1. Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland and Marine Waters Unit

2. Issues Intercalibration Other Issues
Status and finalisation of the intercalibration register
Guidance for the Intercalibration process
Progress intercalibration process
Other Issues
(Eutrophication)
Monitoring
Harmonisation

3. Intercalibration register

4. Final draft IC register
Submission deadline 15 September (extended to 21 September)
1498 sites received
Additions/Corrections after 21 September:
12 Coastal/transitional sites from Ireland
1 Coastal site from Latvia
11 Lake sites from Romania

5. 997 Rivers
79 sites

6. 327 Lakes

7. 184 Coastal, 38 Transitional

8. Sites by country Submitted as promised
Sufficient, but less than promised
No sites as promised
No sites, no promises
Corrections after 21/9

9. Intercalibration site submission scoreboard…
24 Member States,
Norway, Romania, Bulgaria 
Malta

10. IC register – next steps
Intercalibration register (Annex A1) presented to WG2A and sent to WFD Committee – on the agenda 29 October
Possibility to correct obvious errors in the site lists:
Submitted by MS, but not in the list
Mistakes in site names
Information on type, GIG, class boundaries

11. Metadata and other information
Quality control needed
First checking by JRC ongoing (done)
Data distributed to WG2A and GIG experts (done)
Data providers can correct (meta)data (October – February)
Updated (meta)data to be distributed March

13. Intercalibration process guidance
Version 4 agreed by WG2A, distributed to SCG 14 October
Drafting group meetings: Dec 2003, Feb 2004, June 2004
WG2A meetings: March 2004, July 2004, October 2004

14. Table of contents 1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
2. KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERCALIBRATION PROCESS
3. PROCESS OPTIONS FOR INTERCALIBRATION
4. CONTENTS OF THE FINAL INTERCALIBRATION REPORT
5. ORGANISATION OF THE WORK AND TIMETABLES
ANNEX I. FRAMEWORK FOR DERIVING CLASS BOUNDARY VALUES CONSISTENT WITH THE WFD NORMATIVE DEFINITIONS
ANNEX II: LIST OF GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUPS (GIGS) [LIST FROM DRAFT COMMITTEE DECISION]
ANNEX III: EXAMPLE OF A HYBRID INTERCALIBRATION OPTION

15. 2. KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERCALIBRATION PROCESS (1)
Aim of IC - setting of good status class boundaries:
Consistent with WFD normative definitions
Comparable between Member States
IC concerns biological monitoring results at quality element level – not full monitoring systems

16. 2. KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERCALIBRATION PROCESS (2)
Intercalibration process will identify appropriate boundary EQR values for Member State’s WFD asssessment methods
Boundary EQR values may be different between countries, but reflect a comparable level of anthropogenic alteration
Assumption that all Member States will have developed national WFD assessment methods in time

17. 2. KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERCALIBRATION PROCESS (3)
IC undertaken within Geographical Intercalibration Groups (GIGs)
IC limited to common types, agreed pressures and quality elements
IC carried out for all agreed types (excluding types requires WG2A agreement)

18. 3. PROCESS OPTIONS FOR INTERCALIBRATION
Different GIGs may require different approaches, depending on:
State of development of classification methods
Diversity of approaches between countries
Data availability
IC guidance identifies three alternative options
All options require:
application of an agreed procedure for establishing reference conditions and setting class boundaries (Annex I)
Identification of intercalibration sites representing the class boundaries

19. ANNEX I. BOUNDARY SETTING PROCEDURE
1. Describe type-specific
reference conditions for
biological quality elements
3. Establish data set
illustrating RC and degradation
across a pressure gradient
2. Agree rules for deriving
high-good boundary for
biological quality consistent
with the normative definitions
4. Criteria for good status and
moderate status classes
related to degratation path
5. Method/criteria used to
derive good-moderate status
boundary values
Good status class boundary
values consistent with
WFD normative definitions
6. Apply criteria to data set
and establish boundary EQR
values for BQE

20. Option 1: Common WFD assessment method
Country
National WFD method
Boundary setting metric
Harmonisation of assessment results
MS1 A
Not needed
MS2
MS3
MS4

21. Option 2: Common boundary setting metric
Country
National WFD method
Boundary setting metric
Harmonisation of assessment results
MS1 A E
Translate common metric boundaries to national methods
MS2 B
MS3 C
MS4 D

22. Option 3: No common metric
Country
National WFD method
Boundary setting metric
Harmonisation of assessment results
MS1 A
Direct comparison using shared IC sites
MS2 B
MS3 C
MS4 D

23. 4. CONTENTS OF THE FINAL INTERCALIBRATION REPORT
Section 1 – overview of GIGs and common types
Section 2 – Results for each common type
Type description, countries where type is present
Quality element(s) and pressure(s) in focus
Summary of class boundary setting protocol & reference to data used
Intercalibration sites representing boundaries
Quantitative relationships between MS metrics and common metrics (where applicable) including estimate of uncertainty
Boundary EQR values
Section 3 – Conclusions (what is achieved and what not)

24. 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 N AT C M AL EC BA
NEA BS

25. General timetable for the intercalibration process
Oct 2004
IC process
guidance
Oct Feb June 2006
Draft Draft Final
(outline)
Intercalibration
Report

26. General timetable for the intercalibration process
Two WG2A meetings each year
GIG milestones organised accordingly

27. Intercalibration progress

28. Intercalibration progress (1)
Steering group established:
D. Jovett (UK, Coastal)
S. Poikane (LV, Lakes)
n.n. (Rivers)
A.-S Heiskanen, W. van de Bund (JRC)
GIG work has started – first reporting to WG2A in October

29. Intercalibration progress (2)
Diversity in approaches at this stage
Steering group will make proposal how to deal with this
Need for reporting in consistent format
JRC will establish simple reporting system
Need for Member States to make available appropriate resources
Clarification needed on data distribution/access policy
Task team will prepare proposal for next WG2A meeting (MS, DGENV, stakeholders, JRC)

30. Other Issues: Monitoring
WG2A Discussion paper on Monitoring:
Overview existing guidance, potential gaps
Anticipated that ongoing activities may identify needs for further guidance
No need for additional CIS guidance at this stage
Proposed that WG2A should address these issues when they arise – included in WG2A draft mandate

31. Other Issues: Harmonisation
WG2A task team will finalise first draft report on harmonisation of freshwater biologial methods:
overview of methods in use
evaluation of usefulness in relation to WFD
analysis of needs for harmonisation and standardisation
Linkages between WG2A and CEN are existing, but need to be put into practice
Harmonisation identified as activity in WG2A draft mandate