- 4.1.1 how to carry out the site selection process for the intercalibration network in practice

The following is a stepwise description of the proposed procedure for the selection of sites for the intercalibration network. Flowcharts of the process are presented in Figure 6a and 6b.

Step 1. Establishment of the Expert groups:

• Expert groups will be established for all main water body categories (rivers, lakes, and transitional and coastal waters);
  
• The experts are proposed and selected by the Member States. Their work will be co-ordinated through the Ecological Status Cluster;
  
• Each Member State should be represented in the expert groups relevant for their surface waters;
  
• Expert groups can be subdivided into (eco)regional groups, or further into geographical intercalibration groups (Section 4.5.) when necessary;
  
• A platform for the communication within/between the expert groups (information exchange, meetings, www-page, etc.) will be organised by the Commission.
  

Step 2. Proposal of water body types:

• The expert groups will propose the water body types for each surface water category and (eco)region included in the intercalibration network, taking into account the output of working groups REFCOND and COAST (refer to WFD CIS Guidance Documents No.s 10 and 5, respectively). Preliminary proposals of common intercalibration types for each surface water category have been prepared by the expert drafting groups1.
  

Step 3. Proposal of pressures and biological quality elements:

• For each selected intercalibration type, the expert groups need to agree on the pressures and the biological quality elements, where the intercalibration exercise should focus on, taking into account guidance from the Impress and monitoring working groups (WFD CIS Guidance Document No.s 3 and 7, respectively). Preliminary proposals for the focus and information requirements for the site selection have been prepared by the expert drafting groups22.
  

Step 4. Selection of types, pressures, and quality elements for the intercalibration network:

• The proposals of the expert groups will be discussed and finalised by the Intercalibration working group.
  

Step 5. Selection of sites for the draft intercalibration register:

• Each Member State will select sites for the draft intercalibration register;
  
• The sites selected should represent high-good and good-moderate class boundaries according to each Member States interpretation of the normative definitions, taking into account the Guidance Documents of REFCOND and COAST (WFD Guidance document No.s 10 and 5);
  

The selection process should follow these steps:

Member States identify which types in the Member States typology system correspond to the intercalibration types relevant for the Member State, and identify the reference conditions for those types;

Bring together all available information necessary for the site selection (pressures, impacts, biological data for the sites that will be considered for the sites selection - ranging from high to moderate status);

If there is not sufficient biological data, site selection should be partially based on pressure criteria, and the Member State should plan to acquire biological data to be available for the intercalibration exercise in 2005-6;

Based on the available information, Member States select sites representing the high-good and good-moderate boundary, according to their interpretation of the normative definitions specified in Annex V (1.2.) of the Directive, motivating their choice.

Step 6. Metadata analysis:

• The Commission will set up a database holding metadata (information about the availability of data) for all intercalibration sites as selected by the Member States;
  
• Member States will provide metadata on typology, reference conditions and biological and physico-chemical monitoring results (step 5.1-5.3 above). If essential information is lacking at the time of the site selection, they should indicate if, when and in what form the data will become available;
  

• Additionally, information should be provided on the criteria for classification of the sites (step 5(iv) above). This information is necessary for the evaluation of the choices of the Member States by the expert groups in the next step;
  
• The metadata analysis will be the basis for the compilation of the draft register for the intercalibration network providing an overview of the information available for each intercalibration site;
  
• The metadata analysis will be the basis for a realistic planning for the intercalibration exercise and for the preparation of the database for this purpose.
  

Step 7. Evaluation of the proposed intercalibration sites by expert groups:

• The Commission will compile the results of the metadata analysis and make them available to the expert groups;
  
• The expert groups evaluate the selection by the Member States and point out possible inconsistencies (including differences in Member States interpretations of the normative definitions);
  
• The expert groups review the metadata and propose what data should be collected / made available for the intercalibration exercise
  allowing Member States to start collecting data which is still not available.
  

Step 8. Finalisation of the draft register:

• The evaluation of the different expert groups of the proposed selections of the Member States will be presented, discussed and approved by the Intercalibration working group;
  
• The draft register of the intercalibration network will be discussed in a joint workshop of Member State representatives (Intercalibration WG) and the Commission, to evaluate consistency with the normative definitions of the class boundaries and comparability between Member States2. Where possible, proposals are made how inconsistencies should be resolved;
  
• The draft register will be the list of sites selected by the Member States, together with the approved summary of the metadata analysis including information of the criteria for the quality classification of those sites.
  

The sites selected for the draft intercalibration register represent high-good and good-moderate class boundaries according to each Member States interpretation of the normative definitions in the WFD Annex V (1.2.).

Step 9. Presentation of the draft register to the Article 21 Committee:

• The Commission will finalise the draft register of the Intercalibration network, and submit it to the Article 21 Committee before 22 December, 2003;
  
• Together with the draft register, the Commission will submit the results of the evaluation made in step 8.
  

The procedure for revising the draft intercalibration register will depend on the decisions of the Article 21 Committee.

Step 10. Revision of the draft intercalibration register:

• If a revision of the draft intercalibration is decided, Member States should reconsider and possibly expand their selection (based on the decisions of the Article 21 Committee);
  
• If new sites are selected by the Member States they should be included in the metadata analysis;
  
• For the final register, it is recommended to follow the same procedure should be followed as for the draft intercalibration register (see steps 7-9 above):
  

• Evaluation of the proposed intercalibration sites by expert groups;
  
• Finalisation of the (proposed) register;
  
• Presentation of the (proposed) register to the Article 21 Committee;
  
• Approval of the final intercalibration register by the Article 21 Committee.
  

Table 3 Summary and proposed timetable of the site selection for the intercalibration network in 2003 and 2004.

Month	Actions		Actors
Jan-03	Establishment of expert groups (for rivers, lakes, transitional and coastal waters); subdivision in (eco)regional groups		Member States, Commission
Feb-Mar-03	Selection of surface water body types. Selection of pressures and biological quality elements.		Expert groups, Intercalibration working group.
Apr-Jun-03	Selection of sites for the draft intercalibration register. Delivery of metadata to the Commission.		Member States
Apr-Oct-03	Metadata evaluation, possible checking of sites, preliminary draft register.		Expert groups and Commission .
Oct-03	Workshop	Approval of draft register	Intercalibration working group, Expert groups, Commission
Nov-03	Compilation of the draft register		Commission
Dec-03	Draft register submitted to the Art. 21 Committee		Commission
Jan-Jun-04	Submission of new information, if possible & available		Member States
Jan-Sep-04	Revision of the draft register, if possible		Expert groups
Sep-Nov-04	Compilation of the final register		Commission
Nov-Dec-04	Adaptation and publication of the final register		Committee

Figure 6a Flow chart of the proposed process for the selection of types, pressures, and quality elements for the intercalibration network in 2003. Steps where guidance is required from other WFD CIS working groups are indicated. The colours of the boxes indicate the actors that have to carry out the steps: White
Ecological Status Cluster, Light grey
expert groups, Dark grey
Intercalibration working group.


















































































Figure 6b Flow chart of the proposed process for the selection of sites for the draft intercalibration register. Steps where guidance compiled by other WFD CIS working groups is needed are indicated. The colours of the boxes indicate the actors that have to carry out the steps: Black - Member States, Light grey
expert groups, Dark grey
Intercalibration working group, White
Commission.
1drafting expert group reports are available on CIRCA: http://forum.europa.eu.int/Members/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/working_groups/intercalibration/drafts/expert_drafting&vm=detailed&sb=Title
2 WFD Annex V, 1.4.1 (iv)