1. EU Water Framework Directive
Intercalibration state of play and outlook for
Water Directors meeting
Salzburg, 1-2 June 2006
Jorge Rodriguez Romero
European Commission, DG Environment
Unit D.2 – Water and Marine, WFD Team

2. Expected results and gaps
This information has been extracted from GIG and ECOSTAT documents. However it reflects on-going work by the GIGs and therefore the final outcome may differ from the one presented.
For fish, a specific solution will need to be found since none of the GIGs will be able to intercalibrate
No intercalibration formally required for the Black Sea Coastal GIG yet.

3. Calendar 2006 Two products are foreseen:
Technical report: prepared by JRC/ECOSTAT
Commission Decision: prepared by DG ENV by extracting the intercalibration results from the technical report. Few articles plus Annex presenting results per GIG using a template
ECOSTAT proposed calendar for technical report:
First draft of the technical report will be available in July 2006
Final draft for Committee in November 2006

4. No full intercalibration by 2006
The intercalibration technical report may provide some technical justification
The Commission believes that red boxes are not acceptable from the legal point of view – the Annex V WFD does not allow for a continuation or “opt out” for certain quality elements
The Commission invites MS to provide their views on this
Three levels of assessment have been identified: quality element, GIG and Member State

5. Results
In accordance to WFD, intercalibration should be completed to inform the first RBMP
If GIGs can deliver results for additional quality elements in 2007, it would be possible to use them for the first RBMP
The publication of the results (Commission Decision) could include these other quality elements
This will reduce red boxes and hence legal pressure
Calendar can be kept the same for 2006 results, i.e. having agreement in the Committee in November 2006
2006 results should not be reviewed in 2007 except to add new types or new countries

6. Two options OPTION A OPTION B WGA: 1st draft technical report
WFD COM: general agreement on technical report and first draft Decision
WFD COM: formal opinion
Adoption
WGA: 1st draft technical report
WGA: proposal 2007
WFD COM: general agreement on technical report, first draft Decision and GIG work programme 2007
WFD COM: formal opinion
GIGs deliver further results
WGA: tech report completed
WFD COM: formal opinion (same as Mar 07 plus annexes)
Adoption
Jun 06
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan 07
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun 07
Dec 07

7. Estimated results and gaps Option B
DG ENV estimation of the results potentially available in June 2007 based on GIGs
Milestone 5 reports

8. Committee conclusions
Option A and B are the same in terms of calendar for 2006 results (except final adoption by Commission)
Option B is worth if the number of new results is significant
WFD Committee agreed to request ECOSTAT to assess which further quality elements could be finalised by June 2007
The Committee can then discuss in October or November the final calendar and the legal issues raised.

9. Issues for discussion
Timetable to maximise output from current process (Option A and B)
Exchange of views on legal and political consequences of an incomplete intercalibration
New solutions:
“Default values” in case of absent intercalibration results
Different reporting for “ecological status” of water bodies in the absence of quality elements not being monitored/classified