1. ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 Comparability of the results of the intercalibration exercise – MS sharing the same method Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability

2. ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 DGENV letter to WD: Member States using the same monitoring and classification systems sometimes report different boundaries This should not be the case without good reasons Reasons should at least be explained properly

3. ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 Results concerned Option 3 result

4. ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 Intercalibration methodology (river GIGs) The intercalibration procedure that was agreed did not require that all MS in a GIG have identical boundaries, only that they are all in an agreed band after conversion to a common (ICMi) scale This IC procedure was agreed to be the best possible, given the lack of comparability of data between MS

5. ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 Results in current draft Decision Results in current draft Decision are comparable according to agreed IC procedures Request for further harmonisation of common methods is a new element for the GIGs… But it is reasonable to at least ask for an explanation of large differences – in cases where MS are using exactly the same classification systems

6. ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 Classification metrics and Monitoring/classification systems IC aims comparability of monitoring and classification systems; what is published in the Decision are values for classification metrics Even if MS use the same classification metric (e.g. IPS), there may be differences in their assessment methods: –Differences in sampling methods and sampling strategy –Different approaches to setting reference conditions and class boundaries –Differences in typology This may result in numerically different boundary values that are still comparable!

7. ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 CB GIG comparison of GM boundary on ICMi scale BE FR LU

8. ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 Questions The following questions must be answered for the methods mentioned in the DGENV letter to the WD: –Can we directly compare the monitoring and assessment systems of MS sharing a classification metric? If no: recommend not to present them as a ‘shared method’ –Can the differences in boundary values be considered large, taking into account uncertainty in the various stages of the intercalibration procedure? If no: no further explanation is required If yes: can differences in boundaries be explained

9. ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 Case 1: macroinvertebrates in CB GIG - IBGN (RC3/RC4/RC6) –French GM boundary clearly higher than BE, LU  Do the three MS using IBGN really have the same assessment method that allow IBGN EQR values to be directly compared? Difference in how MS deal with typology and RC setting  Can differences be explained by those MS? (IBGN)

10. ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 Case 2: macroinvertebrates in Med GIG - ICMi MED GIG agreed on a common boundary setting procedure that was applied by each MS using their own data. Resulting boundaries are compared Differences in boundaries are relatively small (max. 0.03 for RM4 GM)  Do the four MS using ICMi really have the same assessment method that allow ICMi EQR values to be directly compared?  Is it reasonable to expect such differences between MS when applying a common boundary setting procedure? [if yes  recommend to accept results] (RM1 / RM2 / RM4 / RM5) MS HG (MS EQR)GM (MS EQR) EL0.95 / 0.94 / 0.96 / -0.71 / 0.71 / 0.72 / - IT0.97 / 0.94 / 0.94 / 0.970.72 / 0.70 / 0.70 / 0.73 CY- / - / 0.97 / -- / - / 0.73 / -

11. ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 Case 3: phytobenthos in CB, NO, and MED GIGs - IPS CB GIG HG (MS EQR)GM (MS EQR) BE(W)0.830.61 EE0.850.70 LU0.850.70 SE0.890.74 HG (MS EQR)GM (MS EQR) FI0.910.80 SE0.890.74 NO GIG MED GIG (RM1 / RM2 / RM4 / RM5) HG (MS EQR)GM (MS EQR) PT0.84 / - / - 0.62 / - / - ES0.90 / 0.93 /0.91 / 0.95 0.67 / 0.70 / 0.68 / 0.71 “problems with reference conditions” “more strict criteria for selecting reference sites” Differences in reference condition setting?

12. ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 Case 3: phytobenthos in CB, NO, and MED GIGs - IPS Do the eight MS using IPS really have the same assessment method that allow IPS EQR values to be directly compared? Comparison was rather coarse due to limited applicability of the IC typology Can the large differences in IPS boundary values be explained by the MS involved –CB: BE, EE, LU, SE –NO: FI, SE –MED: PT, ES

13. ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 Case 4: macroinvertebrates in Coast NEA (M-AMBI) MS HG (MS EQR)GM (MS EQR) FR0.77 / -0.53 / - DE0.85 / 0.850.70 / 0.70 PT0.79 / -0.58 / - ES0.77 / -0.53 / - [NEA1/26abcd,NEA7] / [NEA3/4] Point for clarification: does PT use M-AMBI? Do the 3 (4) MS using M-AMBI really have the same assessment method that allow M-AMBI EQR values to be directly compared? Option 3 results  iterative harmonisation procedure in principle ensures that final boundaries are comparable Possible cause for the higher boundaries from DE: different reference conditions [“reference datasets are from times in which human impacts were already obvious”] RC and boundary setting procedures not clearly described in the GIG report FR=ES << DE