1. Framework for the intercalibration process  Must be simple  Aiming to identify and resolve big inconsistencies with the normative definitions and big differences between Member States  Focused on GIGs rather than ‘ecoregions’ Set out key principles  Different EQRs for each national method may nevertheless indicate the same degree of ecosystem alteration

2. Establish the basic framework for the process – and the contents of the final Intercalibration Report Details to be developed and added to Annexes as work progresses

3. All using the same assessment method Option 1 Same metricsSame metrics Same methods of sampling and analysisSame methods of sampling and analysis Same EQR scaleSame EQR scale

4. Common WFD assessment method Agreed boundary EQR values for good ecological status class Apply agreed boundary setting protocol Option 1

5. Option 1: Same method Sampling method Parameters (metrics) Means of estimating reference conditions = same EQR scale

6. Identification of a simple common assessment method (common metric approach) Option 2 Based on common metric(s) that can be calculated across GIGBased on common metric(s) that can be calculated across GIG Boundaries set for common method – then used to calibrate national monitoring systemsBoundaries set for common method – then used to calibrate national monitoring systems

7. Apply national WFD assessment method and ‘common metric(s) method’ to a suitable data set spanning a range of quality Compare the good ecological status class boundaries agreed for the common metric(s) method with those proposed by the Member State for its national method Accept boundary EQR values proposed for national WFD assessment method No major differences Set good ecological status boundary values for the common metric(s) method Major differences Adjust EQR values proposed for the national WFD assessment method until they correspond to those agreed for the common metric(s) method Identify a common metric(s) method for the biological element Accept adjusted boundary EQR values for national WFD assessment method Apply agreed boundary setting protocol Option 2

8. Data needs for Option 2 Suitable data set to calculate common metrics and agree boundaries for themSuitable data set to calculate common metrics and agree boundaries for them Data sets to which both common metrics method and national method can be appliedData sets to which both common metrics method and national method can be applied

9. UK Method German Method Agree calibration of common metric

10. Option 3 Direct comparison of national methods at intercalibration sites selected by joint inspection

11. Boundary EQR values for national method revised in accordance with protocol Check comparability of the boundary EQR values proposed for the national methods Accept boundary EQR values proposed for the national method No major differences Select suitable intercalibration sites for applying, and then comparing the results of, different national WFD assessment methods Member States check previously submitted intercalibration sites and, if appropriate, replacement sites are added to the Intercalibration Register Application of agreed boundary setting protocol Member States apply the protocol to check and, if indicated, revise the boundary EQR values for their national WFD assessment methods Working Group reviews application of boundary setting protocol Major differences Option 3

12. UK MethodGerman Method Option 3 Selected intercalibration site

13. Data required to run each Member States assessment method at the selected intercalibration sitesData required to run each Member States assessment method at the selected intercalibration sites Data needs for Option 3

14. Do you agree that these are the basic options?

15. Timetable issues 27 months left for the Intercalibration Exercise Can we ask the Water Directors to endorse the basic process at the June Water Directors’ meeting? And then develop detail (in Annexes) iteratively as we progress?

16. We cannot have the three options open forever….. We need to get advice on what is practical from the GIGs and the Expert Groups…. And we need to decide which options are to be used where by June

17. HOW DO WE ORGANISE THE PROCESS

18. How do we coordinate different parts of the process….. Working Group activities Water Category Expert Group activities GIG level activities

19. To make sure things happen We need…… To make sure we all know what is happening To make sure what happens in different places is consistent

20. Lake Expert GroupRiver Expert GroupCoast Expert Group Intercalibration Steering Group (JRC) ECOSTAT Working Group Current Structure

21. Lake Expert GroupRiver Expert GroupCoast Expert Group Intercalibration Steering Group JRC Lake Expert Group coordinator River Expert Group Coordinator Coast Expert Group Coordinator ECOSTAT Working Group

22. Lake Expert GroupRiver Expert GroupCoast Expert Group Intercalibration Steering Group JRC Lake Expert Group coordinator River Expert Group Coordinator Coast Expert Group Coordinator ECOSTAT Working Group Lake GIGsRiver GIGs Coast GIGs

23. What activities take place where? If work needs to take place in the GIGs, who will be responsible for making sure this happens? Can we identify a GIG Coordinator? How do we ensure coordination in (a) small GIGs and (b) big GIGs?

24. Lake Expert Group GIG Coordinators River Expert Group GIG Coordinators Coast Expert Group GIG Coordinators Intercalibration Steering Group JRC Lake Expert Group coordinator River Expert Group Coordinator Coast Expert Group Coordinator ECOSTAT Working Group Lake GIGsRiver GIGs Coast GIGs