Intercalibration Report on State - of - play and way forward Presented by Anna-Stiina Heiskanen Joint Research Centre The Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland and Marine Waters Unit

Contents of the presentation Process for the establishment of the register Steps in the site selection & information required Contents of the draft register Criteria and methods used in the site selection Provisions for modifications of the intercalibration network Data requirements for the Intercalibration sites

Objectives of Intercalibration Common interpretation of “good ecological status”, setting targets for restoration and protection Class boundaries consistent and comparable among MS Harmonized classification based on Ecological Quality Ratios (EQR) high good moderate poor bad 1 OK Restoration needed EQR

Steps in compilation of the draft register in 2003 Feb.-March: WG2A & experts agree on common types 19 May: Metadata Questionnaire and ‘types manual’ distributed June: MS & AC start site selections 16 July: Internet based reporting system operational: http://wfd-reporting.jrc.cec.eu.int 15 August: (first) Deadline for submission of information September: Evaluations by expert networks Sept-Oct.: MS & AC continue submissions October: reports to WG 2A ECOSTAT & CIS SCG November: Last sites reported to draft register on 10 November

Focusing of intercalibration Outcome of Expert meetings in 2002-3: Typologies not yet completed during site selection Limited data availability (no WFD compatible monitoring yet) No common criteria for normative definitions  Site selection needs to be limited for: selected water body types most commonly monitored pressures quality elements where monitoring data available

Criteria for site selection Selection of common intercalibration types and Geographical Interecalibration Groups (GIGs) Selection of sites > 2 for high-good > 2 for good -moderate for each common surface water body type selected for the intercalibration network, and present in the national territory of the Member State / Candidate Country, based on national interpretations of normative definitions (Annex V, 1.2.)

Metadata Questionnaire – Information required WG 2A agreed on information that should delivered for each selected sites Description of site, type criteria, pressures Current status of the site (H-G or G-M) Criteria used for selection of the site Data availability for biological and physico-chemical elements This information is required to provide basis for selection of Intercalibration network realistic planning of the Intercalibration exercise planning of the Intercalibration database

Contents of the Draft Register forming the Intercalibration network

Process of database compilation for the draft register WWW interface wfd-reporting.jrc.cec.eu.int DG - JRC Database (XML) 1176 files (including ca. 250 corrections) Access, Excel 915 sites

Submission of datasets to JRC reporting-database

Response to site selection process 22 August: 539 sites from 10 countries --> basis for expert analysis 14 October: 824 sites from 19 countries --> presented for WG2A & SCG 10 November: 915 sites from 22 countries in the XML database (Annex 3)  Draft register forming the intercalibration network Additional lists of sites received from 6 countries (Annex 4) Finland, Hungary, Italy, Luxemburg, Romania, Slovakia Bulgaria in process of selecting sites Malta – no info yet

Total number of sites by country +14 18 115 4 12 ND +40

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

Lakes: Number of Sites in each GIG Number of Countries in each GIG 5 10 8 7 4 4 9

Rivers: Number of Sites in each GIG 16 Number of Countries in each GIG 5 7 6 4 9

Coastal/ Trans.: Number of Sites in each GIG Number of Countries in each GIG 11 8 6

Countries in GIGs & categories   Rivers Lakes Coastal waters Country/ GIG RBA RNO RCE RAL RME REC LBA LNO LAT LCE LAL LME LEC CBA CNE CME Estonia 3 14 Latvia 4 6 Lithuania 7 1 Poland 5 8 12 10 Finland 2 Sweden 16 21 Norway 74 46 UK 31 42 36 Ireland 17 9 15 Denmark Netherlands Belgium 24 Luxemburg Germany 25 11 13 France 33 Spain 45 Italy Slovenia Austria 20 Czech Republic Slovakia Greece Portugal 35 Cyprus Hungary Bulgaria Romania Malta TOTAL 19 130 225 104 90 27 41 38 40 76

Sites for each categories Rivers: all (22) countries have submitted > 1 river site Lakes: most (19 of 22) countries > 1 lake site Coastal & trans.: many countries have not yet submitted sites (9 out of 20 possible that have submitted sites to draft register; >30% of sites from UK)

