1 Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Aims of the intercomparison
1.3 Purpose and scope of the report
1.4 Structure of report
2 Questionnaire on Intercomparison of Ecological Potential
2.1 Scope of questionnaire
2.2 Structure of the intercomparison questionnaire
2.3 Responses from European countries
3 Examples/case studies on intercomparison of ecological potential for rivers
4 Intercomparison review by GEP core group of ECOSTAT
4.1 Criteria
4.2 Scoring
4.3 Intercomparison results
5 Overview of methods
6 Pre-step. Designation of HMWB & information from earlier planning cycles
6.1 Introduction to step
6.2 Key findings from the questionnaires
6.3 Intercomparison of country methods
7 Definition of MEP
7.1 Step A. Identification of closest comparable water category
7.1.1 Introduction to step
7.1.2 Key findings from the questionnaires
7.1.3 Intercomparison of country methods
7.2 Step B1. Identify mitigation measures relevant to each of the hydromorphological alterations and ecologically effective in the physical context of the water body
7.2.1 Introduction to step
7.2.2 Key findings from the questionnaires
7.2.3 Intercomparison of country methods
7.3 Step B2. Exclude mitigation measures with significant adverse effect on use or wider environment
7.3.1 Introduction to step
7.3.2 Key findings from the questionnaires
7.3.3 Intercomparison of country methods
7.4 Step B3. Select most ecologically beneficial (combination of) measures taking into account need to ensure best approximation to ecological continuum
7.4.1 Introduction to step
7.4.2 Key findings from the questionnaires
7.4.3 Intercomparison of country methods
7.5 Step C. Derivation of hydromorphological conditions for MEP
7.5.1 Introduction to step
7.5.2 Key findings from the questionnaires
7.5.3 Intercomparison of country methods
7.6 Step D. Derivation of physico-chemical conditions for MEP, taking into account the closest comparable water body type
7.6.1 Introduction to step
7.6.2 Key findings from the questionnaires
7.6.3 Intercomparison of country methods
7.7 Step E. Derivation of BQE conditions for MEP
7.7.1 Introduction to step
7.7.2 Key findings from the questionnaires
7.7.3 Intercomparison of country methods
8 Definition of GEP
8.1 Step F. Derivation of BQE conditions for GEP
8.1.1 Introduction to step
8.1.2 Key findings from the questionnaires
8.1.3 Intercomparison of country methods
8.2 Step G. Derivation of supporting quality element conditions for GEP
8.2.1 Introduction to step
8.2.2 Key findings from the questionnaires
8.2.3 Intercomparison of country methods
8.3 Step H. Identification of mitigation measures for GEP
8.3.1 Introduction to step
8.3.2 Key findings from the questionnaires
8.3.3 Intercomparison of country methods
9 Implementation of measures to achieve GEP
9.1 Monitoring to assess whether GEP is being achieved
9.1.1 Introduction to step
9.1.2 Key findings from the questionnaires
9.1.3 Intercomparison of country methods
9.2 Are there GEP measures that are disproportionally expensive or infeasible?
9.2.1 Introduction to step
9.2.2 Key findings from the questionnaires
9.2.3 Intercomparison of country methods
9.3 Implement GEP measures and monitor effects on BQEs and supporting quality elements
9.3.1 Introduction to step
9.3.2 Key findings from the questionnaires
9.3.3 Intercomparison of country methods
10 Overall criteria with relevance for several steps in methodology
11 Lessons learned by countries on their methods
12 Key conclusions on the intercomparison of the definition of ecological potential for Rivers
13 References
14 Annex 1: Key references and sources to the methods reported
15 Annex 2: Empty questionnaire