Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT WFD CIS Strategic Coordination Group meeting, 26-27 October 2005 Progress in the intercalibration exercise

Outline Boundary setting Protocol Current Progress of intercalibration Next steps in intercalibration Summary – Key issues

Boundary setting procedure – a key process in the intercalibration exercise

Intercalibration: harmonising good status class boundaries Setting of good status class boundaries: Consistent with WFD definitions Comparable between all 25 Member States high good moderate poor bad 1 OK Restoration needed EQR

Boundary setting procedure – why? Decisions on class boundaries need to be transparent and be based on sound scientific information on pressure-impact relationships; Consistency of boundary setting with the WFD normative definitions needs to be ensured; Comparable approach for all GIGs is needed, regardless of status of development of methods, data availability, or option (cf. Guidance) selected for intercalibration

Good status class boundary values consistent with Overview class boundary Setting procedure Establish data set illustrating RC and degradation across a pressure gradient Agree on reference conditions Rules for good and moderate status derived from WFD normative definitions Good status class boundary values consistent with WFD definitions Apply criteria to data set and establish boundary EQR values for BQE To be applied at level of common intercalibration type

BSP – a stepwise manual for the process Already included in the Guidance 14 Describes steps that GIG should take to agree on reference conditions bring together data sets to illustrate change of biological quality elements; Provides practical examples; Guides to GIGs to take decisions and proceed; Provides a template for reporting;

BSP - general remarks tool for GIGs to set boundaries consistent with WFD normative definitions key part of the intercalibration reporting Providing transparency to the process Providing comparability between GIGs depends on data showing degradation pathways for biological parameters Link to research is crucial

Current Progress in intercalibration

Intercalibration timetable 2004 2005 2006 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 GIG milestones M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 Steering Group Summarise GIG progress reports and prepare WG meetings WG2A X SCG Regular progress reports IC Report D1 D2 F Translation, Committee agreement M5 X Milestone 4 report - end of September 2005 Reported to WG A ECOSTAT meeting 14-15 Oct. Intercalibration Steering group will make summary overview Final report in June 2006; All GIG reports available at: http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/jrc/jrc_eewai/library

Geographical Intercalibration Groups ‘Milestone 4’ Reports Questionnaire sent out to all GIGs July 2005: Organisation of the GIGs Scope and expected outcome of the intercalibration Data collection Class boundary setting procedure Responses from all GIGs (eventually…) 

1. Organisation of the GIGs

Organisation for the intercalibration process Lake experts/GIGs River experts/GIGs Coast experts/GIGs Intercalibration Steering Group JRC Lake Expert Group rep. River Expert Group rep. Coast Expert Group rep. ECOSTAT Working Group A N AT C M AL EC BA NEA BS

1a –involvement of countries in GIGs (green– all countries involved; yellow - most (> 50%) countries involved; RIVERS LAKES COAST Mediterranean Central/ Baltic NE Atlantic Alpine Baltic Sea Eastern Continental Atlantic Black Sea Northern -------------              

2. Scope and expected outcome of the intercalibration exercise

2a – Quality elements included? full intercalibration preparatory work - no boundary setting yet no intercalibration RIVERS Phyto-plankton Benthic inverte-brates Fish Macro-phytes Phyto-benthos Northern Possibly for acidification Central/ Baltic Diatoms Alpine evaluating feasibility Mediterr. Under consideration Diatoms under consideration Eastern Continental          

As fully as possible, not clear yet Partly, mainly species comp 2a – Prospects for class boundary setting Only partial intercalibration preparatory work - no boundary setting yet no intercalibration PHYTO MACROPH BENTHIC FISH ATLANTIC Only chl ALPINE Chl, sp comp no blooms No phytobenthos CENTRAL/BALTIC MEDITERR. NORDIC Chl As fully as possible, not clear yet Partly, mainly species comp LAKES

2b – Status of methods - COAST Green = nationally agreed, Yellow = under development, Red = No method development

Scope of the work – main points Strong focus on few quality elements and/ or single parameters within QE Rivers: benthic invertebrates (full IC), phytobenthos Lakes: phytoplankton / chlorophyll a (biomass) Coastal: chlorophyll, benthic invertebrates (NEA) Many of the national methods are still in development, and will not be ready in 2006; Also other QE are addressed in most GIGs, but boundary setting will not yet be possible; Many countries have not yet started development of methods for all QE;

Next steps and Reporting Tasks for the remaining 9 months Reporting Milestone 5-6 Final Intercalibration report (June 06)

MILESTONE 5 AND 6 REPORTS

Milestone 5 – Feb. 2006 M5 Confirmation of QE that will be intercalibrated Re-iteration of Boundary setting procedure First overview of Standardization needs; Update on work needed on additional QE; Estimate of the further time required for completion of remaing QEs; Planning of WP after June 2006 will start

INTERCALIBRATION REPORT First draft: Milestone 6 report in May 2006 - GIGs fill in directly into a template

Key issues (1) Intercalibration is about comparing and harmonising MS views on good status class boundaries (bottom-up approach) No clear MS views  no intercalibration MS need to participate in GIG-work to provide their views of boundaries – if not possible, IC will proceed btw those countries that participate – others following are expected to harmonise their boundaries with published outcome, when possible;

Key issues (2) GIGs have started to work through BSP; preliminary outcome suggests that BSP guidance may need to be revised later in 2006; Intercalibration will be possible only for limited quality element / pressure combinations; in some cases only on parameter level (no full IC of QE); Final overview what QE will be included in the report for ECOSTAT March (15-16, 2006) meeting;

Key issues (3) Remaining QE/ parameters will need to be completed after 2006; Preliminary proposal for further workprogramme & timetable will be prepared for SCG & Comm May 06 Preparatory work in GIGs is very useful and will be reported separately; GIG networks very useful platform for information exchange of development & best practises in ecological monitoring and classification; Support from EU research projects has been very fruitful and should be continued;

WG A ECOSTAT 13-14 Oct., Stresa, Italy Thank you! WG A ECOSTAT 13-14 Oct., Stresa, Italy