DRAFT minutes of the WG A ECOSTAT meeting, 15-16 March,2005

Common Implementation Strategy of the WFD

Meeting of the Working Group (WG) A on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT)

15-16th March 2005

EC- Joint Research Centre/ Institute of Environment and Sustainability, Ispra, Italy

Draft Minutes

1. Welcome and Opening......

2. Objectives of meeting......

3. Update on the status of the Commission Decision on the Intercalibration register......

4. Composition and metadata of the final intercalibration register......

5. Intercalibration process......

5A. Progress of the intercalibration process: Rivers

5B. Progress of the intercalibration process: Coastal

5C. Progress of the intercalibration process: Lakes

5D. General discussion on progress in the GIGs

6. Intercalibration reporting and data requirements......

7. Results of the Intercalibration Web Upload System user questionnaire......

8. Contributions from research projects – STAR and REBECCA......

9. Eutrophication Activity......

10. Harmonisation......

11. Summing up and conclusions......

Annex 1: List of Actions......

Annex 2: Progress summaries of the River GIGs......

Annex 3: Progress summaries of the Coastal GIGs......

Annex 4: Progress summaries of the Lake GIGs......

Annex 5: List of participants......

1. Welcome and Opening

Anna-Stiina Heiskanen (JRC) welcomed participants and offered apologies for other WGLs – Peter Pollard (UK) and Ullrich Irmer (De)

Steven Eisenreich (Head of Inland and Marine Waters Unit, JRC) welcomed participants to JRC and informed them of new activities in which JRC will lead:

  • Chemical monitoring activity – Groundwater and Priority Substances group
  • Reporting Working Group – WISE going forward. JRC to host and codevelop to 2010.

2. Objectives of meeting

The meeting had the following objectives:

  • Update on intercalibration register
  • Review intercalibration progress
  • Update on other WG A activities:
  • eutrophication activity
  • harmonisation / methods overview activity

The meeting marked the proposed completion of two GIG milestones:

  • GIG milestone 3
  • Progress report (through GIG questionnaire):
  • First report of boundary setting protocol (including principles to set reference conditions)
  • Overview of data requirements
  • WG2A March 2005
  • Consistency between GIGs
  • Agreement on boundary setting protocols
  • Agreement on data requirements

The following summary of actions completed from the minutes of the last ECOSTAT meeting was presented:

Task initiated after last meeting / Who / When
Final monitoring paper sent to SCG / WGLs / Oct.04
New mandate for the WG 2005-6 / WGLs / Oct.-04
First error checked metadata files sent to ECOSTAT & GIG experts / JRC / 25/10/04
Final Intercalibration Guidance endorsed / Water Directors / Dec. -04
Initiation of a task team on data reporting / WGLs / Dec.-04
IC Resource issue reported to SCG& WD / WGLs / continuosly
IC site list sent to SCG and WFD Committee / JRC / Jan.-05
Templatefor IC reporting sent to GIGs / JRC/ IC / Feb.-05
GIGs reported to JRC/ IC steering group / GIGs / Feb.-05
Draft Eutrophication guidance v7.1 for WG / DG ENV/ WGLs / 08/03/05
Paper on reporting & accessibility of IC data / drafting group / 08/03/05
First draft of the harmonisation paper / Drafting group / 09/03/05
Report of the composition of the IC network / JRC / 15/03/05
Evaluate need to update the report on classification tools for coastal and transitional waters / COAST experts / (to be removed from actions)
Proposal for improved consistency in approaches and timetables across the different GIGs / WGLs / IC Steering group / to be done

3. Update on the status of the Commission Decision on the Intercalibration register

Jorge Rodriguez Romero (DGENV) introduced himself as the new DGENV lead for ECOSTAT and the Eutrophication Activity and provided an update on the status of the Commission Decision on the Intercalibration register.

The draft version of the Decision has been subject to interservice consultation and comments have been received from the legal service.

Comments on important changes:

  • Commission legal service has advised that the Article referring to the review of the Intercalibration Register is removed. The Commission, with the assistance of the Article 21 Committee, already has the legal power to do this and the Article as drafted would limit those powers.
  • The Article referring to the guidelines on the intercalibration exercise needs to be revised as this is not legally binding. Another legal instruments must be used.
  • Article 1 – the word ‘metadata’ is to be deleted and changed to ‘relevant data.’
  • Intercalibration sites from Bulgaria, Romania and Norway have been included in the intercalibration register.

