1. Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Guidance for the intercalibration process Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland and Marine Waters Unit

2. Progress since last WG2A meeting
Version 2.0 discussed at previous WG2A meeting July 2004
Version 3.0 distributed to drafting group 21 September 2004
Version 3.1 distributed to WG2A 29 September 2004
Major changes and additions marked

3. Main changes in version 3.0
Include possibilities for review of the intercalibration register and additional intercalibration activities, referring to the draft Commission decision on the IC network and the Intercalibration Guidance
Clarifications on the descriptions of the Options, and an example of a hybrid option (Annex III)
General timetable of the intercalibration exercise in new Figure 5.2
Clarifications on reporting requirements, public availability of data (Section 5.6 and 5.7)
Simplified class boundary setting procedure
Glossary (Annex IV)

4. 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
ANNEX IV: GLOSSARY

5. 1. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
No changes compared to version 2.0

6. 2. KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERCALIBRATION PROCESS (1)
New Section 2.4 on artificial and heavily modified water bodies (addendum): The Intercalibration guidance states that “some artificial or heavily modified water bodies could be considered to be included in the intercalibration network, if they fit in one of the natural water body types selected for the intercalibration network. Artificial and heavily modified water bodies that are not comparable with any natural water bodies should only be included in the intercalibration network, if they are dominant within a water category in one or more Member States; in that case they should be treated as one or several separate water body types” . An artificial or heavily modified water body is considered to fit in one of a natural water types if the maximum ecological potential of the artificial or heavily modified water body is the same as the reference conditions of the natural type for those quality elements considered in the intercalibration exercise.

7. 2. KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERCALIBRATION PROCESS (2)
New Section 2.6 (2.5) on revision possibilities of the intercalibration network: Intercalibration sites are selected by the Member States, and represent their interpretation of the WFD normative definitions of high, good and moderate status. There is no guarantee that different Member States will have the same views on how the normative definitions should be interpreted. Differences in interpretation are reflected in the intercalibration network . A common interpretation of the normative definitions should be the main outcome of the intercalibration exercise. At the end of the intercalibration exercise the intercalibration network may need to be revised according to this common interpretation. The [Draft] Commission Decision on the Establishment of the Intercalibration network allows this possibility, stating that the intercalibration register may be reviewed at the end of the intercalibration exercise “if there is proof that sites were not suitable for the purpose of the intercalibration exercise” .

8. 2. KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE INTERCALIBRATION PROCESS (3)
New Section 2.8 (2.7) on revision possibilities of the intercalibration network:
According to the [Draft] Commission Decision on the Establishment of the Intercalibration network , the intercalibration register may be reviewed and additional intercalibration exercises may be undertaken:
a) to take into account pressures or other quality elements not previously considered,
b) if the results of the intercalibration exercise are considered inaccurate.

9. 3. PROCESS OPTIONS FOR INTERCALIBRATION (1)
Editorial changes: numbered sections
New Section 3.3 on reference conditions and data sets to illustrate boundary setting procedure:
All three options as well as any hybrid options require that the GIGs agree on type-specific reference conditions, and establish data sets illustrating the degradation of the biological quality element along a pressure gradient. The normative definitions for the ecological quality classes are then applied to these data. The main difference between the options is whether this is done at Member State level using national metrics (option 3), or at GIG level using common metrics (option 1 and 2).

10. 3. PROCESS OPTIONS FOR INTERCALIBRATION (2)
New Section 3.4 on boundary setting procedure and reporting:
An outline of the main components of such a class boundary setting procedure is presented in Annex I. In the course of the intercalibration process, the GIGs should regularly report the progress. To facilitate this, JRC-EEWAI will establish a simple web-based reporting system, where GIGs can report the progress made in each of the steps of this procedure on a regular basis. This makes it possible to check whether approaches followed in different GIGs are sufficiently comparable. Working Group 2A Ecological Status is responsible for the consistency and harmonisation of the process between GIGs and between categories (lakes, rivers, and coastal and transitional waters).

