Minutes of the 4th meeting of the Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy Working Group 2.5 Intercalibration
17-18 March, EC - Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
Participants: A, D, DK, F, FIN, H, I, N, NL, P, PL, RO, S, SLO, SP, UK, EC/DG-Env, EC/JRC-EIS, CEN
Presentations: All presentation slides are available on CIRCA (folder: library - WG 2.5 – workshops – 4th workshop)
Objectives of the meeting:
This meeting was the last of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) Common Implementation Strategy (CIS) Working Group 2.5 Intercalibration (IC). The objectives were:
(i)(i) to reach an agreementagree on the composition (types, pressures, biological elements)of to be considered for the IC network in order to allow MS and CC to start the process of selection of intercalibration sites of the agreed types and,. The discussions were based on the documents prepared in February 2003 by the lakes, rivers and coastal water experts proposing
-geographic IC groups;
-common types for the IC network;
-major pressures for each water body type;
-major quality elements for the IC network/ exercise.
(i)(ii) (ii) to come to an agreement on the process for continuation leading to the IC exercise, including.
(ii)Based on the documents previously prepared by the lakes, rivers and coastal water experts (February 2003), agreement was seek on:
the geographic IC groups;
the common types for the IC network;
major pressures for each water body type;
major quality elements for the IC network/ exercise.
In what refers to the process for continuation agreement was seek on:
-next steps for the IC network selection process;
-process for metadata analysis;
-need of drafting groups for CIS WG 2A. Ecological Status (ECOSTAT) (i.e. development of guidance for the IC exercise);
-increase involvement of the Accession Countries Howin the intercalibration process?
-need for harmonization and standardization of the biological monitoring results.
Presentations:
Introduction and expected outcome of the meeting (A.-S., Heiskanen)
By the end of 2006 the monitoring programmes should be operational and the results of the IC should be published.
The IC 2003-06 has to be limited to a few types, not covering all pressures and not all of the biological elements. At the moment we are at the stage of selecting types.
The draft register has to be completed by December 2003, but can be amended until the final register deadline at the end of 2004.
Update on progress since last WG meeting (W. van de Bund)
Since June 2002:
1. Finalisation of the IC guidance. The Intercalibration guidance has been endorsed by the Water Directors in their meeting in November 2002 in Copenhagen, under the modified title “Towards a guidance on establishment of the Intercalibration network and on the process of the Intercalibration exercise”. The document is now publicly available on CIRCA.
2. Launch of the EEWAI – European Centre for Ecological Water Quality and Intercalibration (for more information, see web page: –
EEWAI was launched in November 2002 by the JRC, and will be Sa scientific and technical platform for the WFD ICintercalibration in Europe: (organisation, infrastructure and database), as well as. Also a centre for integration of results from national and international research activities.
The European Centre for Ecological Water Quality and Intercalibration (EEWAI) The mission of EEWAI is:
Coordination and organisation of the WFD IC of the surface water ecological quality assessment systems
Identify needs for standardisation of methods for ecological quality assessment
Promote long term harmonisation of ecological quality assessment systems in EU
Develop further the indicator methodology for ecological quality assessment
Promote cooperation between European Institutions in the field of ecological quality assessment of surface waters.
3. Workshop on Ecological Status and WFD Intercalibration for Accession Countries (AC), held in Ispra 6-7 February 2003 . The AC joining the EU in 2004 will have to follow the same WFD implementation timetable as the present Member States (including the interalibration process). This workshop was funded by – a the JRC enlargement Enlargement action Action. More information on the workshop can be found at
to support the Accession Countries (AC) in the implementation of the WFD. The AC will have to follow the same timetable as the existing member countries.
4. Expert group meetingsswith the aim to propose intercalibration types for the water body categories.forExperts for lakes and rivers met in Ispra 19-21 February 2003. Coastal waters have beenwere dealt with in the (former) COAST groupWorking Group (meeting at Lisbon on 27-28 February 2003). For the future. Throughout the intercalibration process the COAST networkthese expert groups (Rivers, Lakes, and Coastal waters) will be maintained and consulted when needed, as set out in the Intercalibration guidance.and they will function as an expert network.
Future of common Implementation Strategy (J. D’Eugenio)
Priority The Priority substances Substances - expert advisory forum is the only “body” from the CIS 2001-2002 that will continue in 2003. The rest of the groups are finished but the networks will be asked to participate in the new CIS groups when needed.
In the new organisational structure of the CIS, there will be only four working groups, the mandates of these groups will be discussed at the Water Directors meeting in Athens in June 2003:
–2A “Ecological Status” lead jointly by UK, Germany, and JRC
–2B “Integrated River Basin Management” lead by France, Spain with JRC as technical coordinator
–2C “Groundwater” lead by Austria
–2D “Reporting” lead by EC
This is the last of the IC WG meetings, but a first start of the WG 2A. The kick off meeting for 2A is in June/July after the Water Directors meeting. A smooth transition from the old CIS structure is envisaged. The present meeting iswas the last of the IC WG meetings, as well as a first start of the WG 2A. The kick-off meeting for WG2A will be held in July after the Water Directors meeting.
