES are defined, allowing for an assessment of pressures from all abstractions and climate change.
Leads: COM, ES and FR
Interlinkages with other WGs: Ecostat, Floods, Groundwater, Programme of Measures, Agriculture and Water Accounts work under KID cluster

3. Recent steps
SCG meeting 1/10: support to the revision of the scope of the guidance, to the working definition (V3.1) and to the working process
New version of the draft guidance (V3.2) circulated to SCG + WG Eflows on 9/10  written comments requested by 16/10
Consultation of WG ECOSTAT (in written + discussion 23/10)
Meeting WG Eflows 24/10: agreement on changes to be made
New draft version circulated on 27/10 to SCG

4. Comments received on the last drafts
Tables
(21)
• AT
• BE (Fl)
• DE
• FI (Agency) • FR
• IT (Ministry and Agency)
• LV
• NO
• PL
• RO
• SE
• SI (Water Institute and Environment Agency)
• UK (Environment Agency)
• UK (Scotland)
• CIS WG on GW
• CEEP
• ESHA
• Eureau
• Eurelectric
s with general comments
• CZ
• FI (Ministry)
• SK
• COPA COGECA
• Navigation task force
Corrections on MS legislation from
• DK
• HU
• IS

5. Consultation of WG on Groundwater
Contribution received during summer
Discussed in WG meeting  comments on the new drafts
Exchanges between co-leads + one member common to the 2 WG
Many specific inclusions to clarify to linkages
Functioning of water systems - contribution of GW to river flows
Assessment of GW status
Measures on GW abstractions

6. Consultation of WG ECOSTAT
Focused on parts specifically relevant to ECOSTAT:
4.1 Hydrological regime in ecological status assessment
6.1. The need for combining biological and hydrological monitoring
9. Heavily modified water bodies and exemptions
Basis: written comments provided in the template
Only 2 replies from WG ECOSTAT members  also on issues raised by WG Eflows members

7. 4.1 Hydrological regime in ecological status assessment
How to address failures in existing biological methods in most MS to reflect hydrological alterations
"For other status classes, because biological assessment methods developed so far in most of the Member States are to a large extent insensitive to hydrological pressures, available monitoring data on hydrological regime should be carefully considered when assigning the ecological status to a water body subject to hydrological alteration; evidence of severe hydrological alteration, when not reflected in the status of biological quality elements, should be reflected in the overall classification of ecological status either by downgrading the overall status or the level of confidence attached to the assessment results"
 Supported; can be regarded as an addendum to the CIS guidance n°13 on classification

8. 4.1 Hydrological regime in ecological status assessment
Recommendation for further developments of biological methods should aim at providing metrics more specifically sensitive to hydrological pressures
 Strong support; should be further stressed with mention of flow component that should be reflected and example of relevant fish metrics (age&size population structure)

9. 6.1 The need for combining biological and hydrological monitoring
 No particular comment

10. 9. HMWB and exemptions
Possible conflicts with further work to be developped in WG ECOSTAT on GEP
Only basic messages, stemming from CIS guidance n°4 and considerations on Eflows developped for natural WB
No definition of flow required for GEP, no specification of expected mitigation measures
No identification of any possible conflict
Some expressions of opposition to the principle
"As a result, depending of the severity of morphological alteration, the hydrological regime consistent with GEP may be very close to the ecological flows that would have been required in the same water body before its morphological modification."
 Use "the nature and the severity"

11. Discussion in WG Eflows 24/11
53 participants
Focussed on the substance of the guidance
Basis: compilation of written comments received (377) with COM proposed follow-up + working document
Discussion chapter by chapter incl. pending issues/ further steps

12. Discussion in WG Eflows 24/11
Outcome: agreement achieved on the substance of the draft guidance (V4.1 drafted accordingly, changes to V3.2 in TC)
1 pending issue: some MS requested deletion of the underlined sentence in section 4.1:
"Where biological assessment methods sensitive to hydrological pressures have not been developed and implemented yet, monitoring results of biological quality elements alone are not sufficient to guarantee that hydrological pressures have no significant impact of water body status as normatively defined by Annex V 1.2 of the WFD. This potential flaw is particularly important to be considered in situations where all biological quality elements indicate a good status whereas data on hydrological pressures, and/or data from hydrological monitoring indicate that the water body is subject to a significant alteration of the flow regime. It is recommended that these conflicting situations be reflected in the overall classification of ecological status either by downgrading the overall status or the level of confidence attached to the assessment results. In this case, biological information may be combined with information on habitats (quality, quantity and distribution)".

13. SCG is invited to
- provide information (for those who have not yet done it) in order to complete Annex B on MS legislation (1) and Eflows methodologies (2) - discuss and agree on the open issue - agree to forward this document for endorsement by the Water Directors at their next meeting in Rome on November