NEA-GIG Macroinvertebrates San Sebastian (Spain), 8 th and 9 th February 2010

1. NEA-GIG Macroinvertebrates San Sebastian (Spain), 8th and 9th February 2010 Macroinvertebrates intercalibration for coastal and transitional waters (guidance for the 2nd phase) Angel Borja (coordinator of the group) based upon a talk of Wendy Bonne (JRC)

2. Background Intercalibrationguidance • 1st phase (2004-2008) Guidance Document No. 14 “Guidance on the Intercalibration Process 2004-2006” • For the 2nd phase:need for an update of this guidance • to establish common principles in the IC process • to emphasize ecological principles • to establish closer cooperation • Taking into account • Experiences of the first phase, • New documents (like on comparability) • Report from the reviewers

3. Update of Intercalibrationguidance • Version 6 approved at Water Directors meeting • Annexes (reference criteria and comparability criteria) will be added by April 2010

4. New stuff • Better description to guide process more efficiently/ reduce trial and error/ improve quality • Steps of the Intercalibration exercise • Criteria for IC performance • Alternative benchmark / IC site network • BQE leads for cross-GIG approach

5. KeyPrinciples • No specific role for the IC Register in Phase 2. • Close gaps of 1st phase of IC: • intercalibrate all BQEs not intercalibrated in phase 1 • intercalibrate full BQE (not only part of BQE) • All GIGs/MS • More transparency: IC process has been refined • Review IC results for BQEs fully intercalibrated in Phase 1 • Partial intercalibration is possible where full BQEs cannot be intercalibrated directly. IC Decision will include only results of full BQE intercalibration. • In the case of WFD compliant assessment methods difficulties,cross-GIG considerations will be taken. • If method is not intercalibratable, MS needs to find an alternate intercalibration method - to be approved by ECOSTAT

6. KeyPrinciples • Common intercalibration types should cover the main surface water types in the GIG, national types need to be linked with IC types -> the existing common IC types need to be reviewed • All major combinations of IC types, BQEs and pressure(s) or combinations of pressures need to be covered • Comparability of reference conditions must be assured. If natural or near-natural reference conditions are not available or cannot be reliably derived for a certain type, intercalibration needs to be carried out against an alternative benchmark (e.g. good ecological status for that surface water type). • Cross-GIG, BQE groups – agreement and validation of common concepts

7. KeyPrinciples • Different roles for GIG leads, BQE leads, water category leads -> together they form the IC Steering Group chaired by JRC and review issues that cannot be resolved. Ultimate decision lies with ECOSTAT. • The results of the intercalibration Phase 2 and the results of the review of intercalibration Phase 1 needs to be reported to ECOSTAT and Water Directors -> COM Decision + Technical Report • Member States must translate the results of the intercalibration into their national assessment systems for all national types.

8. New chapter Steps of the Intercalibration exercise • Review of the compliance of national assessment methods with the WFD requirements • Screening of MS assessment methods for acceptance in the current intercalibration exercise • Evaluation of MS datasets for inclusion in common dataset / boundary calculations Is the method WFD compliant ? Is the method appropriate for current IC exercise ? Are the data good enough to be included ?

9. Preconditions • Compliance check • Feasibility check • Datasets and Intercalibration options • Benchmarking • Boundary setting • Boundary comparison and harmonization

10. Only WFD-compliant methods in ICList of WFD compliancecriteria • Status classification: • 5 classes, Boundary setting procedure according to WFD normative definitions, relationship between pressure and biological metrics • Numerical evaluation: • Completeness of the method • Respect typology • Setting of reference conditions • Data acquisition: • Representative for water body quality in space and time, adequate confidence and precision

11. Compliance check of national assessment methods with the WFD requirements • MS - complete information on their national assessment methods incl. response to pressures and class boundary setting (WISER questionnaires) • IC group/GIG - evaluatesmethods and boundary setting procedure for compliance according to the criteria – checked by IC Steering committee • Only methods meeting requirements of WFD are then intercalibrated

12. New chapter Steps of the Intercalibration exercise • Review of the compliance of national assessment methods with the WFD requirements • Screening of MS assessment methods for acceptance in the current intercalibration exercise • Evaluation of MS datasets for inclusion in common dataset / boundary calculations Is the method WFD compliant ? Is the method appropriate for current IC exercise ? Are the data good enough to be included ?

