1. WFD CIS 4th Intercalibration Workshop
- Introduction and Expected Outcome
Anna-Stiina Heiskanen
European Commission
Joint Research Centre
Ispra, Italy

2. WFD, Annex V, Article 1.4.1: Comparability of biological monitoring results - Intercalibration exercise
(iii) (…) The value for the boundary between the classes of high and good status, and the value for the boundary between good and moderate status shall be established through the intercalibration exercise (.…)
(iv) The Commission shall facilitate this intercalibration exercise in order to ensure that these class boundaries are established consistent with the normative definitions (..) and are comparable between Member States

3. Normative definitions of ecological status classification
high
good
moderate
poor
bad 1
(nearly) totally undisturbed
slight alterations
moderate alterations
major alterations
severe alterations OK
measures
needed

4. Intercalibration: consistent interpretation of class boundary definitions
What are ‘slight’, moderate’, ‘major’ and ‘severe’ alterations from reference conditions?
Class boundaries should be consistent with the normative definitions, and
Comparable between Member States

5. Comparison timetables MS implementation vs. intercalibration
Member States’ Intercalibration
implementation timetable timetable
2003
2004
2005
2006
Compilation of Draft
Intercalibration register
Analysis of characteristics
(typology and analysis
of pressures and impacts)
Final Intercal. Register
Intercalibration exercise
Monitoring programmes
operational
Intercalibration completed,
and results published

6. Limitations of WFD intercalibration
IC aims highly ambitious: harmonized class boundaries in MS monitoring systems - including good/moderate
Only ONE intercalibration exercise foreseen that should be completed in 2006
Intercalibration planned simultaneously with the development of typology and monitoring systems
WFD has no intercalibration strategy for longer term
Intercalibration in has to be limited (types, pressures, quality elements)

7. Steps for the establishment of the Intercalibration Network

8. WFD, Annex V, Article 1.4.1: Comparability of biological monitoring results
(v)(…) For each surface water body type selected, the network shall consist of at least two sites corresponding to the boundary between the normative definitions of high and good status, and at least two sites corresponding to the boundary between the normative definitions of good and moderate status. The sites shall be selected by expert judgement based on joint inspections and all other available information.

9. Selection of intercalibration sites
Rivers
Lakes
Transitional waters
Coastal waters
Heavily
modified
waters
Selection of water types
for each Ecoregion 1
> 2 sites
between
high ---- good
status
> 2 sites
between
good -- moderate
status
Selection of sites
Using expert judgement and
all available information 2
Draft intercalibration network
SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED 2003

10. Establishment of intercalibration network
Member States & Candidate Countries propose IC sites for the draft register (2003)
IC sites represent national views of the high-good and good-moderate boundaries - not a common view
Differences in national views of class boundaries will be reflected in the draft IC network
IC Guidance: procedure to achieve maximum consistency involving expert groups

11. WFD, Annex V, Article 1.4.1: Comparability of biological monitoring results
(vii)(…) Within three years of the date of entry into force of the Directive, the Commission shall prepare a draft register of sites to form the intercalibration network which may be adapted in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 21. The final register of sites shall be established within four years of the date of entry into force of the Directive and shall be published by the Commission

12. Establishment of IC register
Member States select sites for the draft register
Expert groups & Intercalibration Working group evaluate selections in 2003
Draft register discussed in a joint workshop of MS (CC), experts, and Commission in autumn 2003
Draft register submitted to the WFD Committee in Dec. 2003; draft register may be amended in 2004
May 2004: New MS join the EU & WFD committee
Final register approved and published after Committee decision in Dec (New MS participate)

13. Way forward to the Intercalibration exercise in 2005-6

14. WFD, Annex V, Article 1.4.1: Comparability of biological monitoring results
(vi) Each Member State monitoring system shall be applied to those sites in the intercalibration network which are both in the ecoregion and of a surface water body type to which the system will be applied pursuant to the requirements of this Directive. The results of this application shall be used to set the numerical values for the relevant class boundaries in each Member State monitoring system.

15. Process of the intercalibration exercise
Commission
IC data base
Publishing (Dec/06)
Data (Jan/05-
Jun/06)
Reporting
(Jun/06)
Member States’
assessment
system
Potential
additional
sampling
Sites selected for
intercalibration
(2003/4)
Classification of
intercalibration
site (EQR-value)
Member State

16. Roles of the Member States & Commission
Intercalibration will be carried out by the Member States
Role of the Commission is to facilitate information exchange and to publish the results

17. Background
EEWAI
The Joint Research Centre, in collaboration with DG ENV, has undertaken the initiative to launch
European Centre for Ecological Water Quality and Intercalibration (EEWAI)
coordinate and assist in the intercalibration exercise, as required by the WFD
Operational since January 2003

18. Expected outcome of the Intercalibration Workshop

19. Steps for selection of IC network
MS nominate: Experts on
1) Rivers& Lakes
2) Coastal/Transitional waters
subdivivion into
(eco)regional groups
Provisional identification of
intercalibration (eco)regions
(REFCOND, COAST)
Propose water body types for Intercalibration network
(REFCOND, COAST)
Propose major pressures and quality elements
for each water body type to be included in the IC network
(IMPRESS, MONITORING)
IC working group (March 17-18)
Select types, pressures and quality
elements to be included in the IC network

20. Expected Outcome - IC network
To reach agreement on :
Geographical Intercalibr. groups (MS & CC?)
Common types for the Intercalibr. network
Major pressures for each water body type
Major quality elements for the intercalibration network/ exercise
This will allow MS and CC to start the process to look for IC sites within the agreed types.

21. Expected Outcome - Process for continuation
Agree on next steps for intercalibration network selection process
Agree on process for metadata analysis
Agree on drafting groups for ECOSTAT (i.e. develop guidance for IC exercise)
Involvement of Accession Countries - how?
Need for harmonization/ standardization of biological monitoring methods?