Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland and Marine Waters Unit

Issues Intercalibration Other Issues Status and finalisation of the intercalibration register Guidance for the Intercalibration process Progress intercalibration process Other Issues (Eutrophication) Monitoring Harmonisation

Intercalibration register

Final draft IC register Submission deadline 15 September (extended to 21 September) 1498 sites received Additions/Corrections after 21 September: 12 Coastal/transitional sites from Ireland 1 Coastal site from Latvia 11 Lake sites from Romania

997 Rivers 79 sites

327 Lakes

184 Coastal, 38 Transitional

Sites by country Submitted as promised Sufficient, but less than promised No sites as promised No sites, no promises Corrections after 21/9

Intercalibration site submission scoreboard…  24 Member States, Norway, Romania, Bulgaria  Malta

IC register – next steps Intercalibration register (Annex A1) presented to WG2A and sent to WFD Committee – on the agenda 29 October Possibility to correct obvious errors in the site lists: Submitted by MS, but not in the list Mistakes in site names Information on type, GIG, class boundaries

Metadata and other information Quality control needed First checking by JRC ongoing (done) Data distributed to WG2A and GIG experts (done) Data providers can correct (meta)data (October – February) Updated (meta)data to be distributed March

Intercalibration process guidance Version 4 agreed by WG2A, distributed to SCG 14 October Drafting group meetings: Dec 2003, Feb 2004, June 2004 WG2A meetings: March 2004, July 2004, October 2004

Table of contents 1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT 2. KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERCALIBRATION PROCESS 3. PROCESS OPTIONS FOR INTERCALIBRATION 4. CONTENTS OF THE FINAL INTERCALIBRATION REPORT 5. ORGANISATION OF THE WORK AND TIMETABLES ANNEX I. FRAMEWORK FOR DERIVING CLASS BOUNDARY VALUES CONSISTENT WITH THE WFD NORMATIVE DEFINITIONS ANNEX II: LIST OF GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUPS (GIGS) [LIST FROM DRAFT COMMITTEE DECISION] ANNEX III: EXAMPLE OF A HYBRID INTERCALIBRATION OPTION

2. KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERCALIBRATION PROCESS (1) Aim of IC - setting of good status class boundaries: Consistent with WFD normative definitions Comparable between Member States IC concerns biological monitoring results at quality element level – not full monitoring systems

2. KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERCALIBRATION PROCESS (2) Intercalibration process will identify appropriate boundary EQR values for Member State’s WFD asssessment methods Boundary EQR values may be different between countries, but reflect a comparable level of anthropogenic alteration Assumption that all Member States will have developed national WFD assessment methods in time

2. KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERCALIBRATION PROCESS (3) IC undertaken within Geographical Intercalibration Groups (GIGs) IC limited to common types, agreed pressures and quality elements IC carried out for all agreed types (excluding types requires WG2A agreement)

3. PROCESS OPTIONS FOR INTERCALIBRATION Different GIGs may require different approaches, depending on: State of development of classification methods Diversity of approaches between countries Data availability IC guidance identifies three alternative options All options require: application of an agreed procedure for establishing reference conditions and setting class boundaries (Annex I) Identification of intercalibration sites representing the class boundaries

ANNEX I. BOUNDARY SETTING PROCEDURE 1. Describe type-specific reference conditions for biological quality elements 3. Establish data set illustrating RC and degradation across a pressure gradient 2. Agree rules for deriving high-good boundary for biological quality consistent with the normative definitions 4. Criteria for good status and moderate status classes related to degratation path 5. Method/criteria used to derive good-moderate status boundary values Good status class boundary values consistent with WFD normative definitions 6. Apply criteria to data set and establish boundary EQR values for BQE

Option 1: Common WFD assessment method Country National WFD method Boundary setting metric Harmonisation of assessment results MS1 A Not needed MS2 MS3 MS4

Option 2: Common boundary setting metric Country National WFD method Boundary setting metric Harmonisation of assessment results MS1 A E Translate common metric boundaries to national methods MS2 B MS3 C MS4 D

Option 3: No common metric Country National WFD method Boundary setting metric Harmonisation of assessment results MS1 A Direct comparison using shared IC sites MS2 B MS3 C MS4 D

4. CONTENTS OF THE FINAL INTERCALIBRATION REPORT Section 1 – overview of GIGs and common types Section 2 – Results for each common type Type description, countries where type is present Quality element(s) and pressure(s) in focus Summary of class boundary setting protocol & reference to data used Intercalibration sites representing boundaries Quantitative relationships between MS metrics and common metrics (where applicable) including estimate of uncertainty Boundary EQR values Section 3 – Conclusions (what is achieved and what not)

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 N AT C M AL EC BA NEA BS

General timetable for the intercalibration process Oct 2004 IC process guidance Oct 2005 Feb 2006 June 2006 Draft 1 Draft2 Final (outline) Intercalibration Report

General timetable for the intercalibration process Two WG2A meetings each year GIG milestones organised accordingly

Intercalibration progress

Intercalibration progress (1) Steering group established: D. Jovett (UK, Coastal) S. Poikane (LV, Lakes) n.n. (Rivers) A.-S Heiskanen, W. van de Bund (JRC) GIG work has started – first reporting to WG2A in October

Intercalibration progress (2) Diversity in approaches at this stage Steering group will make proposal how to deal with this Need for reporting in consistent format JRC will establish simple reporting system Need for Member States to make available appropriate resources Clarification needed on data distribution/access policy Task team will prepare proposal for next WG2A meeting (MS, DGENV, stakeholders, JRC)

Other Issues: Monitoring WG2A Discussion paper on Monitoring: Overview existing guidance, potential gaps Anticipated that ongoing activities may identify needs for further guidance No need for additional CIS guidance at this stage Proposed that WG2A should address these issues when they arise – included in WG2A draft mandate

Other Issues: Harmonisation WG2A task team will finalise first draft report on harmonisation of freshwater biologial methods: overview of methods in use evaluation of usefulness in relation to WFD analysis of needs for harmonisation and standardisation Linkages between WG2A and CEN are existing, but need to be put into practice Harmonisation identified as activity in WG2A draft mandate 2005-6