1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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:
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

5. Focusing of intercalibration
Outcome of Expert meetings in :
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

6. 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.)

7. 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

8. Contents of the Draft Register
forming the Intercalibration network

9. 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

10. Submission of datasets to JRC reporting-database

11. 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

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

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

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

15. Rivers: Number of Sites in each GIG16
Number of Countries in each GIG 5 7 6 4 9

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

17. 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

18. 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)

19. 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

20. Criteria & methods used in the site selection

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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)

24. 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

25. 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, )
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.

26. 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

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

28. 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
additional sites / types to be included?
more pressures, quality elements to be included?

29. 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)

30. Completion of the Final Intercalibration Register - Workplan for 2004

31. 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

32. 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
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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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