Some Suggestions from COAST to Assist in the Intercalibration Process

1. Some Suggestions from COAST to Assist in the Intercalibration Process • MS agreed to merge types when possible to get enough sites for IC • MS agreed to focus on fewer number of types, add more sites for these and supply missing information for types in the register when necessary

2. IC and typology • Marine water types may cover very large sea areas and may include many different substrates and habitats • For pragmatic reasons, COAST has developed a broad typology • Within these types, countries need a mechanism for ensuring that valid comparisons of biological monitoring results (=classification tools) can be made

3. IC and typology • JRC is trying to establish how to make valid biological comparisons of national ecological quality assessment systems using the intercalibration network sites. • This has not worked well for the marine since many of the detailed questions in relation to typology criteria of the coastal and transitional water types included in the metadata questionnaire is not relevant for coastal waters

4. Further suggestions for the IC process

5. The following is a suggestion for a stepwise approach to intercalibration which may assist ECOSTAT as guidance is developed: • Step 1 – Identify common types for intercalibration – this task has now been completed • Step 2 – Submit sites representative for these common intercalibration types to the intercalibration metadatabase maintained by the JRC within the proposed timescale

6. Step 3 – Valid biological comparisons: • The overall objective is to ensure that valid biological comparisons of national biological monitoring results (=classification tools) are made • Most marine types cover a mosaic of heterogeneous areas. Therefore within a type you need a ‘common currency’ to ensure that during the intercalibration process classification tools are applied to similar habitat types. A tool which could be used for this process is the EUNIS habitat classification system, but to level 3 (substratum type) only

7. There are 2 options for how this could be included: • Option 1 – JRC could incorporate the EUNIS level 3 coding in the questionnaire - or • Option 2 – The EUNIS level 3 information could be gathered to assist countries in the intercalibration process, but not formally recorded

9. The intercalibration guidance recommends that at least 5 sites per type per class boundary are needed for IC. In some cases there will be no sites at the high/good boundary because of e.g. wide-spread eutrophication • COAST suggests that in the case of coastal and transitional waters it is likely that 5 sites per type will be required. At this stage, an assessment will have to be made as to whether this number of sites allows enough statistical confidence to continue with the intercalibration process • Where less than 5 sites per type are submitted, an assessment of statistical validity should be made. These types should not be omitted

10. Common metrics • Step 4 – Sharing the classification tools: • There are no commonly agreed classification tools that are fully WFD compliant within Europe. Following on from the production of the COAST guidance, many countries are working on classification tools for quality elements. In addition, the OSPAR Comprehensive Procedure provides a broad classification scheme but would need further development in the biological metrics to become WFD compliant • COAST is at the moment circulating new and promising classification tools

11. OSPAR Convention Area

12. Step 5 – Testing the classification tools and selection of common metrics: • The goal of the COAST group is to select common metrics within GIGs where possible. • If common metrics can be selected, then intercalibration of national assessment systems as required by the WFD would not be necessary • [Note: however, this would probably still require’ more traditional’ kind of intercalibration such as intercalibration of sampling and analysis methods applied by different laboratories; i.e. sampling, sub-sampling, & sorting methods, identification of taxa, etc. In such intercalibration campaigns data or sharing samples from selected intercalibration sites could be used as common ‘reference material’ within GIGs or in bi-trilateral collaborations]

13. Where it is not possible to establish common metrics, it will be necessary to test similar metrics between countries to intercalibrate national systems using the data from the intercalibration network sites

14. Step 6 – The Intercalibration Exercise: • If requested, volunteers in early March to provide information on EUNIS level 3 and suggest how this could be used to ensure valid biological comparisons in the revised metadata questionnaire • Identify MS volunteers who will circulate information on promising tools that could be used as common metrics before the mid March (list almost finnished) • Countries test out promising classification tools using their own existing biological (& chemical data) (Spring 2004)

15. Organise ecoregional workshops to consider the results of these trials and develop a common understanding of where the high/good & good/moderate boundaries might lie. This would be a voluntary activity of the MSs and would require offers to host such workshops (Summer 2004 is suggested) • Bring the best results to a further meeting of COAST in autumn if appropriate (JRC timescale)

16. Thank you on behalf of the marins!