The process for the next steps are for the comments received to be addressed, the draft Decision updated and submitted for voting at the Committee meeting in May.

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • GEP should be included for AWB/HMWB (Es). DGENV confirmed that comments on this issue had been received from MSs.
  • Regarding the clause dealing with the review of sites, a proposal was made that ECOSTAT submit an address to the SCG requesting that this clause be retained. DGENV welcomed the address but stated that advice from the legal service indicated that the clause limited existing powers of the Commission.
  • JRC concluded the discussion by reinforcing the need for revision of the intercalibration register.

4. Composition and metadata of the final intercalibration register

Peeter Noges (JRC) provided an overview of the final intercalibration register.

The main outcomes of the overview were:

  • Most common types for rivers and lakes had sufficient (agreed) number of sites
  • Large proportion of sites (>30%) do not belong to the agreed types (type factor values outside agreed ranges)
  • Most apparent for coastal (& trans) waters
  • For more than 1/3 of sites comparability is not clear (if they belong to common types?)
  • Calls for revision of the common types
  • Not clear if it is possible to agree on type-specific reference conditions

The main issues for discussion were:

Are common types applicable to IC process? Which types can be included?

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

  • The issue of outliers was discussed at length and possible reasons were suggested (ie. UK - coastal water bodies very large and variable with data availability issues, Fr – outliers due to few parameters).
  • JRC concluded that the common type concept was useful in the site selection process. In the practical IC work it is Important issue is thattruly comparable sites are intercalibrated based on biology at the GIG level.
  • JRC will prepare a report on the composition of the final register. This will be provided for the WG ECOSTAT when available.

5. Intercalibration process

5A. Progress of the intercalibration process: Rivers

(For river GIG-specific summaries, see Annex 2)

Wouter van de Bund (JRC) provided an overview of the river GIGs Milestone 3 reports based on the findings of a questionnaire to GIG leaders covering:

  • Organisation of the GIGs
  • Scope of the work
  • Data collection
  • Class boundary setting procedure

The main points regarding the Organisation of the GIGs were:

  • All GIGs are organised and working
  • Some minor problems with participation:
  • Central/Baltic: SE and CZ
  • Mediterranean: CY, GR, MT
  • Eastern Continental: CZ, GR
  • Not all GIGs have detailed and updated work plans

The main points regarding the scope of work were:

  • CB, Alpine, EC GIGs: all (most) types included
  • Northern and Med. GIGs worked only on few types so far
  • Strong focus on ‘general pressure’
  • Strong focus on macroinvertebrates
  • Still unclear if/how other QE will be included
  • Options and common metrics
  • Alpine, MED, CB hybrid 2/3
  • ICM(i) approach common metric
  • Methodology developed and tested in STAR project
  • Metrics under development, may be type-specific
  • Preference for ‘compare first – explain later’ approach
  • NO, EC option 2
  • Metrics under development/testing

The main points regarding the data collection were:

  • No clear overview of data collected so far
  • EC GIG plans central data collection for IC sites only
  • Other GIGs:
  • Data handling at MS level following agreed procedure
  • MS use all available data
  • Collation of results by common type at GIG level
  • Pilots have been successfully completed
  • Need for flexibility in data handling and reporting
  • Rigid reporting system would be a burden

The main points regarding the Boundary Setting Protocol were:

  • GIGs have started work on reference conditions setting (REFCOND guidance)
  • Difficult to deal with rest of boundary setting procedure
  • IC process guidance document is not sufficiently clear
  • Most river GIGs prefer a “Compare first – explain later” approach
  • Start with agreement on reference conditions
  • Class boundary setting as iterative process
  • Still unclear how/when this iterative process will take place!!

5B. Progress of the intercalibration process: Coastal

(For Coastal GIG –specific summaries, see Annex 3)

Dave Jowett (UK) provided an overview of the process of the coastal GIGs. There are 4 GIGs and all have met and started work.

