Water Framework Directive scientific and technical support related to ecological status : summary report of JRC activities in 2015.
Date: 2016-01-19
Institutions: Institute for Environment and Sustainability
Subjects: EU environmental policy, directive (EU), ecological balance, environmental monitoring, environmental standard, research report, scientific cooperation, water management

Water Framework Directive scientific 
and technical support related to 
ecological status  

Summary report of JRC activities in 2015 

Wouter van de Bund 

Sandra Poikane 

2015  

EUR 27707 EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre, the European Commission’s in-house science 
service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policy-making process. The scientific 
output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European 
Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made 
of this publication. 

JRC Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC99231 

EUR 27707 EN 

ISBN 978-92-79-54592-4 (PDF) 

ISSN 1831-9424 (online) 

doi:10.2788/071200 

© European Union, 2015 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

All images © European Union 2015 

How  to  cite:  Wouter  van  de  Bund,  Sandra  Poikane;  Water  Framework  Directive  scientific  and  technical  support 
related to ecological status - Summary report of JRC activities in 2015; EUR 27707 EN; doi:10.2788/071200 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF CONTENT  

Abstract ............................................................................................................ 3 

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4 

1.1. WFD CIS ECOSTAT: history and achievements so far ..................................... 4 

1.2. CIS Work programme and ECOSTAT mandate 2013-2015 .............................. 4 

1.3. Purpose of this report ................................................................................ 5 

2. ECOSTAT working group organisation and meetings .............................................. 5 

3. Intercalibration of good ecological status .............................................................. 7 

3.1. Background ................................................................................................... 7 

3.1.1. Ecological status and Intercalibration in WFD ............................................. 7 

3.1.2. Organization of the WFD Intercalibration ................................................... 7 

3.1.3. Intercalibration Guidance documents ........................................................ 8 

3.1.4. Intercalibration Decisions ........................................................................ 9 

3.2. Gaps remaining and way forward ................................................................... 9 

3.3. Intercalibration work in the geographical intercalibration groups (gap 1) .......... 11 

3.3.1. Overview and Intercalibration workprogram ............................................ 11 

3.3.2. Intercalibration work finalised in 2015 .................................................... 13 

3.3.3. Ongoing intercalibration work to be finalised in 2016 ................................ 13 

3.4. Intercalibration of individual methods (gap 2) ............................................... 13 

3.5. Remaining issues – methods not intercalibrated (gap 3 and 4) ........................ 14 

3.6.  Common  understanding  on  the  use  of  single  parameters  or  metrics:  use  of 
chlorophyll-a in the classification of coastal and transitional waters ......................... 14 

4. Intercalibration of good ecological potential ........................................................ 16 

5. Harmonisation of nutrient standards .................................................................. 17 

6. Typologies ...................................................................................................... 18 

7. Hydromorphology ............................................................................................ 19 

8. Outlook for future work .................................................................................... 21 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Abstract 

This  report  summarises  the  scientific  and  technical  contributions  of  DG  JRC  to  the 
implementation  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  related  to  ecological  status 
covering  the  year  2015.  JRC  is  providing  long-term  support  aimed  at  achieving  a 
common  understanding  of  good  status  and  potential,  the  principal  environmental 
objectives of the WFD.  

An important aspect of this work is the WFD intercalibration exercise as required in WFD 
Annex  V  1.4.1,  ensuring  that  classification  methods  are  compliant  with  the  Directive’s 
requirement  and  give  comparable  result,  thus  establishing  a  level  playing  field  for  the 
measures that need to be taken my Member States to achieve good status or potential. 

JRC scientific and technical support is carried out in the framework of the WFD “common 
implementation  strategy”  (CIS)  mandated  by  the  EU  Water  Directors,  where  JRC  is 
responsible for the working group on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT), working with experts 
from all Member States and key stakeholder organisations. Main issues covered in 2015 
were  intercalibration  of  good  ecological  status,  intercalibration  of  good  ecological 
potential, nutrient standards, typology, and hydromorphology.  

A new CIS work programme has been agreed upon by the Water Directors in which the 
JRC will continue to play a key  role in the ECOSTAT working group for the years 2016-
2018. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

1.1. WFD CIS ECOSTAT: history and achievements so far 

The  agreement  to  start  a  Common  Implementation  Strategy  (CIS)  for  the  Water 
Framework  Directive  (WFD)  in  2001  was  seen  as  a  milestone  in  working  together 
towards successful implementation of the core water legislation at EU level.  

The  CIS  work  is  carried  out  within  the  working  groups.  A  working  group  on  ecological 
status (WG ECOSTAT) was established in 2003 and remains one of the main WG of the 
whole  CIS  process,  charged  with  tasks  related  to  development  and  harmonisation  of 
ecological assessment methods.  

Since  the  beginning,  JRC  has  taken  a  leading  role  in  WG  ECOSTAT.  The  main  focus  of 
this  work  has  been  the  organisation  and  coordination  pan-European  Intercalibration 
exercise which has been recognised as one of the pillars of the WFD implementation. Ca. 
240  methods  have  been  intercalibrated  so  far,  covering  all  water  categories  and 
ecoregions.   

Over  the  years,  JRC  support  to  ECOSTAT  has  resulted  in  numerous  outputs,  including 
CIS  Guidance  documents,  Commission  Decisions  on  Intercalibration  (EC,  2004,  2008, 
2013, JRC Technical reports, and scientific papers. 

1.2. CIS Work programme and ECOSTAT mandate 2013-2015 

Throughout the WFD Common Implementation Strategy, all activities were mandated by 
3-year work programmes agreed upon by the Water Directors of the Member States. The 
current Work programme 2013-2015 is based on the conclusions provided by the Water 
Blueprint (published by the Commission in November 2012) and the 3rd implementation 
report of the WFD. Key objectives of the 2013-2015 CIS work programme are: 

 

 

Improving  the  implementation  of  the  WFD  and  coordination  of  other  water-
related  directives  and  facilitating  the  implementation  of  the  first  cycle  of  the 
Floods Directive; 
Increasing  the  integration  of  water  and  other  environmental  and  sectorial  policy 
objectives,  particular  nature,  agriculture,  transport,  energy,  disaster  and  risk 
prevention, research and regional development; 

  Filling  in  the  few  remaining  gaps  in  the  EU  legislative  an  policy  framework  on 

water. 

