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

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

3. Boundary setting procedure – a key process in the intercalibration exercise

4. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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;

9. 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

10. Current Progress in intercalibration

11. 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 Oct.
Intercalibration Steering group will make summary overview
Final report in June 2006;
All GIG reports available at:

12. 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…) 

13. 1. Organisation of the GIGs

14. 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

15. 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              

16. 2. Scope and expected outcome of the intercalibration exercise

17. 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          

18. 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

19. 2b – Status of methods - COAST
Green = nationally agreed, Yellow = under development, Red = No method development

20. 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;

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

22. MILESTONE 5 AND 6 REPORTS

23. 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

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

25. 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;

26. 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;

27. 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;

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