Towards a consistent Quality Assurance system within the ICP-Forests The QA Committee of the PCG

1. Università di Siena Towards a consistent Quality Assurance system within the ICP-ForestsThe QA Committee of the PCG ICP-Forests, 23rd Task Force meeting, Zvolen, Slovak Republic, 12-16 May, 2007 Marco Ferretti TerraData Environmetrics, Siena, Italy ferretti@terradata.it www.terradata.it

2. Università di Siena Status: QA in the Manual * * WG on QA in Labs; cross-referencing * * *

3. Università di Siena QA-C preparatory meeting, Hamburg, 26-27 March 2007

4. Data users, data managers Needs of measurable indicators Important to define the scale of management and application (national, international?) QA essential for trend detection A comprehensive QA system necessary QA/QC essential for the main task of monitoring, i.e., trend detection. QA/QC must be comprehensive and with measurable indicators. Expert Panels Definitions important, review the Manual, formsand techniques (many) Provide Training (Crown) Continue with intercalibration and cross-calibration, ring-tests (many) QA/QC guidelines, DQR (many) Report calibration data and bring QA/QC data in the database. Find the way to handle these data, metadata important (Meteo, Labs). Rules in case of poor data quality, regular meetings, connect ring-tests results with the survey results (Labs) Improve sampling and related interpretation (WG AAQ, Deposition, Foliage, Soil and S. Solution) Routine checks for the database (same between national and international)(Meteo, Labs) QA/QC important, save time and money, but expensive in itself. Needs improvement and dedicated support (all EPs). Università di Siena Main issues emerged

5. Università di Siena Agreed vision A new group based on (i) the participation of chairpersons of the individual EPs (or those persons in charge for QA/QC within a given EP), data managers (central level), and on (ii) the consideration of the needs of possible data users (e.g., the EU, the WGE). The group does not aim to replace any of the existing QA/QC groups within the various EPs. Rather, the new group should work at the co-ordination level in order to agree upon a common QA/QC approach, building upon the experience available so far and to be continued in the future. The agreed common QA/QC approach should be the frame within which further work can be carried out at the level of individual EPs and a common reporting system developed

6. Università di Siena Suggested areas of interests/1 • Manual and Sub-Manuals, in general (structure, contents, terms of revisions, e.g. on a 3 years basis) • Objectives: formal definition, including confidence intervals, P-level, time frame • Attributes: unambiguous definitions of what should be measured • Sampling and non-sampling errors: identification of major error sources and relevant solutions • Definition of quality in operational terms: Data Quality Requirements (DQR): completeness, consistency with the Manual, Data Quality Limits, Measurement Quality Objectives

7. Università di Siena Suggested areas of interests/2 • What to do when data are of poor quality: define rules to (i) manage the situation; (ii) to help situation where DQ is poor. • Reference standards: unambiguous definition • Training • Inter-comparison exercises (e.g., ring-tests, cross-comparison): definitions, applicability,… • Data storage, including data submission forms and routines for data checks • Data processing, to ensure consistency between the nature of the data and the statistical technique adopted

8. Università di Siena Envisaged activity • Promote reviews (Manuals and sub-Manuals). • Promote QA/QC and support the EPs in the organization of internal exercises. • Promote the definition of QA/QC indicators. • Promote co-ordination between QA/QC activity between and within EPs • Promote co-operation (i) between EPs, data managers and data users; (ii) with other ICPs and programmes (e.g. NFIs; the U.S. FHM programme). • Promote and ensure consistency between data, data quality and data processing. • Promote scientifically sound data processing. • Contribute to the reporting system.

9. Università di Siena Suggested structure • The group will be active within the PCG of the ICP-Forests. The group will be made by: • delegates of the PCC of the ICP-Forests, • the Chairpersons of the EPs, FSCC, FFCC, WGs, • the leader of the existing QA/QC groups, • delegates from the data managers, • the chairpersons (suggestion: chair: M. Ferretti; co-chair: N. König)

10. Università di Siena Suggested mandate/1 • The PCG asks the Task-Force to • install the QA Committee (QA-C) within the PCG of the ICP-Forests. This QA-C will be given the following terms of reference between 2007 and 2010: • to review the Manual, to identify harmonization needs and to make the objectives of the specific investigation more formal and stringent. • To identify a consistent QA approach valid throughout the various investigations carried out within the ICP-Forests. • To identify an unambiguous set of Data Quality Requirements and inspire a set of DQ indicators, to be further developed by the relevant Expert Panels • To identify common QA/QC reporting rules between EPs.

11. Università di Siena Suggested mandate/2 • To identify proper data processing options (and rules to be attained in case of poor data quality) • To prepare a series of guidelines to be submitted to the various EPs • To prepare an ad-interim Status Report to be submitted annually at the Task-Force of the ICP-Forests. • To promote co-operation, with NFCs, other ICPs and monitoring programmes. • To contribute to the reporting system of the ICP-Forests. • At the Task-Force meeting in 2010 the QA-C will prepare a final report and review in which a future mandate will be agreed upon.

12. Università di Siena Suggested time schedule