The  Working  Group  on  Ecological  Status  (Ecostat)  has  retained  its  key  role  in  the  CIS 
structure  (Fig.1),  and  is  co-lead  by  the  JRC,  UK  and  Germany.  The  tasks  allocated  to 
ECOSTAT were elaborated more in detail in ECOSTAT work plan 2013 – 2015:  

Intercalibration of good ecological status; 
Intercalibration of good ecological potential; 

 
 
  Recommendations on standardisation of biological methods; 
 

Information  exchange  on  the  comparability  of  classification  method,  including 
nutrients; 
Improving assessment coherence. 

 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Organisational structure of WFD CIS 2013-2015. 

1.3. Purpose of this report 

The  aim  of  this  report  aims  is  to  summarise  the  contributions  to  WG  ECOSTAT  carried 
out under the JRC work programme 2015 within the project  EURO-FRESHWATERS.  The 
report  is  structured  according  to  the  tasks  of  the  ECOSTAT  work  plan.  Main  issues 
covered in 2015 were intercalibration of good  ecological status, intercalibration of good 
ecological potential, nutrient standards, typology, and hydromorphology. 

2. ECOSTAT working group organisation and meetings 

The  JRC  is  acting  as  co-lead  of  the  ECOSTAT  working  group,  together  with  the  United 
Kingdom  and  Germany,  as  mandated  by  the  EU  Water  Directors  carrying  out  the  CIS 
work programme 2012-2015. The JRC has been responsible for the  organisation of two 
plenary  meetings  of  the  ECOSTAT  working  group  –  including  the  practical  organisation, 
the  preparation  of  the  agenda  and  meeting  documents,  preparation  of  the  conclusions, 
chairing,  and  editing  and  finalising  of  the  meeting  minutes  based  on  a  first  draft 
prepared by consultants for DG Environment. 

The  29th  ECOSTAT  meeting  took  place  17-18  March  in  Brussels.  The  meeting  was 
attended  by  ca.  70  participants  from  Member  States  and  stakeholder  organisations. 
Documents. Presentations, and meeting minutes are available on CIRCABC: 

 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/bb6565cb-d240-496f-bf33-b940d33374f9 

The  30th  ECOSTAT  meeting  was  held  14-15  October  in  Oslo,  back-to-back  with  a 
workshop  “Hydromorphology  and  WFD  classification  (see  chapter  7).  The  meeting  was 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
attended  by  ca.  70  participants  from  Member  States  and  stakeholder  organisations. 
Documents, presentations, and meeting minutes are available on CIRCABC: 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/7fa9be42-7766-480f-9ffa-ee14e67a4f03 

The  WFD-CIS  Strategic  coordination  group  was  informed  about  the  main  ECOSTAT 
activities,  with  two  progress  reports  prepared  by  JRC  in  collaboration  with  DG 
Environment, in May and November. The progress reports are available on CIRCABC: 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a41a81e6-321c-4ad0-9f81-c42659be68e9 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/1e2f2c64-f6f3-4711-9af3-94a708bb362b 

The  JRC  has  also  participated  in  2  “Prep-SCG  meetings”,  on  behalf  of  all  ECOSTAT  co-
leads.  Purpose  of  these  meetings  is  to  discuss  common  issues  with  the  other  CIS 
working  groups,  and  to  provide  input  to  the  agenda  and  issues  for  discussion  for  the 
Strategic Coordination Group. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3. Intercalibration of good ecological status 

3.1. Background  

3.1.1. Ecological status and Intercalibration in WFD   

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) (EC, 2000) requires all rivers, lakes, transitional 
and  coastal  waters  of  the  European  Union  to  be  in  good  ecological  status  in  the  near 
future.  

The WFD is based on the following main principles: 

Biological  assessment  uses  numerical  measurements  of  communities  of  plants  and 
animals    -  phytoplankton,  aquatic  flora,  benthic  invertebrates  and  fish  fauna,  called 
Biological  Quality  Elements  (BQEs)  as  stipulated  in  the  Directive  (e.g.,  biomass, 
taxonomic composition, diversity, etc.).  

In  biological  assessment,  the  observed  condition  is  compared  with  the  reference  status 
with  the  result  given  in  five  classes:  ‘high’  status  (no  differences  to  reference 
conditions),  ‘good’  status  (slight  differences),  ‘moderate’  status  (moderate  differences), 
‘poor’ and ‘bad’ statuses (major differences).  

‘Good’  ecological  status  represents  the  target  value  that  all  surface  water  bodies  must 
achieve  in  the  near  future.  These  values  (expressed  as  ‘good’  status  class  boundaries) 
are compared and harmonised through the Intercalibration exercise, ensuring consistent 
management objectives across Europe.  

3.1.2. Organization of the WFD Intercalibration 

Intercalibration is performed separately for rivers, lakes, coastal and transitional waters, 
and the exercise is further stratified by different anthropogenic pressures, and by BQEs. 
Intercalibration  exercises  are  carried  out  within  larger  geographical  units  termed 
Geographical Intercalibration Groups (GIGs, Table 1) consisting of Member States having 
waters of similar bio-geophysical types (termed ‘common intercalibration types’).  

Intercalibration  provides  a  mechanism  to  reconcile  apparent  differences  in  the  good 
status  boundaries  of  some  Member  States  when  they  differ  significantly  from  the 
classification  boundaries  of  most  other  Member  States  within  the  same  GIG.  Through 
this process the divergent good status boundaries of some national assessment methods 
can  be  harmonized  and,  if  necessary,  adjusted  upward  or  downward  (EC  2011;  Birk  et 
al., 2013). 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  1.  Geographical  Intercalibration  Groups  (GIGs)  and  participating  countries.  Note 
that some exercises (e.g. intercalibration of very large rivers or lake phytobenthos) were 
carried out across GIGs. 