13. Acceptance MS assessment methods List of methodacceptance criteria • IC exercise is focused on specific type / biological quality element / pressure combination • Restricting factors: • Typology criteria • Pressure criteria • Assessment concept criteria: • Community characteristics, indices, focus on different zones in water depth, habitats • Assessment method criteria: numerical evaluation and data acquisition

14. The list of acceptance criteria • Screen assessment methods on their conformity to the specific set-up of the particular IC exercise • Aim: start with WFD compliant methods that are possible to intercalibrate

16. New chapter Steps of the Intercalibration exercise • Review of the compliance of national assessment methods with the WFD requirements • Screening of MS assessment methods for acceptance in the current intercalibration exercise • Evaluation of MS datasets for inclusion in common dataset / boundary calculations Is the method WFD compliant ? Is the method appropriate for current IC exercise ? Are the data good enough to be included ?

17. Evaluation of MS datasets • Datasets is the essential part of the intercalibration exercise • for transparent intercalibration process • description of biological communities • Considerable heterogeneities (sampling / analytical methods and taxonomic precision) may reduce comparability of data and increase uncertainty of IC results • Criteria for minimum data requirements and data quality criteria in order to obtain comparable datasets.

18. Evaluation of MS datasets • Requirements: • Complete geographicalgradient of a common type • Entiregradient of the pressure • Environmental and biological data to conductpressure-impact analyses

19. 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

21. If near-natural sites are lacking an alternative benchmarking has to be performed LDC: Least Disturbed Conditions

22. Alternative benchmarking Benchmark sites • Sites showing similar level of anthropogenic pressures (e.g. good ecological status) • Best available or least disturbed physical, chemical and biological habitat conditions • Still based on common dataset for intercalibration Identification • Identified by harmonised pressure criteria (represent a similar low level of impairment) • Review of biological conditions: biological communities at reference or benchmark state have to be described, considering possible biogeographical differences

24. Common comparability criteria to assess level of agreement between different methods • For Option 2 • For Option 3 • As annex of the IC guidance, finalised March 2010

25. Summary of tasks to be done • Task 1 (MS): Description of national method (WISER template) • Task 2 (GIG): Collation and evaluation of national methods • Task 3 (MS): Demonstration of applicability (pressures) (see Section 2.2) • Task 4 (GIG): Compilation of groups with similar assessment methods, and evaluation of “outlying” methods • Task 5 (GIG): Evaluation of national method descriptions with regard to assessment method criteria: data acquisition as restricting factor • Task 6 (GIG): Evaluation of national method descriptions with regard to data acquisition: Data base for IC analysis • Task 7 (MS): Providing required data for the IC dataset (Section 2.3) • Task 8 (GIG): Common taxonomical checklist; common IC dataset including biological and pressure data; Data access and storage; IC options • Task 9 (GIG): Selection of most appropriate IC option (Section 2.4) • Task 10 (GIG): Check of “IC feasibility” and evaluation of “outlying” methods • Task 11 (GIG): Definition and application of RC/benchmark criteria; Description of IC type specific reference/benchmark communities (Section 2.5) • Task 12 (MS): Demonstration of national boundary setting (Section 2.6) • Task 13 (GIG): approval of national boundaries or joint protocol

26. Open issues • This meeting • This phase (some methods already doing that) • I don’t support the idea • I fully agree • And also others (including further integration at WB level)

27. Open issues • This phase (until what extent?) • Structuring species?, AMBI lists? • Difficult. WISER, others? • WISER • I agree

28. Timetables • Collection of common dataset (by December 2009) • Datasets established and common metrics developed (June 2010)to start firstcomparison • Reference conditions/Benchmarking and boundary setting adjustment (by October 2010) for evaluation • Boundary comparison and harmonisation (March 2011)