1. A Practical Approach: The General Physico-Chemical Quality Elements and the Classification of Ecological Status

2. Classify as moderate status Classify on the basis of the biological deviation from reference conditions? Is the deviation moderate? Yes No Classify as poor status Is the deviation major? Yes Classify as bad status Greater Classify as high status Do the estimated values for the biological quality elements meet reference conditions? Yes Do the physico- chemical conditions meet high status? Yes Do the hydro- morphological conditions meet high status? Yes Do the estimated values for the biological quality elements deviate only slightly from reference condition values? Yes Classify as good status Do the physico-chemical conditions (a) ensure ecosystem functioning and (b) meet the EQSs for specific pollutants? Yes No

3. Also needed for applying appropriate controls on discharges Establish type-specific levels or ranges Should be as ecologically- relevant as current knowledge permits Suggested Practical Approach

4. Levels or ranges may not be right first time – either more or less stringent than required Use a checking procedure to test and improve the levels or ranges Try and finalise checking procedure in time to design measures and classify water bodies

5. Classify water bodies as moderate status (at best) where the level or range is exceeded….. Good status range Range exceeded …..except where the checking procedure indicates the range or level is more stringent than required

6. Classify as moderate status Classify on the basis of the biological deviation from reference conditions? Is the deviation moderate? Yes No Classify as poor status Is the deviation major? Yes Classify as bad status Greater Classify as high status Do the estimated values for the biological quality elements meet reference conditions? Yes Do the physico- chemical conditions meet high status? Yes Do the hydro- morphological conditions meet high status? Yes Do the estimated values for the biological quality elements deviate only slightly from reference condition values? Yes Classify as good status Do the physico-chemical conditions (a) ensure ecosystem functioning and (b) meet the EQSs for specific pollutants? Yes No

7. Do the specific pollutant quality elements meet the EQSs set in accordance with Annex V 1.2.6? Are the levels or ranges established for the general physico-chemical exceeded? Do the physico-chemical conditions (a) ensure ecosystem functioning and (b) meet the EQSs for specific pollutants? Yes Classify as good status No Does the checking procedure indicate that the established levels or ranges for the type are more stringent than required to ensure the functioning of the ecosystem and the achievement of the good status values for the biological quality elements? Yes Classify as moderate status No Learning process Revise the type-specific levels or ranges as appropriate Improve biological methods if appropriate

8. Are the biological methods being used in monitoring sensitive to changes in the condition of the physico-chemical quality element? Do the results of monitoring or other evidence indicate that the functioning of the ecosystem is unimpaired by the exceedance of the established range or level? Classify water bodies exceeding the established level or range as moderate status or worse No Yes No Is there likely to be a delay before the biological effects of the range or level being exceeded are reflected in the biological monitoring results? Yes Revise established level or range appropriately No Revise and improve biological methods as appropriate No The level or range established for a general physico-chemical quality element is being exceeded in water bodies in the type but monitoring results for the biological quality elements are better than moderate status Yes Do not classify the water bodies as less than good because of the level or range being exceeded

9. Warning As identified by the ECOSTAT Working Group: The checking procedure should not be applied in a way that fails to guarantee at least the same level of protection as that provided by existing Community legislation, in accordance with paragraph 9 of Article 4. In this respect, particular consideration should be given to the standards applicable to Protected Areas

10. The level or range established for a general physico-chemical quality element is not being exceeded but there is evidence of ecological impacts resulting from anthropogenic changes to that general physico-chemical quality element Is there evidence that the functioning of ecosystems within the type have been impaired as a result of anthropogenic alterations to the condition of the general physico- chemical quality element? in a significant number of cases in the water body type Has the condition of a biological quality element been found to be less than good as a result of anthropogenic alterations to the condition of the general physico- chemical quality element in a significant number of cases in the water body type? The level or range established for the type does not ensure the functioning of the ecosystem Revise established level or range appropriately Yes The level or range established for the type does not ensure the achievement of the good status values specified for the biological quality elements Revise established level or range appropriately Yes Do not revise type- specific levels or ranges No

11. The checking procedure should gradually refine the values or levels to improve their ecological relevance As well as ensuring appropriate classification, the checking procedure should help Member States improve the regulation of discharges Summary A checking procedure is proposed to ensure that the levels or ranges established for the general physico-chemical quality elements are as ecologically-relevant as possible