1. Intercalibration Guidance: update Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability

2. The analyses of the IC – 1  to establish common principles  to emphasize ecological principles  to establish closer cooperation  to update the IC Guidance

3. Update of IC Guidance  The first draft by the JRC - April 09  Drafting group –Ursula Schmedtje (DG ENV) –Sebastian Birk (DE) –Geoff Phillips, Peter Holmes, Roger Owen (UK) –Rob Portielje (NL) –André Chandesris, Martial Ferreol (FR), –Wouter van de Bund, Sandra Poikane, Wendy Bonn (JRC)  Two meetings – June and August 2009  + ECOSTAT comments

4. Update of the IC Guidance  The result - current version 5.0 on CIRCA  The aim of the meeting - to discuss and agree

5. News in a nutshell:  Flowchart of the IC process  Starting point of the IC –WFD compliance checking –Feasibility checking  Requirement for common dataset  Option 3 + Common Metrics  Alternative benchmarking  Organization: Timetables, reporting, IC structure

6.  Preconditions  Datasets and Intercalibration options  Benchmarking  Boundary setting  Boundary comparison and harmonization

7. News in a nutshell:  Flowchart of the IC process  Starting point of the IC –WFD compliance checking –Feasibility checking  Requirement for common dataset  Option 3 + CM  Alternative benchmarking  Organization: Timetables, reporting, IC structure

8. WFD Compliance checking Q1 :Do all national assessment methods meet the requirements of the WFD ?  MS : Documentation of national assessment methods incl. response to pressures and class boundary setting  IC group: The checking of national methods considering the WFD requirements  Only methods meeting the requirements of the WFD are intercalibrated

9. Compliance criteria  Boundaries in line with the WFD’s definitions  Type-specific reference conditions  All relevant parameters indicative of the biological quality element are covered (see Table 1)  Assessment results are expressed as EQRs  Sampling procedure allows for representative information about water body quality in space and time If parameters are missing, Member States need to demonstrate that the method is sufficiently indicative of the status of the QE as a whole

10. Feasibility checking Q2. Do all national methods address the same common type(s) and pressure(s), and follow a similar assessment concept ?  Pressure criteria: eutrophication vs. acidification  Assessment concept: –emergent vs. submersed macrophytes –littoral vs. profundal benthic fauna –species composition vs. diversity

11. The aim  To find WFD compliant methods  Which are possible to intercalibrate

13. News in a nutshell:  Flowchart of the IC process  Starting point of the IC –WFD compliance checking –Feasibility checking  Requirement for common dataset  Option 3 + CM  Alternative benchmarking  Organization: Timetables, reporting, IC structure

14. Common dataset Necessary to collate a common dataset:  transparent intercalibration process  the description of biological communities

15. Common dataset Requirements:  the complete geographical gradient of a common type  the entire gradient of the pressure  contain environmental and biological data to conduct pressure-impact analyses

16. Evaluation of MS datasets  Considerable heterogeneities (sampling /analytical methods and taxonomic precision)  data quality criteria and minimum data criteria

17. News in a nutshell:  Flowchart of the IC process  Starting point of the IC –WFD compliance checking –Feasibility checking  Requirement for common dataset  Option 3 + common metrics  Alternative benchmarking  Organization: Timetables, reporting, IC structure

18. IC options  Same data acquisition, same numerical evaluation  Option 1  Different data acquisition and numerical evaluation  IC Option 2  Similar data acquisition, but different numerical evaluation  IC Options 3 supported by the use of common metric(s), if possible  The use of common metrics allows for transparent and ecologically meaningful insights into national reference definition and boundary setting Preferable Only if not possible to compile common database

20. News in a nutshell:  Flowchart of the IC process  Starting point of the IC –WFD compliance checking –Feasibility checking  Requirement for common dataset  Option 3 – preferable + CM  Alternative benchmarking  Organization: Timetables, reporting, IC structure

21. Alternative benchmarking  If sites in near-natural (reference) conditions are sufficiently available in the dataset- setting of RC  If near-natural sites are lacking an alternative benchmarking has to be performed –Still based on the common dataset for intercalibration –Sites showing similar level of anthropogenic pressures (identified by harmonised criteria)  Biological communities at reference or benchmark state has to be described, considering possible biogeographical differences

24. News in a nutshell:  Flowchart of the IC process  Starting point of the IC –WFD compliance checking –Feasibility checking  Requirement for common dataset  Option 3 – preferable + CM  Alternative benchmarking  Organization: Timetables, reporting, IC structure

25. New GIG structure  GIGs, BQE groups, IC groups

26. Timetables  Collection of common dataset (recommended deadline: October 2009)  Datasets established and common metrics developed (June 2010)  Reference conditions/Benchmarking and boundary setting (October 2010)  Boundary comparison and harmonisation (March 2011)

27. Reporting  M1 (September 2009): –Progress on WFD compliance checking (do all national assessment methods meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive?) –Progress on Feasibility checking (do all national methods address the same common types(s) and pressures(s) and follow a similar assessment concept ?) –Progress on Collection of IC dataset and Design the work for IC procedure  M2 (March 2010): –WFD compliance and feasibility check –Data set collected, IC common metric development –Progress on Benchmarking Boundary comparison/setting  M3 (October 2010): –Benchmarking Boundary comparison/setting –Progress on Boundary harmonisation  M4 (February 2011): –Boundary harmonisation completed; –Proposal for IC Decision  M5 (May 2011): –Final IC group reports –Finalised proposal for IC Decision

28. Way forward  Comparability criteria –Still under development –Planned end of November 2009  Final draft (incl. comparability criteria) – April 2010 ECOSTAT meeting  Draft 5.0– discussions/agreement at October 2009 ECOSTAT meeting