1. ECOSTAT, Stresa, Italy, 13-14 October 2005
Progress on
Intercalibration
Process
COAST GIGs
ECOSTAT, Stresa, Italy, October 2005
Dave Jowett, Coast Group Chair and NE Atlantic GIG Co-ordinator

2. Organisation
Are all countries belonging to the GIGs involved in the work? Green = Yes,
Yellow = Yes, but not all quality elements, Red = No

3. Organisation - Issues Resources!
Lack of funding - finding free venues!
Getting all countries to attend ALL the meetings!
Getting the same PEOPLE from ALL the countries to attend ALL the meetings!
Late start by GIGs (at least for some quality elements)

4. GIGS: Quality elements in focus (Green – yes, fully; yellow – yes, partly)
Benthic-invertebrates
Phytoplankton
Macroalgae/Angiosperms
Fish
NE Atlantic E C D C 
Baltic F B
C/F/B 
Black Sea C C 
Med E D
E/F  X    

5. Quality Elements - Issues
No full quality elements assessed
Full EQRs for some quality elements (but only restricted habitats)
Most intercalibration is on metrics describing part of the QE normative definition
Range of class boundary options

6. Status of Methods
Green = nationally agreed, Yellow = under development, Red = No method development

7. Methods - Issues
Almost no national methods developed (only in Bulgaria and Romania)
Most methods still under development in most countries for most quality elements
In some cases no methods are under development (fish in particular)
Emphasises how limited intercalibration will be by mid 2006
Will need to continue as national methods become established

8. Types and Pressures

9. Types and Pressures - Issues
NE Atlantic - All types, pressures relating to all QEs attempted (success not guaranteed)
Baltic - Not all types or pressures covered (no fish)
Black Sea - All types and pressures covered but not all QEs
Med - Not all types, but all pressures covered (no fish)
Is this a problem?

10. Data Collection - Questions
A. What data is being collected?
B. Intercalibration sites only?
C. All countries able to contribute data?
D. Additional sampling carried out for intercalibration?
E. Institutions responsible for storing data and who has access?
Does GIG co-operate with REBECCA?

11. Data Collection

12. Data Collection - Issues
All GIGs are collecting data for chosen quality elements
All GIGs are using data from sites on the register AND other sites
Not all countries are contributing data in most GIGs - need more input
Additional sampling is being carried out in all GIGs
All GIGs are storing data and know where
Most GIGs have had some contact with REBECCA

13. Data - Key message from COAST Group
All agreed that data collected during the intercalibration
process and held by organisations in member states
can be made available if requested by other organisations
subject to the data owner's approval. GIGs will maintain
these databases during the intercalibration exercise.
The GIGs cannot accept responsibility for future management of this data after the official intercalibration exercise finishes in If this data is required to be kept, maintained, quality assured and managed for access after next year, ECOSTAT will have to find a central resource to manage this in future.

14. Class Boundary Setting Procedure - Questions
A. Will it be possible for the GIGs to use the BSP? If not, explain.
B. Describe the process of applying the BSP in the GIGs. Provide example using template if possible.
C. Do the GIGs use the conceptual model on nutrient enrichment effects from the ‘Eutrophication paper’

15. Class Boundary Setting Procedure

16. Class Boundary Setting Procedure - Issues
The NE Atlantic and Baltic GIGs are able to use the BSP, have provided a draft example of its use and are linking to the nutrient enrichment model.
The Black Sea GIG is unable to use the BSP at present due to lack of data, cannot provide an example at present and so cannot link to the model. Further work needed.
The Mediterranean GIG can use the BSP, have started work on providing examples of its use but cannot use the model at present unless is tailored for the Mediterranean situation.

17. COAST Group - Key messages
Next ECOSTAT meeting was scheduled for February This would mean GIGs producing reports by end January All agreed that the ECOSTAT meeting would be better timed for mid March DJ will give COAST support to moving meeting date at October ECOSTAT.

18. COAST Group - Key messages
Reporting timescale is likely to remain as June All agreed that we must focus on those elements where a realistic result can be achieved by then. All agree that reports on metrics should be included in the final report, not just where full quality elements have been intercalibrated.

19. COAST Group - Key messages
All agreed that post intercalibration next year the official site register will have to be amended. All noted that data from other sites is being used during intercalibration.
All agreed that we should base reference conditions on best available knowledge. If best possible contemporary areas within types are used it should be justified that the areas are or are close to be representative for reference conditions as defined by the directive. All agreed that it was vital that we document HOW Member States have derived reference conditions within the intercalibration process.

20. COAST Group - Key messages
All agreed that we should seek to intercalibrate metrics/methods from the same habitat types. We should consider using EUNIS as the common reference for habitats.
Noted that if intercalibration for a method/metric is achieved by a minority of states in a GIG then it is possible that other states may be instructed to use the boundaries as agreed by the participants. All member state representatives to note and ensure that they engage with the process as much as possible.

21. COAST Group - Key messages
Noted that the work of the Eutrophication Group has close links with the GIG work. All member state leads to ensure close liaison with their representatives on the Eutrophication group.

22. COAST Group - Key messages
All agreed that we need to exchange information on the general physico-chemical parameters during GIG discussions and that again this should be a major item at the next COAST meeting.
All agreed that we should better utilise the JRC information system for storing COAST/GIG work, exchanging information and using it as a routine discussion forum.

23. COAST Group - Key messages
All agreed that the design of monitoring programmes is a major issue for all next year. All supported the need to ensure that programmes are designed in similar ways as much as possible. All agreed we need to consider how monitoring data is used in final classification and the European guidance on this would be needed. All supported the idea of a monitoring and classification workshop early next year. DJ will give COAST support to this proposal at the October ECOSTAT meeting.

24. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTON!
END
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTON!