1. Summary overview of methods used to define GEP in practice by countries represented in the ad-hoc group
Dr. Ursula Schmedtje

2. Countries participating in the ad-hoc group and questionnaire on GEP
Country
rivers
lakes
transitional w.
coastal w.
Austria √
Belgium
France
Germany
Italy
(√)
Netherlands ?
Norway
Slovenia
Spain
United Kingdom
Dr. Ursula Schmedtje / ECOSTAT Hydromorphology Workshop / June 2012

3. Questions & answers Uses to which HMWB designation was applied:
flood protection (AT, BE, DE, IT, UK)
storage (AT, BE, DE, IT, UK)
land drainage (BE, DE, IT, UK)
navigation (BE, DE, ES, UK)
mining (DE)
recreation (DE)
urbanisation (DE, UK)
Pre-specified list of potential adverse impacts for which mitigation should be sought:
yes (AT, NL and UK)
no (FR, IT, ES)
unclear (BE)
National or regional lists of mitigation measures for potential impacts established:
yes (AT, DE, NL, UK, IT – only for min. flow)
no/not yet (FR, ES)
Dr. Ursula Schmedtje / ECOSTAT Hydromorphology Workshop / June 2012

4. Questions & answers
Format of definition of mitigation measures in the lists:
qualitative (AT, DE, ES, UK)
quantitative (AT, IT, NL, UK)
unclear (BE, FR)
Basis for any case-specific exclusion of mitigation:
no significant ecological benefits (AT, DE, UK)
no adverse impacts (UK)
significant impact on wider environment AT, UK)
significant impact on use (AT, FR, UK)
unclear (BE, IT, NL, ES)
GEP requires all non-excluded mitigation to be in place
yes (IT, NL, ES, UK)
no (DE)
Dr. Ursula Schmedtje / ECOSTAT Hydromorphology Workshop / June 2012

5. Questions & answers
Detailed information available on actual mitigation measures implemented or planned for reaching GEP
yes (ES, UK partially)
no/not yet (AT, IT, NL)
unclear (BE, FR, DE)
Biological numeric targets defined for hydromorphology related quality
yes (AT, BE, DE, NL, ES)
no (FR, IT, UK)
Basis for derivation of biological target values for hydromorphology related quality
based on predicted ecological effects of mitigation measures (AT, BE, DE, NL, ES)
derived from comparable sites at MEP (DE)
based on good status values for closest comparable water body type (ES)
not applicable (FR, IT, UK)
Dr. Ursula Schmedtje / ECOSTAT Hydromorphology Workshop / June 2012

6. Questions & answers
Biological metrics with values set for hydromorphology related quality
fish (AT, BE, DE, NL)
benthic invertebrates (AT, BE, DE, NL)
macrophytes and phytobenthos (NL)
phytoplankton (ES)
not applicable (FR, IT, UK)
Specific hydromorphological modification (pressures) to which each metric responds?
unclear in all replies or no information provided
Biological target values set for non-hydromorphology related quality (e.g. pollution)
yes (AT, UK)
unclear (BE, FR, DE, IT, NL, ES)
Dr. Ursula Schmedtje / ECOSTAT Hydromorphology Workshop / June 2012

7. Questions & answers
Basis for derivation of target values for non-hydromorphology quality
good ecological status methods with limited sensitivity to hydromorphological alterations (AT, UK)
all other replies: unclear
Metrics with values set for non-hydromorphology related quality:
phytoplankton, phytobenthos, invertebrates, specific pollutants, phys.-chem. QEs (AT, UK)
unclear in all other replies
Dr. Ursula Schmedtje / ECOSTAT Hydromorphology Workshop / June 2012

8. Thank you for your attention.
Dr. Ursula Schmedtje / ECOSTAT Hydromorphology Workshop / June 2012