On the basis of the feedback received from the EWS Standard implementers, the EWS Standard Development Committee proposes a number of changes to the EWS Standard. The proposed changes refer to specific criteria and indicators of the EWS Standard version 4.8 which can be found here.

* 1. Proposal for Indicator 1.1.3:

Currently it is requested to quantify the water discharge of the production per type of contribution, which can be misleading. The suggestion is to modify the indicator so that it requests only information on the water quantity discharged and assessment of the impact of water discharge in terms of quantity.

* 2. Proposal for Indicator 1.2.1: 

The EWS standard currently considers groundwater as a sensitive source per se. There are practical examples which demonstrate that groundwater is not always sensitive. The proposal would be to revise the indicator as follows: "Groundwater is considered as sensitive source if no information is provided on its hydrological regime and status". With this modification the aim is to keep the core thinking of the standard development process where it was requested that groundwater is addressed with care due to normal lack of information while leaving open the possibility that some aquifers are adequately studied.

* 3. Proposal for Indicator 1.2.4: 

As there are a number of different ways to calculate a meaningful abstraction rate, there is a recomendation to include the option to also use the WEI (Water Exploitation Index) to define water stress.

* 4. Proposal for Criteria 2.1: 

In order to fully address emissions in agriculture the following text will be added to the criteria: " For agriculture, the total emissions quality should also be determined, monitored and documented".

* 5. Proposal for Indicator 2.1.1: 

In order to discourage duplication of classification work for products which are already regulated, this indicator will now include the point "For crop agriculture, (EC) 1107/2009 and water-related labelling legislation in the country where Plant Protection Products are used". Additional information will be further elaborated in the EWS Guideline.

* 6. Proposal for Indicator 2.1.2:

Indicator 2.2.2 specifically requests information on destinations so the reference to it in 2.1.2 is repetitive. The suggestion is to delete reference to destinations in this indicator as it is included elsewhere.

* 7. Proposal for Indicator 2.2.1: 

Some feedback suggested that the identification of high risk areas should be indicated on map or via databases. It is proposed that reference to maps of high risks areas be made optional in order to provide more flexibility.

* 8. Proposal to delete recommendations 2.1.6, 4.2.2 and 4.7.2:

The calculation of the eutrophication potential in Indicator 2.1.6 does not provide useful information as no follow up is required or additional benchmark provided and the impact of nutrients is normally included in the impact assessment of effluent.

The identification of water stewardship certified suppliers under 4.2.2 is recommended to be included as content in the guideline as a good practice for compliance with 4.2.1.

For 4.7.2 an economic validation has already been made in Indicator 4.7.1, no added benefit is foreseen in making an environmental cost analysis. Thus, the proposal is to delete these recommendations and move the information to the EWS Guideline

* 9. Do you suggest any other changes to EWS standard indicators?

* 10. Can we contact you for further information?