Ecological statusNew CIS WG 2A working groupEcological Statuss: proposed mandate, structure, and work programme; proposed, drafting groups (U. Irmer, P. Pollard, W. van de Bund)
Kick off meeting of the WG 2A is planned to take place on 1-2 July in Brussels, where main issue will be classification. A second meeting of the WG 2A, focusing on intercalibration (proposal for the draft register of IC network) will be held in October (dates to be confirmed) at JRC, in Ispra, Italy.
Presentation WG 2A: Project plan forThe tasks of WG 2A is areto:
Task 1. Continuation To carry out the of the process for the establishment of the intercalibration network as described in the IC guidance and to developpmentof futher guidance for the IC process (W. van de Bund). This work is the continuation of the former WG 2.5, and will be lead by JRC (e-mail contact for this activity: ) The agreed process Need foreseesdrafting a role of expert groups for lakes, rivers, and coastal and transitional waters to deal with expert issues specific for the water body categories. Throughout the intercalibration process these expert groups (Rivers, Lakes, and Coastal waters) will be maintained and consulted to deal with issues specific for the water body categories when needed, as set out in the Intercalibration guidanceThe old existing groups can will be used on a technical basis here. Later on in the process there will be a need for drafting further guidance on the intercalibration process. A drafting group will start working on this issue in the second half of 2003, when information from the metadata inquiry will be available.
Task 2. Produce guidance on ecological classification (U. Irmer/ D, P. Pollard/ UK). This work addresses open issues from several of the former CIS working groups related to classification, and will be lead by Germany and UK (e-mail contact for this activity: ):. The following issues will be addressed
-Development of an overall approach to the classification of ecological status.
-Cover, covering all water categories and all elements including the( chemical and physical and hydromorphologicalelements).
-Identification of open questions and clarification of the legal basis, e.g. confidence and precision in classification, effect of combining monitoring results to estimate water body status and how does it account for the risk of misclassification, do physico-chemical parameters ensure ecosystem functioning.
-Development of a technical approach for compliance checking
A drafting group on classification will start working on these issues as soon as possible. Nominations for the drafting group on classification are needed by 15 April and should be sent to .
A first1st expert meeting of the drafting group on ecological classification (task2) will be held on 3 June in Brussels
Kick off meeting of the WG 2A 1-2 July in Brussels – main issue classification. 2nd expert meeting in Brussels in September. Second A second meeting of the WG 2A focusing on IC will be held in October in Ispra.
Nominations to the WG 2A are need by 15 April and should be sent to . Drafting group for the discussion papers have then to be agreed by the countries. (International meetings or and by the Water Directors). One main issue will be on the physical and chemical supporting elements in classification.
Task 3. Produce guidance on eutrophication. This issue will be addressed later.
Task 4. Facilitate information exchange on relevant ecological issues.
Process for establishing the intercalibration network (A.C. Cardoso)
Selection of types and sites:
Draft register for 2003: The different expert groups (river, lakes and marine) have suggested types (working documents for this meeting). Meeting in article 21 committee will be ca. 21 December. This means that the documents will have to be finalised in end November.
The IC register will hold sites with metadata on monitoring, physical and chemical data etc. The register can be revised during 2004.
Metadata analysis(A.-S. Heiskanen)
Information will be collected by JRC - EEWAI. A preliminary first analysis will be prepared by the EEWAI, after that. Expert groups will evaluate the metadata and point out possible inconsistencies for the selection of IC sites.
Information needed to go into the database:
Pressure information and other supporting information
Data availability for all biological quality elements.
Supporting physico-chemical and hydromorphological elements
Type specific reference conditions for biological elements for IC and description of methods used to obtain reference conditions (statistics, reference sites, modelling, expert judgement etc.) .
This questionnaire will take on board anything already done by WG 2.7 (monitoring). It was suggested that JRC also accompany the questionnaire with a realistic completed example.
Actions:
Questionnaire will be sent to MS and CC mid May A first draft of metadata questionnaire will be sent out for comments to the members of the working group and the expert groups on 9 April. Comments are expected by 1 May– the expert groups will be asked to have a look at the questionnaire before this date. Final questionnaire (with a completed example) will be sent to MS and CC mid-May (May 15).
-MS and CC Reply to the questionnaire by the end of July
-Expert groups (lakes, rivers, coastal waters) evaluations evaluate on metadata summary Aug/Sept – Oct (separate meetings will be organised by EEWAI; dates to be confirmed)
-Finalisation of IC the draft register for IC network (by EEWAI) – Nov 2003
-Commission will submit the draft register Submission toto Art 21 Comm – 20 Nov
A first draft will be sent out for comments to the member of the working group and the expert groups ASAP.
Comments:
Description of monitoring methods and assessment methodology, e.g. classification systems, are also needed. Inquiry should very clearly requireinclude very specific information on sampling methods.
After the metadata analysis, it may be concluded thatappear that there is is a need for collection of new data in some cases to proceed with ICIC exercise. As for example, when two countries intercalibrating in an ecoregion for a type and the assessment system of one country needs data that is not available form the country where the waterbody is located. Additional sampling could be carried out on voluntarily basis.