GIG 

Water category 

Member States included 

Alpine 
Eastern 
Continental 

Rivers/ Lakes 
Rivers 

Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Slovenia 
Austria,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Czech  Republic,  Greece, 

Lakes 

Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania 

Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia 

Central-Baltic  Rivers 

Lakes 

Mediterranean 

Rivers 

Lakes 

Northern 
Baltic 

Rivers/ Lakes 
Coastal 

and 

Poland, 

Netherlands, 

Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, 
France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Slovakia, 
Luxemburg, 
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom 
Belgium,  Denmark,  Estonia,  France,  Germany, 
Ireland,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Netherlands,  Poland,  
United Kingdom 
Croatia,  Cyprus,  France,  Greece,  Italy,  Malta, 
Slovenia, Spain 
Cyprus,  France,  Greece,  Italy,  Malta,  Romania, 
Spain 
Finland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom 
Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  Germany,  Latvia, 

transitional 
waters 

Lithuania, Poland, Sweden 

Black Sea 
Mediterranean  Coastal 

Coastal waters 

North-East 
Atlantic 

transitional 
waters 
Coastal 
transitional 
waters 

and 

and 

Bulgaria, Romania 
Croatia,  Cyprus,  France,  Greece,  Italy,  Malta, 

Slovenia, Spain 

Belgium,  Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Ireland, 
Netherlands,  Norway,  Portugal,  Spain,  Sweden, 
United Kingdom 

3.1.3. Intercalibration Guidance documents   

the  Intercalibration 

to  high 
Inevitably, 
biogeographical  and  methodological  variability,  different  approaches  taken  by  Member 
states,  lack  of  reference  sites  and  other  factors  (e.g.,  insufficient  amount  of  data  or 
delays of development of assessment methods).   

is  a  highly  complex  procedure  due 

complexity: 
IC  Guidance  documents 
Several  generations  of 
1) Guidance document N6 “Towards a guidance on establishment of the intercalibration 
network  and  the  process  on  the  intercalibration  exercise”  (2003)  provided  basic 
understanding of the IC process; 

reflect 

this 

2)  Guidance  document  N14  “Guidance  on  the  intercalibration  process  2004  –  2006” 
provided description of the whole Intercalibration procedure and different options; 

3)  Guidance  document  N14  “Guidance  on  the  intercalibration  process  2008  –  2012” 
(2011) provided harmonised comparability criteria and several improvements; 

4)  Guidance  document  N30  “Procedure  to  fit  new  or  updated  classification  methods  to 
the  results  of  a  completed  intercalibration  exercise”  (2015)  provided  guidance  how  to 
intercalibrate  new  or  revised  classification  methods  according  to  the  finalised 
intercalibration results.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.1.4. Intercalibration Decisions 

So  far,  the  results  of  the  WFD  intercalibration  exercise  have  been  formalised  in  two 
Commission Decisions on Intercalibration. 

1)  The  first  intercalibration  phase  was  completed  with  the  publication  of  a  Commission 
Decision in 2008, although limited results were reached (e.g., only chlorophyll-a values 
intercalibrated for lakes). Moreover, comparability was not considered well-demonstrated 
and  adequate  in  all  cases.    Nevertheless,  publication  of  this  Decision  was  an  important 
milestone: 2008/915/EC Commission Decision of 30 October 2008 establishing, pursuant 
to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the 
Member  State  monitoring  system  classifications  as  a  result  of  the  intercalibration 
exercise; 

2)  In  2013,  the  second  Decision  was  published:  2013/480/EU:  Commission  Decision  of 
20  September  2013  establishing,  pursuant  to  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council,  the  values  of  the  Member  State  monitoring  system 
classifications  as  a  result  of  the  intercalibration  exercise  and  repealing  Decision 
2008/915/EC (notified under document C (2013) 5915) T): 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013D0480 

3.2. Gaps remaining and way forward  

The  intercalibration  is  a  scientific  exercise  that  involved  hundreds  of  scientists  from  28 
countries over the past eight years, trying to ensure comparability between assessment 
methods.  Now,  most  of  the  ecological  assessment  methods  have  been  intercalibrated 
and included in the Intercalibration Decision (EC, 2013), especially for lakes and rivers. 
Still, there is a considerable number of methods which are not intercalibrated.    

JRC  has  identified  different  types  of  gaps  and  the  way  forward  (agreed  at  ECOSTAT). 
Ongoing work is aimed at filling the remaining gaps by the end of 2016.  

In short, four types of open issues can be discerned (Figure 2):  

Gap 1. Method included in the current GIG work, results expected by 2016  

There  are  some  GIGs  where  results  have  not  been  finalised  by  2012  or  where  results 
have to be improved (Annex 2). These GIG are actively working to finalise the results by 
2016, led by JRC.    

Gap 2. MS has new/updated method, GIG work has been finalised; it is possible 
to IC the method according to the final IC results.  

There  are  many  cases  when  the  relevant  GIG  has  finalized  results  but  MS  has  not 
intercalibrated  the  method  due  to  some  reason,  e.g.,  France  in  the  Alpine  Lake 
Phytoplankton GIG.  

It has been agreed that in this case Member States have to show that (1) their methods 
are compliant with the WFD normative definitions and (2) that their class boundaries are 
in  line  with  the  results  of  the  intercalibration  exercise.  To  achieve  this,  a  workflow  has 
been  established  for  Member  States  to  follow,  taking  into  account  the  different 
intercalibration  options  and  procedures  followed  in  different  GIGs  (see  Guidance 
document  No.  30).  Member  state  has  to  submit  finalised  Intercalibration  report, 
following  procedure  described  in  the  IC  Guidance.  The  reports  have  to  be  submitted  to 
JRC, latest by 1st July 2016.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Gap  3.  GIG  work  has  been  finalised,  it  is  not  possible  to  IC  the  method 
according to the final results.  

Still, there are some method not possible to intercalibrate according to the finalised GIG 
results, e.g.:  

-  Methods address different pressure (e.g. Swedish lake fish method);  
-  Methods following a different assessment concept (French lake fish method);  

The way forward has been established: Member States have to show that their methods 
are  compliant  with  the  WFD  normative  definitions,  and  why  the  Intercalibration  is  not 
attainable.  

The reports have to be submitted to JRC, latest by 1st July 2016.  

Gap 4. MS has not developed method as BQE is considered not relevant for the 
given water body type.  