Coastal expert network inclusing all GIGs had a joint meeting in October 2004. The following conclusions were reached:

  • experts concluded that in 2005 it would not be possible to do “full intercalibration”
  • Individual metrics are likely to be chosen in this phase of intercalibration
  • Resources are an ongoing issue…but help from JRC in hosting meetings is a big help!
  • if possible a common linear EQR scale should be adopted
  • MS GIG contacts must ensure full participation of experts in GIG or sub-group meetings. If unable to attend then must comment on and ratify GIG decisions.
  • Results from Intercalibration must not be presented on maps as ecological status classifications to avoid potential confusion
  • individual sites within waterbodies would be used to test metrics during this stage of intercalibration. Results from these sites may not represent the whole waterbody.
  • Coastal GIGs should engage with the REBECCA project. This has been done through data exchange from UK. Outputs from recent work will be available through the REBECCA website.
  • physico-chemical elements (e.g. oxygenation conditions) should be considered within GIGs.

5C. Progress of the intercalibration process: Lakes

(For lake GIG-specific summaries, see Annex 4)

Sandra Poikane (JRC) provided an overview of progress in the lakeGIGs.

MS participation:

  • All MSs are involved with the exception of Germany and Hungary in the Central/Baltic GIG.
  • Issues raised on participation related to difficulties estimating the required time and resources and in securing sufficient resources to complete the work.
  • Outcome – must ensure participation from all MSs.

GIG meetings:

  • All GIGs have met with an average of 2.6 meetings per GIG.

GIG work plans:

  • All GIGs have work plans but the level of detail is variable.

Inclusion of all common types:

  • All types are either included or are planned to be included with the exception of 1 type in the Mediterranean GIG due to lack of sites.

Inclusion of pressures and quality elements:

  • Eutrophication is included in all GIGs and acidification in two (Alpine and Atlantic GIGs)
  • Phytoplankton is included in all GIGs, macrophytes in 4 GIGs, benthic invertebrates in 2 GIGs and fish in 1 GIG.
  • Outcome: all pressures and biological quality elements included (with few exceptions due to lack of data or sites)

IC option selected:

  • Option 2, 3 and hydrid 2/3 are the commonly selected options.

Common metrics selected:

  • All agreed on chlorophyll a concentration
  • % of algal groups (Cyanophyta)
  • Raddum and Meddin indices for macroinvertebrates
  • No consensus on Phytoplankton index and macrophyte vegetation

Data collection and availability:

  • Has started in all GIGs.
  • Data is available for biological and physico-chemical quality elements in suitable formats across the GIGs in most cases.

Boundary setting procedure:

  • There is no consensus at present on reference conditions, BSPs and definition of HG and GM boundary among the GIGs.

Overall conclusions:

  • All countries involved (except MT, HU, DE)
  • All agreed IC types, pressures and elements included
  • IC options and metrics – some issues to be solved
  • Data collection started in all GIGs
  • Reference conditions
  • work in progress,
  • not clear results yet
  • mainly spatial approach
  • Boundary setting – not much progress yet
  • Outcome - Necessary to focus on these crucial issues!

Possible approaches for boundary setting using secondary impacts and species composition were presented.

5D. General discussion on progress in the GIGs

The main issues for discussion were:

  • Class boundary setting:
  • Reconcile differences in boundaries within GIGs
  • Reference conditions: different approaches
  • EQR setting – common scale?
  • How to deal with different approaches for RC setting?
  • How to reconcile differences in boundaries within GIGs (harmonisation)?
  • How to deal with uncertainty (and at what level)
  • Outcomes of the IC process:
  • What will be in the IC report?
  • Quality of IC results as legally binding exercise
  • How to report a limited IC (not dealing with complete QE)
  • Other:
  • River intercalibration problem issues:
  • Additional quality elements
  • Large rivers
  • What does WFD mean by abundance. biomass, etc.? Is it allowed to use qualitative data?
  • Climate change
  • Resources

The main outcomes of the discussion were:

Reference conditions – the issue of RCs for large rivers was discussed with the lack of existing reference sites (Hu). Existing guidance (REFCOND) offers many approaches (JRC) including expert judgement. The proposal for a cross-GIG group on large rivers to discuss common issues was welcomed.