Inconsistencies between MS, e.g. assessment and classification system, will be reflected in the IC.
New monitoring efforts are on voluntarily basis, Dk fears that now a new agreement exists to the need to collect new data due to mainly inconsistencies (non comparability) of the monitoring results.
To whom does the metadata questionnaire will be sent? ? To the IC members and the experts? DK – the questionnaire should be sent to thethere should be a formal request to theMministry of the Environment, it is not sufficient to send it to the IC members and the expert it is not the job of the IC and experts to compile the questionnaires. A.-S. Heiskanen: - Due to time shortage, the process of collecting the metadata should be kept as informal as possible. However, advice will be sought on this matter from DG –Env (What level of formality does metadata collection need?).
Role of CEN in andthe standardization of the analytical methods for the WFD(R. Sweeting)
Presentation of CEN and standards
Presentation of a poster “The water Framework Directive Methods and CEN”
CEN is involved in STAR (standardisation of river methods).
CEN members are non-governmental organizations.
Further information – see web page.
Comments:
CEN timing for producing of methods is long of about 3 yr. Increasing repidity speed would be obtained from using the methodological results of projects as for example the star project. CEN could further develop these methodologies to standards and transfer the resulting methods to the CIS groups and to other interested group
Needs for standardisation should be identified within the CIS working groups – more specifically WG 2A, this should result in a clear priority setting.
s
DGENV is not funding any CEN work. Needs for standardisation should be identified within the CIS working groups – more specifically WG 2A, this should result in a clear priority setting.
.
Improved communication with CEN should be through participation in the WG meetings. Need of a clear message of which are the existing standards and where further method development and standardization are need.
COAST group pointed out that the existing marine conventions (OSPAR and HELCOM) already have a system aimed at developing and maintaining guidelines on sampling and analyses. A concern was rised whether the existing methodology/expertise will be duplicated.
The example from the on-going work of the Coast WG should be followed for the other waterbody categories – compilation of national and international methods and standards and identification of existing gaps.
MethodMethods to compile with the WFD requirements are still being developed. This is development is currently done at national level level, therefore it is possible as such thethat intercalibration is bound towill have problems. Mbeing developed.It is in this context that CEN can could have a valuable role, although for many methods are not yet ready to be start standardizationstandardizzed. CEN members are non-governmental organizations.
It was agreed at an earlier stage of the CIS that CEN should be involved in the WFD implementation through development of methodologies for sampling, e.g. sample collection and sample handling, but not developing standards for classification.
EEA (European Environment Agency) is developing ecological indicators in all water categories, biological quality elements were selected per waterbody category. A report will be ready in a couple of months. These EEA indicators should be compared with others that are being developed from parallel initiatives from other organizations/ groups.
Standardization of the analytical methods for the ecological status assessment of coastal waters (A. Edwards)
Presented from COAST. Compilation of national and international methods and standards and identification of existing gaps. Main message: Avoid duplication, diversion and excessive costs. Use existing methods.
Portugal is revising existing CEN methods making a selection of the adequate methods before to start sampling for typology validation (next year).
Austria very difficult to discuss standardization of methods when adequate methods to compile with the WFD requirements are still developing.
EEA is developing ecological indicators in all water categories, biological quality elements were selected per waterbody category. A report will be ready in a couple of months.Tshould be compared
Action:
It was proposed to startA a drafting group was proposed to be started to make an overview of the national and international methods and standards, and to identifyication of existing gaps, and needs for harmonisation, following the example of the on-going work of COAST WG..2
WG members should send Pproposals for drafting group participants should be sent by 15 April to .
Establishment of the intercalibration network: Selection of common types, pressures and biological quality elements Comparison of these EEA indicators with others that are being developed from parallel initiatives from other organizations/ groups.
1) Standardisation of the analytical methods for the ecological status assessment of coastal waters (A. Edwards)
Presented from COAST. CMain message: avoid duplication of work. Use existing methods. Avoid duplication, avoid diversion and avoid excessive costs.
Presentation of expert group paper on rivers (W. van de Bund)
A total of 21 types have been suggested for the intercalibration network in Europe.
The list of suggested IC types is where the countries should start looking for sites. At the end of 2003 by looking at the metadata it will be possible to say which types can be included in the IC and which not.
Intercalibration types for lakes,rivers,
and coastal and transitional waters will be updated, put in a common format,
and distibuted by JRC/EEWAI on 9 April
- Illies ecoregions, in the case of Poland would hinder the possibility to include rivers located in the eastern border of central region in the IC network. Other countries possessing the same type of rivers are Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia but are in different Illies ecoregions.
Suggestion from DK to form a wider Central region in Europe for IC in rivers.
Type A1 in rivers will be changed from small to medium.
Italian paper - catchment geology: should be open to mixed geology for alpine and Mediterranean river types
What will be the fate types not being included in the IC. Due to lack of data in some countries it may be good to be a bit flexible initial. Suggestion to merge the origin of pressures (same as DK).
When a type exist but data is not available or sites do not graduate for the IC network the country can be still participate in the IC for that type by using data from other neighboring countries.