There are some cases when method has not been developed as the given BQE has been 
considered.  In  this  case  the  Member  state  has  to  provide  a  detailed  justification 
explaining  why  the  development  of  the  WFD  compliant  method  was  not  feasible  (e.g., 
high variability, no response to anthropogenic pressures). These justifications have to be 
discussed and agreed by the GIG.  

Figure 2. Scheme of the gaps of the method development and intercalibration  

Ecological assessment  

method 

Developed  

Not developed  

Intercalibrated   

(EC 2013) 

Gap N 4: Justification 
why not relevant BQE 

agreed 

Not 

 intercalibrated  

Gap N1: Addressed at 
GIG level, results by 

2016      

Not addressed at GIG 
level  

Gap N2: Possible to IC 

 acc. to the IC results 

Gap N3: Not possible to 
IC  

 Acc. to the IC results 
resultsresults 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
3.3. 
Intercalibration  work 
intercalibration groups (gap 1)  

in 

the 

geographical 

3.3.1. Overview and Intercalibration work program 

The intercalibration work is organized in the geographical intercalibration groups (GIGs). 
Most of these groups (especially for rivers and lakes) have finalised the intercalibration 
work.  Still,  many  of  groups  are  still  working  to  produce  results  by  2016.  This  work  is 
coordinated by JRC.  

Tables 2-4 below list the active Intercalibration groups and the coordinating Member 
states.  

Detailed work programmes for the  ongoing work and progress reports can be found on 
CIRCABC:  

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a4c946c8-4c34-4ab0-ae76-8e0f274e7da9 

Table  2.  List  of  the  active  River  Intercalibration  groups  and  coordinating Member states 
(general coordination: Wouter van de Bund, EC-JRC) 
Name of the group 

Coordinating MS 

Large Rivers  (general coordination) 

Large Rivers - Benthic Invertebrates 

Large Rivers Phytoplankton  

Large Rivers Macrophytes  

Large Rivers Fish  

Northern Macrophytes 

Germany 

Germany 

Germany 

- 

Germany 

Finland 

Table  3.  List  of  the  active  Lake  Intercalibration  groups  and  coordinating  Member  states 
(general coordination: Sandra Poikane, EC-JRC) 
Name of the group 

Coordinating MS 

Central/Baltic Fish GIG 

Germany 

Eastern Continental Phytoplankton GIG 

Hungary 

Eastern Continental Macrophytes GIG 

Hungary 

Eastern Continental Benthic invertebrate 

Romania 

GIG 

Mediterranean Fish GIG 

Italy, France 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table  4.  List  of  the  active  transitional  and  coastal   Intercalibration  groups  and 
coordinating Member states (general coordination: Fuensanta Salas Herrero, EC-JRC) 

Name of the group 

Baltic all BQEs GIG 

Coordinating MS 
There are no BQE leads. MS of the same type share 
the lead tasks. 
The GIG coordinated by Germany 
For the types NEA 1/26a, NEA 1/26b, NEA 3/4, NEA 
11: experts leads have been contracted by joint 
funding. 

North-East Atlantic CW-TW 
phytoplankton GIG 

For the types NEA 1/26e, NEA 7, Nea8a,9,10 and 
NEA 8b: the MS share the lead tasks 

North-East Atlantic CW-TW benthic 
invertebrates GIG 

For the types NEA 1/26, NEA 3/4, NEA 11: experts 
leads have been contracted by joint funding. 
For the type NEA 7: the MS will share the lead tasks 

North-East Atlantic CW-TW 
opportunistic macroalgae GIG 

North-East Atlantic CW-TW 
seagrasses GIG 

North-East Atlantic CW-TW 
saltmarshes GIG 
Mediterranean CW phytoplankton 
GIG 

Ireland 

Portugal 

Portugal 

 Croatia 

Mediterranean TW phytoplankton 
GIG 
Mediterranean TW benthic 
invertebrates GIG 

Mediterranean TW fish GIG 

MS of the same type share the lead tasks. 

MS of the same type share the lead tasks. 

MS of the same type share the lead tasks. 

Black Sea Benthic invertebrates GIG 
Black Sea Macroalgae GIG 

Bulgaria, Romania 

Bulgaria 

JRC  has  a  central  role  in  the  process  of  the  intercalibration  of  ecological  assessment 
work. The following tasks were carried out by the JRC team: 

-  Coordination of the Geographical Intercalibration Groups; 
-  Organization of the Intercalibration review;  
-  Presentation and agreement at ECOSTAT; 
-  Drafting Intercalibration Technical reports; 
-  Preparation of the results for inclusion in the EC Decision on Intercalibration. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3.2. Intercalibration work finalised in 2015  

Thirteen  Intercalibration  groups  have  finalised  the  Intercalibration  work  in  close 
collaboration  with  JRC.  This  is  a  major  achievement  that  will  lead  to  the  European 
Commission  Decision  of  Intercalibration  results  (planned  in  2017).  The  groups  which 
have finalised the IC work in 2015 are as follows:  

1.  Lakes Central-Baltic Fish;  
2.  Coastal waters Black Sea GIG Benthic invertebrates; 
3.  Coastal waters Black Sea GIG Macroalgae and Angiosperms; 
4.  Coastal and Transitional waters NEA GIG Opportunistic macroalgae; 
5.  Coastal waters NEA (7) benthic invertebrates; 
6.  Coastal waters NEA (1/26) benthic invertebrates;  
7.  Coastal waters Baltic macroalgae and angiosperms (type BC5); 
8.  Coastal waters Baltic Phytoplankton report (type BC5); 
9.  Coastal waters Baltic macroalgae and angiosperms report (type BC4); 
10. Coastal waters MED GIG phytoplankton (types shared by ES, FR, IT, HR and SI) 
11. Transitional waters MED GIG phytoplankton; 
12. Transitional waters MED GIG benthic invertebrates; 
13. Transitional water Fish (new method developed by UK-IE). 

JRC carried out checking and reviewing of the final results (in collaboration with the IC 
review panel). JRC presented the final results at ECOSTAT and organized discussions and 
approval of the final results. 

The final reports and reviews are available at CIRCABC: 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a4c946c8-4c34-4ab0-ae76-8e0f274e7da9 

The final reports will be published by JRC next year, once the IC work will be finalised.  