11. 3. PROCESS OPTIONS FOR INTERCALIBRATION (3)
Some clarifications in the description of the three options (especially Option 1)
Include example of a hybrid between Option 2 and 3 in Annex III

12. 4. CONTENTS OF THE FINAL INTERCALIBRATION REPORT
No changes compared to version 2.0

13. 5. ORGANISATION OF THE WORK AND TIMETABLES (1)
New Section 5.6 on what should be reported centrally by the GIGs
In principle, only the final results of the intercalibration procedure (as specified in Section 4 of this guidance document) are centrally reported to EEWAI using uniform templates. These results will be discussed in WG2A ecological status, and included in the final intercalibration report.

14. 5. ORGANISATION OF THE WORK AND TIMETABLES (2)
New Section 5.7 on the obligation for GIGs to bring together data and make this publicly available
The GIGs (Option 1 and 2) or the Member States (Option 3) have the responsibility to bring together the data to set and/or illustrate the class boundaries. The GIGs compile the data enabling comparison of the classification results of different countries within the GIG. The GIGs are free to specify in which format this data will be brought together; however, all data used in intercalibration should be made publicly available.

15. 5. ORGANISATION OF THE WORK AND TIMETABLES (3)
New Section 5.9 explaining the general IC timetable constrained by legal deadlines
The general timetable if the intercalibration exercise (Figure 5.2) is constrained by the legal deadline to finalise the intercalibration report by December This requires that WG2A Ecological Status approves the report in June A first and second draft of the intercalibration report will be prepared in October 2005 and February 2006, respectively. WG2A Ecological Status will meet twice every year and regularly provide progress reports to the Strategic Co-ordination Group.

16. 5. ORGANISATION OF THE WORK AND TIMETABLES (4)
New Figure 5.2 illustrating the timetable
Figure 5.2: General timetable including GIG milestones (M1-M5), WG2A Ecological Status meetings, and draft (D1-D2) and final (F) reports of the intercalibration exercise

17. 5. ORGANISATION OF THE WORK AND TIMETABLES (3)
New Section 5.10 on possibilities for GIGs to modify timetables
Table 5.1 presents the different steps of the timetable for the intercalibration exercise in more detail, with the tasks of the GIGs, the . If needed, GIGs can propose modifications to this timetable depending on their specific needs (e.g. the options chosen, data availability, possibility to collect additional data, etc.), provided that this does not affect the overall process. Such modifications require agreement of Working Group 2A Ecological Status.

18. ANNEX I. OUTLINE BOUNDARY SETTING PROCEDURE
Explanation iterative character of boudary setting procedure
…GIGs are expected to apply this boundary setting procedure for each of the common intercalibration types, and to report how they have applied the different steps to WG2A Ecological Status on a regular basis. The steps do not necessarily need to be completed in the order indicated. It should be rather thought of as an iterative process. However, GIGs should complete all steps before the end of of the intercalibration exercise (2006).

19. ANNEX I. SIMPLIFIED 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. Annex II - List of Geographical Intercalibration Groups (GIGs)
No changes compared to version 2.0
List from draft Commission decision on intercalbration
Changes should be brought up in Committee meeting

21. Annex III - Example of a hybrid intercalibration option (new)
Hybrid option that is now being applied and tested in several river GIGs
Principle:
Start with comparing MS classification result within GIG using common metric
Resolve inconsistencies
Apply boundary setting procedure afterwards

22. Agree on Criteria for Reference conditions
GIG level
Test common metrics method in relation to national data set
Identify common metrics method
MS level
Apply national method and common metrics method to national data set (including range high – bad and IC sites)
Apply boundary setting procedure developed on national level and calculate corresponding EQR for common metrics
Compare EQR values (high/good and good/ moderate) for common metrics method
Compare and harmonise boundary setting procedure
Investigate reasons
Major
differences
No major differences
Accept/Set EQR values for both methods
External benchmarking
AQEM/STAR??
Make proposal for harmonisation
Identify IC sites representing agreed boundaries

23. Annex IV - Glossary (new)
Based on “GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS FROM GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS”, version 1.1 (19 September 2003)
Only terms directly relevant for this guidance are included
Additional terms are added (marked yellow)