Contents of the presentation

1. Drafting group on the overall intercalibration processPresented byWouter van de BundJoint Research CentreInstitute for Environment and SustainabilityInland and Marine Waters Unit

2. Contents of the presentation • Introduction/Background • Drafting group Intercalibration Process • First draft guidance document (1.0) • Options for intercalibration • explained in more detail by Peter Pollard • Roles of the participants • Finalisation of the guidance

3. Introduction/Background

4. Data base: Data of biotic & chem. QE, typology Reporting boundary EQR values Member States’ assessment systems Classification of intercalibration site (EQR-value) Potential additional sampling IC exercise according to existing guidance IC network: sites with agreed quality

5. Draft register for Intercalibration network 915 sites over Europe ~ 10 % Coastal ~ 30 % Lakes ~ 60 % Rivers

6. General conclusions on the draft intercalibration network • Common intercalibration types good basis for intercalibration in all GIGs • General agreement on pressures and quality elements to be in focus of the intercalibration • Intercalibration sites represent preliminary national view on class boundaries

7. Data base: Data of biotic & chem. QE, typology Reporting boundary EQR values Member States’ assessment systems Classification of intercalibration site (EQR-value) Potential additional sampling IC exercise according to existing guidance X IC network: sites with agreed quality IC network: No agreed quality

8. What to do?

9. Provisions for modifications • Comprehensive analysis of the current draft register needed • Common types not finalized for all GIGs • Revision of common types required for some GIGs • Final register will not solve all • Need for revision of the IC register in 2005-6 • additional sites / types to be included? • more pressures, quality elements to be included?

10. Water Directors meeting Rome, November 2003 “The Water Directors raised the need for allowing flexibility to review the draft register in 2004 and also following the agreement on a first register in 2005 and 2006. (…) all changes after the end of 2004 will have to be approved by the Article 21 Committee” 

11. 2. Drafting Group Intercalibration Process

12. Main task for the Drafting Group: Guidance on intercalibration exercise • Outline a practical approach to the Intercalibration process, ensuring: • comparability of the classification resultsof the monitoring systems • consistent interpretation of the normative definitionsof those class boundaries given in Annex V of the WFD

13. Members of the drafting group • Ulrich Irmer (D) • Peter Pollard (UK) • Gisela Ofenboeck (A) • Jose Ortiz-Casas (ES) • Pierre-Jean Martinez (F) • Jean-Gabriel Wasson (F) • Kari Nygaard (N, COAST) • Andrea Buffagni (I, STAR) • Wouter van de Bund (JRC, lead)

14. Drafting group meetings • 1st meeting: 4 December 2003, Vienna • Guidance draft outline 8 January • 2nd meeting: 10-12 February 2004, Ispra • Guidance draft 1.0 25 February: • Focus on options for intercalibration

15. 3. First draft guidance document (1.0)

16. Contents • BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 2. KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERCALIBRATION PROCESS 3. CONTENT OF THE FINAL INTERCALIBRATION REPORT 4. PROCESS OPTIONS FOR INTERCALIBRATION • TIMETABLES ANNEX I. OUTLINE PROTOCOL FOR DERIVING CLASS BOUNDARY VALUES – (CHECKING CONSISTENCY) ANNEX II: OUTLINE PROTOCOL FOR COMPARING MEMBER STATES’ CLASS BOUNDARIES (CHECKING COMPARABILITY)

17. 2. Key principles • Main aims: resolvinginconsistency and incomparability of MS classification results • Intercalibration network representing class boundaries • Process will identify appropriate EQR values produced by MS monitoring systems (that may be different for different MS) • IC undertaken within Geographical Intercalibration Groups (GIGs), focused on specific type/biological QE/pressure combinations • IC assumes that all MS will have developed national WFD assessment methods to a sufficient extent to enable assessment of consistency (with normative definitions) and comparability (between MS) of good status boundary EQR values

18. 3. Outline of the final IC report • Overview of GIGs and common intercalibration type • Intercalibration result for each common intercalibration type: • Type description; list of MS in which type is present • Biological element(s) and pressure(s) considered • Protocol for deriving (reference conditions and) good ecological status class boundaries from normative definitions • Description (criteria and descriptive data) of ecological changes at high status class boundaries • Description (real data) of ecological changes at high status class boundaries • IC sites representing agreed HG and GM boundary • Boundary EQR values for type/QE/pressure combination

19. 4. Process options for intercalibration All options rely on application of an agreed boundary setting protocol • Shared assessment method within GIG • Apply boundary setting protocol to shared method • Common metrics specifically identified for intercalibration • Apply boundary setting protocol to common method • Direct comparison of national methods at IC sites • Apply boundary setting protocol to national methods • (hybrid option 2-3) SEE PRESENTATION PETER POLLARD

20. Annex I. Outline protocol for boundary setting protocol • Agree criteria to derive reference conditions • Compare/agree what is ‘a very minor pressure’ in terms of physicochemical/ hydromorphological conditions • Compare/agree how this translates into biological values  HG boundary is set • Establish data set illustrating degradation of biological QE • Criteria for good and moderate status derived from normative definitions applied to the way the BQE degrades along a pressure gradient • Criteria for good and moderate status applied to derive good-moderate boundary  GM boundary is set

24. Annex II. Outline protocol for comparing MS class boundaries (comparability) • To be developed iteratively with the expert groups • Depends on intercalibration option

25. 4. Options for intercalibration • See presentation Peter Pollard

26. 5. Roles of the participants in the intercalibration process

27. Roles of the participants… • WG2A: umbrella for the whole process – ensure coherence between types, water categories and GIGs. Approves IC Guidance for submission to the SCG

28. Roles of the participants… • Expert networks: proposals for common metrics for biological QE and pressures; proposal of measurable type-specific criteria for high-good and good-moderate class boundaries (class boundary setting protocol)

29. Roles of the participants… •  Member States: revision of their IC sites according to the agreed criteria; delivering agreed data

30. Roles of the participants… • Art. 21 Committee: formal approval of ‘final’ register in 2004, and further revisions in 2005 or 2006.

31. Roles of the participants… •  Research projects: providing pressure/impact data supplementing the data from the IC network (from a wider range of ecological quality than the IC boundaries); testing & experimentation of approaches & solutions, tools to analyse the data; inputs to the expert networks

32. Roles of the participants… • JRC/EEWAI: facilitating role • overall coordination and management of the process • hosting and managing database • preparing deliverables for WG ECOSTAT, SCG, Water Directors, and the Committee • support to DG ENV in CIS process • technical and scientific support for expert networks and for the MS & AC.

33. 6. Finalisation of the guidance

34. Proposed further timetable (1) • IC process guidance needs to be finalised autumn 2004: • Spring 2004: • WG2A feedback from present meeting • Progress report to SCG 15 March • Initial testing of option 1 by volunteer MS (rivers) • Drafting group meets and works out step-by-step approach for the relevant options • Guidance update prepared by drafting group and presented to WG2A • Progress report to SCG 27-28 May • WG2A meeting if needed – July 2004

35. Proposed further timetable (2) • Summer/early autumn • Revision of draft guidance • WG agrees on final guidance 7-8 October • SCG 27-28 October, WD 2-3 November