3.3.3. Ongoing intercalibration work to be finalised in 2016 

JRC is responsible for coordination of several groups where the work is ongoing and the 
IC results are expected in 2016: 

  Lakes Eastern Continental Phytoplankton, Macrophytes and Benthic fauna;  
  Very large rivers Benthic fauna, Phytoplankton and Fish fauna; 
  CW NEA Phytoplankton, Seagrasses and Saltmarshes; 
  CW NEA Benthic invertebrates (type NEA 3/4); 
  CW MED GIG phytoplankton (type III-E); 
  TRW NEA Phytoplankton, Benthic fauna, Seagrasses and Saltmarshes; 
  TRW MED Fish fauna. 

JRC  has  been  involved  in  solving  technical  problems  and  steering  the  work,  ensuring 
communication between these groups and ECOSTAT, as well as reporting the progress to 
SCG and Water Directors.  

3.4. Intercalibration of individual methods (gap 2) 

There are many cases when GIG has finalized results but MS has not intercalibrated the 
method  due  to  some  reason  (e.g.,  method  was  not  developed  in  time).  Now  these 
methods can be intercalibrated according to the guidance No 14 which was developed by 
JRC (in collaboration with MS experts). 

JRC has established the process of the intercalibration of these methods, comprising the 
publication  of  detailed  guidance  document,  reporting  of  the  methods,  organizing  of  the 
review of the results, and acceptance of these results by ECOSTAT. 

13 

 
 
 
 
   
Several methods have been intercalibrated already following this procedure: 

- 
Italian phytobenthos lake method; 
-  German rive macrophyte method; 
- 
- 

Lithuanian river benthic invertebrate and lake phytoplankton  method; 
Latvian phytoplankton method.  

 Reports on Intercalibration of these methods and the relevant reviews available here: 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/2b8dccf2-8b81-4156-a149-7d293db58f71 

3.5.  Remaining  issues  –  methods  not  intercalibrated  (gap  3 
and 4) 

Most  of  the  ecological  assessment  methods  have  been  /  will  be  intercalibrated  and 
included in the Intercalibration Decision. Still, there is a considerable number of methods 
not intercalibrated: 

One  category  includes  methods  not  possible  to  intercalibrate  due  to  different  reasons; 
still not developed).  

In several cases MS have opted exclude specific BQE from the ecological assessment.    

JRC has collected information and provided (1) an overview of the remaining open issues 
and (2) the way forward for filling these gaps.   

Detailed  information  regarding  all  water  categories,  MS  and  BQEs  is  available  on 
CIRCABC:  

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/fa9dd70e-da9d-42a8-8610-7d9df303eafc 

The following issues were addressed: 

  Fish fauna in the Mediterranean GIG (Spain, Portugal): Spain and Portugal have 
submitted  justifications  for  not  using  fish  BQE  in  lakes  and  reservoirs.  JRC  has 
organized  GIG  discussion  on  this  topic,  has  organized  review  of  these  opinions, 
have presented these issues at ECOSTAT meetings.  

  Phytobenthos in lakes: Many countries have submitted justifications for not using 
phytobenthos  sub-BQE  in  lakes.  JRC  has  organized  review  of  these  opinions 
(including  large-scale  data  analysis  of  the  phytobenthos  and  macrophyte  data), 
have presented these issues at ECOSTAT meetings. 

  Benthic invertebrates in lakes: Austria and Denmark have submitted justifications 
for  not  using  benthic  invertebrate  BQE  in  lakes.  JRC  has  organized  review  of 
these opinions. Now we need to discuss this issue at ECOSTAT and develop more 
detailed  guidance:  at  which  cases  BQE  can  be  excluded  from  ecological 
assessment?  

3.6. Common understanding on the use of single parameters 
or metrics: use of chlorophyll-a in the classification of coastal 
and transitional waters 

includes 

The  WFD  requirement  for  assessing  ecological  status  of  the  phytoplankton  quality 
element 
taxonomic  composition,  abundance  and  biomass  of 
phytoplankton  as  well  as  bloom  frequency to be taken into account for transitional 
and coastal water bodies. Still, most of the MS assessment systems include  only  chl-a 
metrics, omitting taxonomic composition and bloom metrics. 

JRC  has  led  discussion  on  this  issue,  organized  the  drafting  of  the  cross-GIG  joint 
position  paper,  organized  review  of  this  paper,  and  led  the  final  discussions. 
Agreed cross-GIG joint review paper available at CIRCABC:  

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/241fb6ac-aea0-40e3-9ef8-0531f834ca35 

14 

 
 
 
Experts  acknowledge  that  indicators  of  phytoplankton  bloom  frequency  and  community 
composition  indices  may  potentially  add  more  information  to  the  phytoplankton  quality 
element  than  Chl-a/biovolume  alone,  but  so  far  proposed  indicators  of  these  sub-
elements have only been suggested in some very small parts of the intercalibration area 
but their wider applicability have not been demonstrated across broader regions. For the 
overall  WFD intercalibration  and  status  assessment  the  inclusion  of  these  sub-elements 
have never been successful despite large efforts in various research projects.  

In the most intensively monitored regions in Europe where the phytoplankton data, have 
been  thoroughly  analysed  to  investigate  the  potentials  of  various  indicators  for 
phytoplankton  blooms  and  community  structure,  experts  have  observed  that  the 
uncertainty  associated  with  these  indicators  is  disproportionally  large  relative  to  the 
responses of these indicators to pressures. Consequently, the use of these indicators to 
achieve  a  status  classification  with  a  reasonable  precision  would  require  unrealistic 
monitoring  efforts,  rendering  these  indicators  non-operational  as  decision  support  for 
river-basin management plans.  

This  position  paper  presents  scientific  arguments  for  the  use  of  the  biomass  parameter 
measured  as  chlorophyll  a  as  the  main  operational  phytoplankton  indicator  for  the 
majority of the countries at present. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4. Intercalibration of good ecological potential  

As one of the core activities for the CIS working group on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT) 
from 2013, a harmonized understanding of good ecological potential for heavily modified 
water  bodies  has  been  on  the  agenda.  An  ad-hoc  group  consisting  of  experts  from 
Member  States  and  JRC-IES  has  been  working  on  harmonizing  GEP  related  to  the 
following  main  usages:  water  storage,  floods  and  drainage,  coastal  and  transitional 
water bodies, involving experts on ecological potential and hydromorphology from most 
Member States. 

