1. Synthesis of the intercalibration process Working group 2.5.

2. Background and status of paper
Draft Paper prepared by Intercalibration WG leaders (JRC)
Based on output of the expert drafting groups on Rivers (March 13-15), and Coastal Waters (March 20-22), and relevant chapters in the 2nd Draft Guidance document
Present status: 9 members of the working group and the Lakes expert group have made comments of the paper
5 members of the working group (A, DK, GR, IRL, S) agreed with the proposal, and 4 (D, NL, SE, UK) agreed in general, but had some remarks and alternative proposals.
WG wants to inform the SCG and seeks for guidance  How to proceed?

3. Contents of the presentation
1) Present timetable and the requirements of the intercalibration process as described in the WFD (Annex V, )
2) Presentation of the major problems in fulfilling these requirements
3) Proposals for solutions to overcome these problems without compromising the objectives of the intercalibration exercise

4. Purpose and Timetable of intercalibration

5. Purpose of Intercalibration
Common understanding of ‘good ecological status’ of surface waters (“intercalibration network”) /4
Comparison and harmonization of ecological quality class boundaries (“intercalibration exercise”)

6. Timetable of Intercalibration
WFD Intercalibration as
required by Annex V
Selection of
intercalibration
sites 2003
Draft Register for
intercalibration network
2003
2003
2004
2005
2006
Final Register for
intercalibration network
2004
Intercalibration
exercise
Reporting results 2006

7. Site selection: setting the class boundaries
high
good
moderate
poor
bad 1
Setting the “yard sticks”
for good ecological quality
 targets for restoration of other water bodies of similar type.
Sites selected where the specific
normative definitions of
ecological quality are agreed
to be representative for the borders high or good

8. Identifying obstacles and problems for intercalibration

9. Timetable Mismatch 2003 Compilation of Draft
Member States’ Intercalibration
implementation timetable timetable
Compilation of Draft
Intercalibration register
2004 Analysis of characteristics
(including typology and Final Intercal. register
analysis of pressures and impact)
Intercalibration exercise
2006 Monitoring programmes Intercalibration completed: operational harmonised monitoring programmes

10. Problems with type selection for the Intercalibration network
Member States need to differentiate surface water body types in 2004
Before that the sites for the intercalibration network should be selected and the draft register submitted to Committee by end of 2003
Water body types selected for the intercalibration network may not be compliant with water body types differentiated by the Member States.
Is the amendment of draft register possible in 2004? (Note! Question from WG 2.5. to SCG)

11. Site selection and data availability
Site selection in can only be based on data presently available
Presently available data from the Member States do not include all quality elements and is not always compliant with WFD requirements
This means that not all required biological quality elements and not all water body types can be considered and included in the intercalibration at this stage.
At present there is only limited data to select sites for the intercalibration network across the whole EU

12. Problem of intercalibration based on limited data/ quality elements
Intercalibration site selection
based on existing data
(I.e. benthic invertebrates) in 2003
New monitoring data of other
quality elements after 2006
Stressor (Pressure)
Response (indicator value)
Amendment of
IC register needed?

13. Intercalibration exercise and data availability
The monitoring systems of the Member States do not need be operational before December By that time the intercalibration exercise should be already completed and the results should be published
Required data would only be available if Member States started voluntarily carry out monitoring at least two years earlier than required (however, this data would not be available for site selection)
An intercalibration exercise in 2005/6 will be based on incomplete data, and using results from the monitoring systems that are under development

14. Proposed solutions

15. Solution Proposed in the Synthesis
Limited intercalibration in (water body types and quality elements where sufficient data are available)
Repeated intercalibrations at 6-year intervals (including revision of the intercalibration site register) taking into account
possible changes in the quality of the intercalibration sites
development and harmonisation of methods (i.e. development of new indicators, and indicator metrics, approval of new standards, etc.)
additional types, quality elements,
new Member States

16. Alternative proposals from WG members
1) First intercalibration voluntary pilot. Second, starting with site selection after 2006, would be the first obligatory/ formal intercalibration. In further exercises, if necessary, timetable should be adjusted with RBMP cycles (D & NL).
2) First intercalibration exercise after Allow 5 years for the compilation of the register for the intercalibration network starting in 2003, and to be finalised by 2008 (SE).
3) Intercalibration cycle do not necessarily need to be 6 years (but some other?) (UK)

17. Intercalibration and HMWB
WG 2.5. Intercalibration and WG 2.2. Artificial and HMWB

18. HMWB and Intercalibration: Provisional recommendations
Artificial and HMWB should not be included in the intercalibration network as a separate water category
Some AW/HMWB could be considered to be included in intercalibration:
if they fit in one of the natural intercalibration types
if AW/HMWB are dominant within a water category in one or more Member States