IntercalibrationGuidance:

update Sandra Poikane

Joint Research CentreInstitute for Environment and Sustainability

The analyses of the IC – 1

to establish common principles

to emphasize ecological principles

to establish closer cooperation

to update the IC Guidance

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

Update of the IC Guidance

The result - current version 5.0 on CIRCA

The aim of the meeting - to discuss and agree

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

Preconditions Q1. Do all national assessment methods meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive?

YES

Exclude methods not meeting the requirements.

Establish groups of methods within which intercalibration is carried out and exclude methods that do not fit in any group.

Q3. Do all countries apply a common assessment method (but different classifications)?

NO

Q4. Is the BQE data sampling and processing generally similar, so that all national assessment methods can reasonably be applied to the data of other countries?

YES

NOYES

Q2. Do all national methods address the same common type(s) and pressure(s), and follow a similar assessment concept?

YES

NO

IC feasibilitycheck 1

NO

Data basis for IC analysis

IC option1 – Common

Assessment Method3 – Direct Comparison

supported by Use of Common Metrics2 – Use of

Common Metrics

Selection of common metric(s)

Benchmarking Q6. Do the intercalibration datasets contain sites in near-natural conditions?

Common Dataset Common Dataset

YES NO

Q5. Are all methods reasonably related to the common metric(s)?

Common Datasetfeat. partial datasets

NO

IC feasibilitycheck 2

Improve common metric(s) or reconsider step Q2.

YES

Description of IC type-specific reference/biological benchmark communitiesat GIG level, considering possible biogeographical differences

Boundary comparison/setting

Q7. Do the good ecological status boundaries of the national methods comply with the WFD normative definitions?

Design and apply Boundary Setting Protocol at GIG level.

Demonstrate national boundary setting and compare national classifications.

Description of IC type-specific biological communitiesat GIG level representing moderate deviation from reference conditions (good-

moderate boundary), including associated environmental conditions

YES NO

Screen for sites using abiotic reference criteria, validate with biological data.

Screen for sites using abiotic criteria representing selected environmental status, validate with biological data.

Preconditions

Datasets and Intercalibration options

Benchmarking Boundary setting Boundary comparison and

harmonization

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

WFD Compliance checkingQ1 :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

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

Feasibility checkingQ2. 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

The aim

To find WFD compliant methods

Which are possible to intercalibrate

Preconditions Q1. Do all national assessment methods meet the requirements of the Water Framework Directive?

YES

Exclude methods not meeting the requirements.

Establish groups of methods within which intercalibration is carried out and exclude methods that do not fit in any group.

Q3. Do all countries apply a common assessment method (but different classifications)?

NO

Q4. Is the BQE data sampling and processing generally similar, so that all national assessment methods can reasonably be applied to the data of other countries?

YES

NOYES

Q2. Do all national methods address the same common type(s) and pressure(s), and follow a similar assessment concept?

YES

NO

IC feasibilitycheck 1

NO

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

Common datasetNecessary to collate a common

dataset: transparent intercalibration

process the description of biological

communities

Common datasetRequirements: the complete geographical

gradient of a common type the entire gradient of the pressure contain environmental and

biological data to conduct pressure-impact analyses

Evaluation of MS datasets Considerable heterogeneities

(sampling /analytical methods and taxonomic precision)

data quality criteria and minimum data criteria

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

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

Data basis for IC analysis

IC option1 – Common

Assessment Method3 – Direct Comparison

supported by Use of Common Metrics2 – Use of

Common Metrics

Selection of common metric(s)

Benchmarking Q6. Do the intercalibration datasets contain sites in near-natural conditions?

Common Dataset Common Dataset

YES NO

Q5. Are all methods reasonably related to the common metric(s)?

Common Datasetfeat. partial datasets

NO

IC feasibilitycheck 2

Improve common metric(s) or reconsider step Q2.

YES

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

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

1

1

0 0

humaninfluence

EQR spectrumState B State A

0.5

0.5

humaninfluence

alternative reference based on LDC:e.g. common high-goodor good-moderate boundary

Description of IC type-specific reference/biological benchmark communitiesat GIG level, considering possible biogeographical differences

Boundary comparison/setting

Q7. Do the good ecological status boundaries of the national methods comply with the WFD normative definitions?

Design and apply Boundary Setting Protocol at GIG level.

Demonstrate national boundary setting and compare national classifications.

Description of IC type-specific biological communitiesat GIG level representing moderate deviation from reference conditions (good-

moderate boundary), including associated environmental conditions

YES NO

Screen for sites using abiotic reference criteria, validate with biological data.

Screen for sites using abiotic criteria representing selected environmental status, validate with biological data.

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

New GIG structure GIGs, BQE groups, IC groups

BQE/ GIG Alpine Central Baltic

Eastern Continental Mediterranean Northern

Phytoplankton L-Alp-Ph L-CB-Ph LEC-Ph L-Med-Ph L-N-Ph Macrophytes L-Alp-Mp L-CB-Mp LEC -Mp L-Med-Mp L-N-Mp Benthic fauna L-Alp-Bf L-CB-Bf LEC -Bf L-Med -Bf L-N-Bf Fish fauna L-Alp-F L-CB-F LEC -F L-Med -F L-N-F

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)

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

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