The  aims  have  been  to  1)  exchange  experience  on  good  ecological  potential  (GEP) 
starting  from  the  identification  (hydromorphological  alteration  assessment,  significance 
of  hydromorphological  alteration,  etc.)  and  designation  of  HMWBs  (economic 
considerations, e.g. significant impact on use) and 2) find suitable methods for assessing 
comparability  (intercalibration)  of  the  above  mentioned  stages,(identification  of  HMWB, 
designation of HMWB, selection of measures to define and reach GEP  3) learn from each 
other to ensure common understandings and 4) sort out good management practise and 
5)  possibly    define  a  common  set  of  effective  mitigation  measures  for  heavily  modified 
water bodies, due to the different usages, across Europe.  

To  achieve  this,  information  exchange  has  been  initiated  focusing  on  the  following 
related questions for HMWBs;  

A.  Do we look at similar impacts, regarding type and scale? 
B.  Do we have a similar understanding of significant impacts on water use? 
C.  Do our national mitigation measure libraries contain similar measures for 

these impacts? 

D.  Do we use comparable criteria to select/rule out mitigation measures? 
E.  Do countries have common standards for GEP, and hence are there a uniform 

ecological minimum across Europe? 

Several  information  exchange  templates  have  been  circulated  between  Member  States 
and  EEA  countries  to  exchange  data  on  general  definitions  and  approaches  to  HMWBs 
designation and GEP identification in terms of available mitigation measures. Workshops 
based  on  the  template  results  have  been  arranged  to  clarify  terms  and  definitions, 
highlight  where  there  is  alignment,  and  where  there  are  differences  in  approaches,  to 
start  to  explore  the  reasons  behind  these.  Presentations  and  documents  related  to  the 
group’s work are available on CIRCABC.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5. Harmonisation of nutrient standards  

The  Water  Framework  Directive  requires  Member  States  (MS)  to 
follow  an 
intercalibration  process  to  ensure  comparability  of  status  class  boundaries  (specifically 
the Good/Moderate boundary) for biological quality elements (BQEs). This process is well 
established,  and  has  been  successfully  followed  by  many  MS  for  a  range  of  BQEs. 
However, concerns have been raised that an apparently wide range of nutrient boundary 
values have been established by MS to support good ecological status.  

Therefore,  ECOSTAT  has  initiated  a  project  to  investigate  this  issue.  The  work  is  being 
led  by  UK  (Freshwaters),  Germany  (Saline  waters)  and  JRC.  The  aim  of  the  work  is  to 
investigate and establish the reasons for any differences between MS in the development 
and  application  of  nutrient  boundaries,  leading  to  the  production  of  best  practice 
guidance.  

In 2015, the following work has been carried out:  

1)    Information  collection  on  nutrient  standards  (nutrient  boundary  values,  information 
on how the standards are developed and how they are used);  

2)  Comparison  of  freshwater  and  saline  water  boundaries  were  drafted  (freshwater 
report and saline water report, will be finalised by the end of 2015). 

Additionally,  JRC  has  organized  work  on  setting  nutrient  boundaries  using  pressure-
response relationships: 

One  of  the  recommendations  from  the  work  on  freshwaters  was  to  compare  boundary 
values  with  pressure  response  relationships  using  information  gathered  during  the 
intercalibration exercise and this report addresses this issue; 

Therefore,  the  drafting  group  was  established  with  the  aim  to  determine  ranges  of 
potential nutrient (N & P) boundary concentrations at the intercalibrated boundaries for 
high/good and good/moderate biological status; 

The  final  result  is  the  report  proposing  several  approaches  how  to  define  nutrient 
boundaries supporting “good” ecological status;  

Pressure  response  relationships  provide  an  objective  method  for  determining  nutrient 
boundary  values.    The  use  of  regression  methods  allows  uncertainty  to  be  determined 
and thus provides a method of determining a range of potential boundary values which 
would represent different levels of precaution of the supporting element. Further work is 
needed to develop this approach. 

All three reports are available at CIRCABC: 

 https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/8f58d96c-bf13-41e2-8178-4a26e0d2bf9c 

JRC  in  collaboration  with  DE  and  UK  organized  ECOSTAT  nutrient  meeting  18-19 
November, Berlin with the main aims: to discuss the work done so far and decide on the 
future directions.  

Presentations from the meeting available: 

https://www.fresh-thoughts.eu/FreshEvents-80-Material 

The main outcomes of this work can be summarized as follows: 

There  are  large  variability  between  MS  nutrient  boundaries,  also  within  common  types, 
one  of  the  main  factors  behind  these  differences  is  different  approaches  to  boundary 
setting used by MS: 

The  harmonised  approach  to  set  boundaries  using  pressure-response  relationship 
constitutes the fruitful approach. 

17 

 
 
 
The  work  will  be  continued  to  draft  the  Guidance  on  setting  of  good  status  nutrient 
boundaries. 

6. Typologies  

The  aim  of  the  typology  work  is  to  define  broad  types  at  European  scale,  by  grouping 
national types with high similarity,  as well as to collect detailed information on national 
types and clarify the links between the national and intercalibration types.  

In 2015, the freshwater work has been finalised: 

20 broad river types and 15 broad lake types Broad European types were defined; 

Links  between  national  types  and  broad  European  types  were  established  and  checked 
with the Member States (in several repetitions). 

These common types will be incorporated in the reporting guidance and will allow type-
specific  analysis  and  presentation  of  water  data  in  WISE  (SoE,  RBMP  evaluation  and 
compliance checking).  

The final report (co-authored by JRC), was published, available at CIRCABC:  

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/f94f35e6-5edc-4426-baf3-0a306bb7c68a 

For  coastal  and  transitional  waters  typology  work  has  started  recently.  JRC  has  carried 
out  the  collection  of  information  on  national  typologies.  In  2015,  first  analyses  have 
been  made  in  collaboration  with  the  European  Marine  Topic  centre  (EEA),  establishing 
the  links  between  national  and  intercalibration  types,  and  identifying  14  coastal  waters 
broad types.  