EQR setting – common scale? – this issue is addressed in the IC guidance (JRC). It is technically possible to have different EQRs for each QE but a common scale would be preferable for public understanding. While DGENV made the point that only quality classes would be available to the public, UK indicated that EQRs would have to become part of the publicly available data sets in UK. UK has completed some work on transcribing EQRs to a common scale and the offer to circulate was agreed.

How to deal with differences in boundaries within GIGs (harmonisation)? – JRC emphasized that this was important where many metrics were being used rather than a common metric and urged agreement within the GIGs. The point was made (Fr) that metrics can be demonstrated to relate to normative conditions but that variation around boundaries derived by MSs within GIGs is inevitable and there was a need for agreement on the measure (median, upper or lower limit of observed variation?). This issue has been under discussion in the Environmental Objectives (EO) Group (DK) with some MSs using the lower limit for socio-economic reasons and some the upper by applying the precautionary principle. EEB reinforced this as a crucial issue to be resolved in the IC process. JRC agreed to circulate papers from the EO group.

A need for established relationships between normative conditions, boundaries and the physico-chemical supporting elements was identified (Ir, De) as Programmes of Measures will be addressing these and also some agreement on the interpretation of the word ‘slight’ in the normative conditions (Fr). DGENV highlighted the need for harmonisation within and between GIGs and for consistency with the normative conditions.

JRC concluded that further guidance was required on the BSP to ensure links with the normative conditions. ECOSTAT WGLs and Steering group should consider the preliminary work reported in the GIG progress, and elaborate further guidance on this issue.

How to deal with uncertainty (and at what level?) – JRC reinforced the need for as precise a measure as possible and urged focus on the metrics and indicators. There are several sources of uncertainty in both the BSP and in classification of status (the latter already addressed in the Classification Guidance), and these are different (DGENV). There are established methods for dealing with uncertainty in classifications schemes (UK) and a common assessment method should be agreed. Agreement was reached that the WGLs and Steering Group should take this issue forward in the template protocol.

Outcomes of the IC process – JRC indicated that the IC report will make clear what has been completed and what has not. EEB emphasised hat communication is crucial to the process and that phrasing of the issue of uncertainty would be important. It was concluded that the WGLs and the Steering Group would address the IC report contents by distributing a template protocol (annotated contents list) to GIG co-ordinators asking them to;

  • advise how these issues are being addressed within their GIGs and
  • identify any other issues that they think need to be addressed in relation to boundary setting

New version to be finished by June 2005.

Other issues – an issue about measurements methods for abundance and biomass was raised (Ir) and the discussion concluded that variations in measurement methods were allowed for and that details should be explained and agreed within GIGs. The issue of implications of climate change was raised and JRC referred participants to a JRC edited report on ‘Climate change and the European Water Dimension’ available on request by JRC-EEWAI (). The issue of adequate resourcing at the MS level for the IC process was recognised and DGENV agreed to put pressure on MSs expressing the need for adequate resourcing. EEB mentioned the possibility of an NGO letter to MS Governments reinforcing this need.

JRC concluded the discussion by emphasising that the IC process was dealing with existing assessment techniques for quality elements and that there was a need for further R&D to cover all biological quality elements and these needs should be mentioned in the IC report.

6. Intercalibration reporting and data requirements

Anna-Stiina Heiskanen (JRC) presented an overview of the paper prepared by the drafting group.

It was agreed at the ECOSTAT meeting in October 2004 to convene a task team to address the issue of public availability of data submitted as part of the IC process. A drafting group comprising the WGLs and Sarah Oppenheimer (EEB) prepared the paper.

The paper addressed the scope, current status in data collection, general principles of transparency and principles and practices in reporting.

The following proposal for IC reporting practices was made:

  1. Intercalibration reporting document storage/ distribution system established at JRC CIRCA documents, analysis results (tables, figures), specific IC data sets (aggregated datasets specifically combined for IC)
  2. to provide public access to GIG milestone reports
  3. to be linked with WISE portal (
  4. GIG milestone reports should indicate where IC data files are kept and how those can be made available, if requested, if not stored in central system
  5. Access to IC network & metadata via WISE with possibility to search and download site information per country, GIG, or a common type

Details of users, access and content for intercalibration area of CIRCA were provided. This architecture has been set up and is available for use subject to approval from ECOSTAT.