Number of sites by category and class boundary   High-Good Good-Moderate TOTAL Lakes 141 132 273 Rivers 291 251 542 Coastal/ Transitional 38 62 100 470 445 915

Criteria & methods used in the site selection

WFD-compatible classification? most countries (>65%) replied to have used non-WFD compatible assessment system most countries considered biological quality elements in the selection BUT: variable interpretations what are WFD-compatible classification methods AND: wide variaty of methods was used in the assessment of intercalibration sites

Criteria for setting the class boundaries H-G & G-M Selection of sites was asked to be based on the national interpretations of normative definitions in Annex V (1.2.) expert judgement on current assessment system or matching with the upper classes of national systems statistical approach was also used It is not possible to assess the comparability of national criteria to set the boundaries

Approaches in selection of IC sites Different approaches have been used in different countries: sites are approximation of class boundaries (e.g. IE, SE, NO, FI, ES, PO, DE, AT) sites are first hypothesis on boundaries, applying REFCOND guidance (FR) sites represent a range of quality classes (UK)

General conclusions on the composition of the 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

Overall Conclusions The first reporting obligation as set by the WFD - Site selection for the draft register of the intercalibration network - has been successfully completed as required by the Directive (Annex V, 1.4.1.) The draft register is now presented to the Water Directors, and the same information will be submitted to the WFD Committee following the requirements of the Directive.

Submission Continuing Submissions still incomplete for many GIGs (i.e. Eastern continental, coastal waters, etc.) Submission of missing data (e.g. Annex 4) Reporting should continue in order to facilitate the completion of the final intercalibration register Please continue: until 15 December 2003 wfd-reporting.jrc.cec.eu.int

Provisions for modifications of the intercalibration network and Data requirements for the Intercalibration sites

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 Need for revision of the IC register in 2005-6 additional sites / types to be included? more pressures, quality elements to be included?

Data requirements Analysis on comparability of national views on class boundaries requires comparable biological data – currently not available Methodological differences will make it difficult to apply national assessment methods using existing data from other countries during the intercalibration exercise Recommendation to agree on common metrics Existing data limited - new data possibly needed ? Proposals will be prepared by WG 2A (at level of GIGs involving expert networks)

Completion of the Final Intercalibration Register - Workplan for 2004

Updated Overall workplan of WG 2A - 2004 Activity/ task Issues 2004 Main Deliverables 1 2 3 4 Intercalibration – review and finalisation of IC register Final Register for WDs & WFD Art. 21 Committee Intercalibration drafting group Guidance document Harmonization task team Report Potential Eutrophication drafting group (?) Guidance document (in 2005 ??) WORKSHOPS

Completion of final register in 2004 Detailed analysis of the draft register (JRC) – Dec- January Experts’ analysis of revision needs for the draft register - February WG 2A agree on principles of revision : Workshop - March 4-5 Revised Intercalibration metadata entry opened – end of March MSs add / remove sites in April (via http://wfd-reporting.jrc.cec.eu.int) Compilation & evaluation of site submissions to final register – May DG ENV & JRC prepare the draft decision for the SCG & Comm. - May Revision & finalisation of the draft register – June - Sept Submission of Final Register for WFD Committee – October

Issues for the Experts Networks Examination of the draft register and recommendations for revision in early 2004 Analysing possibility to apply common metrics for benchmarking the quality status of intercalibration sites Start the discussions/ comparisons of the interpretations and criteria for the normative definitions used in the selection of sites - on the level of Geographical Intercalibration Groups / Ecoregions

Tasks for the Drafting Group: Guidance on intercalibration exercise Outlining the Intercalibration process Evaluate needs for common metrics Clarification of needs for new data collection Clarification of the roles of all parties in the intercalibration process JRC coordinates, experts from Germany, France, Austria, Spain, and UK have volunteered, Experts from COAST & FP5 RTD STAR invited First draft reported for the WG2A in March 2004 Final draft guidance for the WG 2A in autumn 2004

THANKS to all Contributors ! All Members of the WG 2A All Participants of the Expert Networks (Inland, Coastal) All National Experts responsible for data submission DG ENV and WRc plc JRC - task team: Wouter van de Bund, Ana Cristina Cardoso, Palle Haastrup, Anna-Stiina Heiskanen, Peeter Noges & Jorgen Wuertz