Synthesis of the intercalibration process Working group 2.5.

Background and status of paper Draft Paper prepared by Intercalibration WG leaders (JRC) Based on output of the expert drafting groups on Rivers (March 13-15), and Coastal Waters (March 20-22), and relevant chapters in the 2nd Draft Guidance document Present status: 9 members of the working group and the Lakes expert group have made comments of the paper 5 members of the working group (A, DK, GR, IRL, S) agreed with the proposal, and 4 (D, NL, SE, UK) agreed in general, but had some remarks and alternative proposals. WG 2.5. wants to inform the SCG and seeks for guidance  How to proceed?

Contents of the presentation 1) Present timetable and the requirements of the intercalibration process as described in the WFD (Annex V, 1.4.1.) 2) Presentation of the major problems in fulfilling these requirements 3) Proposals for solutions to overcome these problems without compromising the objectives of the intercalibration exercise

Purpose and Timetable of intercalibration

Purpose of Intercalibration Common understanding of ‘good ecological status’ of surface waters (“intercalibration network”) - 2003/4 Comparison and harmonization of ecological quality class boundaries (“intercalibration exercise”) - 2006

Timetable of Intercalibration WFD Intercalibration as required by Annex V Selection of intercalibration sites 2003 Draft Register for intercalibration network 2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 Final Register for intercalibration network 2004 Intercalibration exercise 2005-6 Reporting results 2006

Site selection: setting the class boundaries high good moderate poor bad 1 Setting the “yard sticks” for good ecological quality  targets for restoration of other water bodies of similar type. Sites selected where the specific normative definitions of ecological quality are agreed to be representative for the borders high or good

Identifying obstacles and problems for intercalibration

Timetable Mismatch 2003 Compilation of Draft Member States’ Intercalibration implementation timetable timetable 2003 Compilation of Draft Intercalibration register 2004 Analysis of characteristics (including typology and Final Intercal. register analysis of pressures and impact) 2005 Intercalibration exercise 2006 Monitoring programmes Intercalibration completed: operational harmonised monitoring programmes

Problems with type selection for the Intercalibration network Member States need to differentiate surface water body types in 2004 Before that the sites for the intercalibration network should be selected and the draft register submitted to Committee by end of 2003 Water body types selected for the intercalibration network may not be compliant with water body types differentiated by the Member States. Is the amendment of draft register possible in 2004? (Note! Question from WG 2.5. to SCG)

Site selection and data availability Site selection in 2003-4 can only be based on data presently available Presently available data from the Member States do not include all quality elements and is not always compliant with WFD requirements This means that not all required biological quality elements and not all water body types can be considered and included in the intercalibration at this stage. At present there is only limited data to select sites for the intercalibration network across the whole EU

Problem of intercalibration based on limited data/ quality elements Intercalibration site selection based on existing data (I.e. benthic invertebrates) in 2003 New monitoring data of other quality elements after 2006 Stressor (Pressure) Response (indicator value) Amendment of IC register needed?

Intercalibration exercise and data availability The monitoring systems of the Member States do not need be operational before December 2006. By that time the intercalibration exercise should be already completed and the results should be published Required data would only be available if Member States started voluntarily carry out monitoring at least two years earlier than required (however, this data would not be available for site selection) An intercalibration exercise in 2005/6 will be based on incomplete data, and using results from the monitoring systems that are under development

Proposed solutions

Solution Proposed in the Synthesis Limited intercalibration in 2003-2006 (water body types and quality elements where sufficient data are available) Repeated intercalibrations at 6-year intervals (including revision of the intercalibration site register) taking into account possible changes in the quality of the intercalibration sites development and harmonisation of methods (i.e. development of new indicators, and indicator metrics, approval of new standards, etc.) additional types, quality elements, new Member States

Alternative proposals from WG members 1) First intercalibration voluntary pilot. Second, starting with site selection after 2006, would be the first obligatory/ formal intercalibration. In further exercises, if necessary, timetable should be adjusted with RBMP cycles (D & NL). 2) First intercalibration exercise after 2008. Allow 5 years for the compilation of the register for the intercalibration network starting in 2003, and to be finalised by 2008 (SE). 3) Intercalibration cycle do not necessarily need to be 6 years (but some other?) (UK)

Intercalibration and HMWB WG 2.5. Intercalibration and WG 2.2. Artificial and HMWB

HMWB and Intercalibration: Provisional recommendations Artificial and HMWB should not be included in the intercalibration network as a separate water category Some AW/HMWB could be considered to be included in intercalibration: if they fit in one of the natural intercalibration types if AW/HMWB are dominant within a water category in one or more Member States