A draft report was completed, available at CIRCABC:  

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/29ae1a7e-1a41-42cd-9faf-51b43a75436d 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7. Hydromorphology 

JRC was the main organiser and moderator of the ECOSTAT workshop 
“Hydromorphology and WFD classification” on 12-13 October 2015 in Oslo, Norway, 
back-to-back with the 30th ECOSTAT meeting. Main purpose of the workshop was  to 
present and discuss best practices from selected Member States in the light of new 
scientific insights and recommendations - mainly from the FP7 REFORM project, but also 
from recent research carried out at JRC. Meeting documents and presentations of the 
workshop are available at CIRCABC:  

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/a704c790-ae6c-4a01-9de4-ce6c0084971c 

The workshop attracted ca. 70 participants from almost all Member States, as well as 
from the scientific community and various stakeholder organisations.  

A key discussion topic at the workshop was the use of remote sensing information in 
hydromorphological classification for the WFD. JRC made a key scientific contribution to 
the workshop presenting the results of new scientific work on this issue, as published in 
Bizzi et al. (2015).  

The following main conclusions were agreed upon during the workshop: 

1.  There are many good examples of biological indicators responding to 

hydromorphological pressures.  
  All biological quality elements may respond but the strength of the response 

depends on the choice of metrics.  

  Fish, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and (more rarely) diatoms are the 

biological quality elements most used to detect effects of hydromorphological 
pressures. Phytoplankton is used in specific cases (impounded rivers and 
reservoirs).  

  Many of the intercalibrated WFD methods are generic multi-metric indices 

responding weakly to specific hydromorphological pressures because they were 
not originally designed to be specifically sensitive to such pressures. This can be 
improved by using more targeted indicators. There are already good examples of 
Member States using such targeted indicators in their biological assessment 
systems  

  Hydromorphological pressures affect BQEs through morphological process 
shaping habitat quality and structure. Riparian vegetation usually plays an 
important role. There is a need to better characterize and quantify the links 
between hydromorphological alteration and biological impact using appropriate 
data and targeted indicators. This requires that spatial and temporal scales of 
monitoring of biological quality elements are in line with hydromorphological 
processes 

  There is a need to quantify hydromorphological pressures and their effects on the 

biology under a multi-stressor environment in order to separate different causes 
of the alteration and to design appropriate measures. 

2.  River typologies should reflect natural variability in hydromorphological 

characteristics and processes. This is crucial because differences in natural 
hydromorphology result in different reference conditions for the biological quality 
elements.  

3.  BQE assessments need to be supplemented with information from the supporting 
elements in order to identify inconsistencies between hydromorphological and 
biological assessment, to diagnose problems and to identify effective restoration 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
measures. A clear understanding of what is meant by “supportive element”, how it 
should be used, how it is reported is needed.  

4.  Hydromorphological assessment is crucial for the designation of HMWB, the 

development of methods to quantify ecological potential, and for the design and 
monitoring of mitigation measures. It will not be possible to achieve this if 
information on hydromorphology is available for “high status” only.   

5.  Hydromorphological processes occur at different spatial and temporal scales. 

Hydromorphological assessment methods are needed to account for variations in 
time and space (multi-scale methods). 

6.  Until recently, there were few shared and standardized multi-scale 

hydromorphological assessment methods. This has been an obstacle for a proper 
analysis of the linkages with BQEs so far. Recent scientific work (including the 
REFORM project) has resulted in new and better approaches and tools, which could 
now be used and further standardised.  

7.  To achieve real progress on this topic it is necessary that experts on 

hydromorphology and biology need to work together at different levels – 
scientifically, within Member States, and also within the WFD common 
implementation strategy.   

8.  Data from remote sensing are increasingly available from many sources, including EU 
space programs. This data has a great potential to be used in hydromorphological 
assessments at different scales, in combination with field data and other existing 
relevant information. The main challenge is not data availability and acquisition, but 
to solve issues with data processing and interpretation.   

The outcome of the workshop will be the starting point for further work on 
hydromorphology in the CIS work programme 2016-2018, where hydromorphology will 
be one of the key topics (see Chapter 8). 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8. Outlook for future work 

Following  an  extensive  discussion  involving  DG  Environment,  Member  States  and  other 
key  players  involved  including  JRC  and  EEA,  a  new  work  programme  for  the  Common 
Implementation Strategy has been agreed upon by the EU Water Directors  covering the 
years 2016-2018. The work programme is available on CIRCABC: 

https://circabc.europa.eu/w/browse/dd9b4484-2935-4ee8-b3ce-72f844f3644c 

Figure 3. Organisational structure of WFD CIS 2016-2018. 

Compared  with  previous  work  programmes,  the  CIS  working  group  structure  has  been 
simplified, with fewer working groups focusing on the most crucial issues (Figure 3). The 
JRC  will  continue  to  co-lead  ECOSTAT,  together  with  Italy,  Germany,  and  the  United 
Kingdom. JRC is expected to have a strong involvement in all tasks, but the main focus 
is  on  those  issues  that  are  linked  with  achieving  comparability  in  the  environmental 
objectives.  

Main tasks: 

 

Intercalibration of Good Ecological Status;    

  Work on intercalibration of Good Ecological Potential;    

  Continuation  of  Hydromorphological  work.  Information  exchange  on  the 

comparability of   classification methods;   

  Continuation  of  the  work  on  nutrients,  establishment  of  consistent  and 

comparable   boundaries.   

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Main deliverables:    

  Technical reports on intercalibration and contribution to update of Commission 
Decision (finalisation of intercalibration in Q4 2016, deliverables in Q2 2017);  

  Technical  report  on  the  intercalibration  of  Good  Ecological  Potential  (Q4 

2016);  

  Technical report on the harmonisation of nutrients standards;    

  Best  practice  on  the  use  of  supporting  elements  for  the  assessment  of 
ecological  status   (hydromorphology  and  physico-chemical  parameters 
including river basin specific pollutants).    

