WG 2A Ecological Status First results of the metadata collection for the draft intercalibration register: RIVERS

River IC sites (14/10) No river IC sites from: Estonia Finland Denmark Country Number of sites HG GM Total AT 14 14 28 BE 7 7 14 CY 3 2 5 CZ 10 11 21 DE 19 15 34 ES 35 26 61 FR 40 22 62 GB 35 36 71 IE 13 12 25 LT 5 2 7 LV 2 2 4 NL 7 11 18 NO 39 35 74 PL 7 5 12 PT 17 18 35 SE 8 8 16 SI 5 1 6 No river IC sites from: Estonia Finland Denmark Luxemburg Hungary Slovakia Greece Italy Malta

Rivers by common IC group (14/10)

Rivers by common IC type (14/10)

Heavily modified Rivers NL, B

Selection criteria Rivers

Northern - sites submitted 22/8

Northern - sites expected

Northern - pressures

Northern GIG Types Pressures Initial proposal: 8 types enough possibilities for intercalibration two additional types proposed Pressures Organic/Nutrient loading, Acidification Pressures can be treated separately No sites for Stream modification

Northern GIG Quality elements Macroinvertebrates: sampling methods similar and comparable between countries; differences in taxonomic resolution Phytobenthos: methods in development, scope for comparison Fish: sampling methods not available yet

Recommendations Northern experts Good possibilities for intercalibration Need for additional data depends on the proposed intercalibration process - still unclear

Baltic GIG COMBINE WITH CENTRAL

Central GIG

Central GIG Baltic GIG merged with Central Baltic types fit into Central types, but… alkalinity usually much higher need to review reported alkalinity values to decide which types need to be split (in order to compare like with like)

Central - sites submitted 22/8

Central - sites expected

Central - data availability

Recommendations Central experts Six Central types give enough possibilities for intercalibration, but need to be reviewed with regard to alkalinity H/G boundary sites problematic for some types data expected not only for macroinvertebrates, but for all quality elements (not from all countries), but.. DATA WILL RARELY BE COMPARABLE ENOUGH FOR INTERCALIBRATION -- RECOMMEND STANDARDISED METHOD!!

Alpine - sites submitted 22/8

Alpine - sites expected

Alpine - data availability

Recommendations Alpine experts Two Alpine types give enough possibilities for intercalibration Possibilities to compare Alpine with Pyrennees sites must be clarified Pressures: organic/nutrient pressure and modification for both types Data expected not only for macroinvertebrates, but for all quality elements (not from all countries), but.. DATA WILL RARELY BE COMPARABLE ENOUGH FOR INTERCALIBRATION -- RECOMMEND STANDARDISED METHOD!!

Mediterranean - sites submitted 22/8

Mediterranean - sites expected

Mediterranean river types Mediterranean types give enough possibilities for intercalibration Information needed from Italy, Greece, Malta Short meetings between Med. Countries planned for information exchange/site visits (Nov. 2003, Portugal)

Mediterranean rivers - pressures Organic/nutrient pressure and hydromorphological pressures need to be considered TOGETHER - supporting data will be used to support the classification

Mediterranean rivers - quality elements and data availability Invertebrate data available from all countries Problems foreseen with comparability of data: taxonomic resolution sampling strategy (how, where and when) Need to agree on some degree of standardisation Other quality elements: not available in all countries phytobenthos: intercalibration only possible with additional data collection, i.e. in a selected type fish, macrophytes - not enough data

Mediterranean rivers - general recommendations the selection of Common Intercalibration (Biological) Metrics to be applied on national datasets is suggested. If possible, such metric should be different from the standard National methods Most Med. countries have selected sites representing class boundaries, but comparability has not yet been discussed Common view on class boundaries can only be developed with comparable data

Summary conclusions river experts (1) Common intercalibration types good basis for intercalibration in all GIGs Baltic GIG needs to be combined with Central GIG General agreement on pressures and quality elements For most countries, Intercalibration sites represent preliminary national view on class boundaries

Summary conclusions river experts (2) Analysis on comparability of national views on class boundaries requires comparable biological data Methodological differences will make it very difficult to apply national assessment methods using existing data from other countries