Other tasks:    

  Comparability of presentation of ecological status results;    

  Contributions  to  the  update  of  the  Commission's  Decision  on  MSFD  Good 

Environmental   Status;    

  Recommendations  on  biological  monitoring  methods,  including  on  biological 
monitoring    methods  for  which  harmonisation  is  needed  and  where 
standardisation  is  possible,  and  on  which  standardised  methods  should  be 
added  to  Annex  V  1.3.6  of  the  WFD  (development  of  new  WFD  relevant 
standards  through  the  work  of  the  CEN  Technical  Committee  230  Working 
Group “Biological and Ecological Methods);    

 

 

Information  exchange  with  WG  Chemicals  on  links  between  chemical  and 
ecological status and taking into account river basin specific pollutants in the 
classification of ecological status; 

Issues specific to coastal and transitional waters. Linkage between MSFD and 
WFD;    

  Scaling/delineation  of  water  bodies:  Issue  related  to  status  monitoring  and 
assessment,    but  also  critical  impact  assessment,  non-deterioration  and 
exemptions;    

  Work on innovative methodologies (e.g., environmental DNA).  

22 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
References  

Poikane  S.,  Johnson  R.K.,  Sandin  L.,  Schartau  A.C.,  Solimini  A.,  Urbanic  G., 
Arbaciauskas  K.,  Gabriels  W.,  Miler  O.,  Pusch  M.,  Timm  H.,  Böhmer  J.  (2016)  Benthic 
invertebrates  in  lake  ecological  assessment:  review  of  methods,  intercalibration  and 
practical recommendations. Science of the Total Environment 

Poikane S., Birk  S., Carvalho L., Böhmer J., de Hoyos C., Gassner H., Hellsten S., Kelly 
M., Lyche Solheim A., Olin M., Pall K, Phillips G., Portielje R., Ritterbusch D., Sandin L., 
Schartau  A.K.,  Solimini  A.G.,  van  den  Berg  M.,  Wolfram  G.,  van  de  Bund  W.  (2015)  A 
hitchhiker's guide to European lake ecological assessment and intercalibration. Ecological 
Indicators 52: 533-544. 

Poikane  S.,  Zampoukas  N.,  Borja  A.,  Davies  S.,  van  de  Bund  W.,  Birk  S.  (2014) 
Intercalibration  of  aquatic  ecological  assessment  methods  in  the  EU.  Lessons  learned 
and way forward. Environmental Science and Policy 44: 237-246. 

Birk S., Willby N.J., Kelly M.G., Bonne W., Borja A., Poikane S., van de Bund W. (2013) 
Intercalibrating  classifications  of  ecological  status:  Europe`s  quest  for  common 
management  objectives for aquatic ecosystems. Science  of the Total Environment 454-
455: 490-499.  

Birk  S.,  Bonne  W.,  Borja  A.,  Brucet  S.,  Courrat  A.,  Poikane  S.,  Solimini  A.G.,  van  de 
Bund  W.,  Zampoukas  N.,  Hering  D.  (2012)  Three  hundred  ways  to  assess  Europe’s 
surface  waters:  an  almost  complete  overview  of  biological  methods  to  implement  the 
Water Framework Directive. Ecological Indicators 18: 31-41. 

Bizzi, S., Demarchi, L., Grabowski, R.C., Weissteiner,  C.J., van de Bund W. (2015) The 
use of remote sensing to characterise hydromorphological properties of European rivers. 
Aquat. Sci. DOI 10.1007/s00027-015-0430-7 

[EC] European Commission 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and 
of  the  Council  of  23rd  October  2000  establishing  a  framework  for  Community  action  in 
the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities, L327/1. European 
Commission, Brussels. 

[EC]  European  Commission  2003.  Common  Implementation  strategy  for  the  Water 
Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance Document 06. Towards a guidance on the 
establishment  of  the  intercalibration  network  and  the  process  on  the  intercalibration 
exercise. Luxembourg, Office for Official publications of the European Communities.   

[EC]  European  Commission  2011.  Common  Implementation  strategy  for  the  Water 
Framework  Directive  (2000/60/EC).  Guidance  Document  14.  Guidance  on  the 
Intercalibration  process  2008-2011.  Luxembourg,  Office  for  Official  publications  of  the 
European Communities.   

[EC]  European  Commission  2013.  Commission  Decision  of  20  September  2013 
establishing,  pursuant  to  Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of 
the  intercalibration  exercise.  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities  L266/1. 
European Commission, Brussels. 

[EC]  European  Commission  2015.  Common  Implementation  strategy  for  the  Water 
Framework  Directive  (2000/60/EC).  Procedure  to  fit  new  or  updated  classification 
methods  to  the  results  of  a  completed  intercalibration  exercise.  Luxembourg,  Office  for 
Official publications of the European Communities.   

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
List of figures  

Figure 1. Organisational structure of WFD CIS 2013-2015 

Figure 2. Scheme of the gaps of the method development and intercalibration 

Figure 3. Organisational structure of WFD CIS 2016-2018. 

List of tables  

Table 1. Geographical Intercalibration Groups (GIGs) and participating countries.  

Table 2. List of the active River Intercalibration groups and coordinating Member states.  

Table 3. List of the active Lake Intercalibration groups and coordinating Member states.  

Table  4.  List  of  the  active  Coastal  and  Transitional  water  Intercalibration  groups  and 
coordinating Member states.  

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union 
Free phone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed. 

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 
It can be accessed through the Europa server http://europa.eu 

How to obtain EU publications 

Our publications are available from EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu), 
where you can place an order with the sales agent of your choice. 

The Publications Office has a worldwide network of sales agents. 
You can obtain their contact details by sending a fax to (352) 29 29-42758. 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L
B
-
N
A
-
2
7
7
0
7
-
E
N
-
N

JRC Mission 

As the Commission’s  
in-house science service,  
the Joint Research Centre’s  
mission is to provide EU  
policies with independent,  
evidence-based scientific  
and technical support  
throughout the whole  
policy cycle. 

Working in close  
cooperation with policy  
Directorates-General,  
the JRC addresses key  
societal challenges while  
stimulating innovation  
through developing  
new methods, tools  
and standards, and sharing  
its know-how with  
the Member States,  
the scientific community  
and international partners. 

Serving society  
Stimulating innovation  
Supporting legislation 

doi:10.2788/071200 

ISBN 978-92-79-54592-4