Working Group A ECOSTAT River GIG results Wouter van de Bund Vaida Olsauskyte Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability

Sep 06 Jun 07 Jun 07 (pilot) Jun 06 NO CB ALP MED EC Macro-invertebr. Phytoben-thos Macrophytes Fish NO Sep 06 Jun 07 Jun 07 (pilot) CB ALP Jun 06 Not relevant MED EC

Overview results agreed July 2006 results finalised Sept 2006 Alpine GIG – macroinvertebrates results finalised Sept 2006 All (other) GIGs - macroinvertebrates results to be finalised 2007 Phytobenthos and macrophytes

Alpine – benthic macroinvertebrates draft Decision Annex: Types and Countries Description of types that have been intercalibrated Type River characterisation Catchment area (of stretch) Altitude and geomorphology Alkalinity Flow regime R-A1 Small to medium, high altitude calcareous 10-1000 km2 800-2500 m (catchment), boulders/cobble high (but not extremely high) alkalinity R-A2 Small to medium, high altitude, siliceous 500-1000m (max. altitude of catchment 3000m, mean 1500m), boulders Non-calcareous (granite, metamorphic). medium to low alkalinity nival-glacial flow regime Countries participating in the intercalibration Type R-A1: Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Slovenia Type R-A2: Austria, France, Italy, Spain

Alpine – benthic macroinvertebrates draft Decision Annex: National Methods Country Assessment Method Austria Multimetric Indices for General Degradation, Saprobic Index France IBGN Indice Biologique Global Normalisé, (Norme AFNOR NF T 90 350, 1992). Germany Handbuch zur Untersuchung und Bewertung von Fließgewässern auf der Basis des Makrozoobenthos vor dem Hintergrund der EG-WRRL, April 2005 Slovenia Multimetric index, Saprobic Index Spain IBMWP-Iberian BMWP, IASPT

Alpine – benthic macroinvertebrates draft Decision Annex: Results Type and country Ecological Quality Ratios for the national classification systems High-Good boundary Good-Moderate boundary Type R-A1 Austria 0,80 0,60 France 0,93 0,79 Germany Slovenia Type R-A2 France (Alps) 0,71 France (Pyrenees) 0,94 0,81 Spain 0,83 0,53

Alpine – benthic macroinvertebrates Draft Technical Report: Milestone 6 report as presented in July 2006 with minor editorial changes

Alpine – comparison results Figure 1: Boundary values high/good and good/moderate at the ICMi scale +/- 95% confidence limits. Values are taken from the regression between the EQR values of the national method and the EQR values from the ICMi method. The band indicates an „acceptable range of variation" and consist of the median of the boundary values of all member states +/- ¼ of the median status class width of all member states.

Alpine – benthic macroinvertebrates Discussion issues: Italian boundaries not included (IBE method not officially accepted national method) France announced a (minor) boundary change to take into account results of other GIGs ECOSTAT acceptance of Alpine GIG results in draft Decision Annex and Technical report?

Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates Status of the report: Milestone report with comparison results and harmonisation requirements sent simultaneously to ECOSTAT and GIG MS comments deadline 9 October

Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates Methodology (presented in detail at July meeting) Comparison of boundaries using ICMi Both type-specific and generic approach were tested; GIG proposes to use the latter Quality checks for MS datasets and classification methods Acceptable range: average +/- 5% of accepted MS values

Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates Figure 2.3: Flow diagram to demonstrate the CBGIG rivers comparison and harmonisation procedure.

Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates

Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates MS EQR_MS HG EQR_MS GM EQR_ICMi HG EQR_ ICMi GM band 0.93 0.76 benchmark 0.95 0.79 AT 0.80 0.60 0.72 BE-W 0.97 0.74 0.73 DE 0.88 0.78 ES 0.82 FR 0.91 UK 0.86 0.92 IT 0.96 LU 0.94 0.71 IE 0.85 0.75 LT NL 0.68 0.77 PL 0.89 SE 1.00 0.70 0.87 BE-F 0.58 CZ DK EE Key Included the calculation of the harmonisation band Not included in the calculation of the harmonisation band

Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates BE-W DE ES FR UK IT LU IE LT NL PL SE BE-F CZ DK EE MS included in comparison and calculation of harmonisation band MS included in comparison only: - No national method (LT, SE, CZ) Problems with the provided data Problems with reference conditions

Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates Comparison results: HG Boundary

Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates Comparison results: GM Boundary

Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates The results of the comparison based on an all types combined approach using a single regression per MS indicate that for HG the following countries fall within the harmonisation band and are therefore not required to harmonize: AT, BE-W, DE, ES, FR, UK, IT, LU, IE, LT, NL, PL, CZ, EE. The following countries lie outside the HG harmonisation band: SE, BE-F, DK. The results of the comparison based on all types combined indicate that for GM the following countries fall within the harmonisation band and do not need to harmonize: AT, BE-W, DE, FR, UK, IT, NL, PL, CZ, DK, LU. The following countries lie outside the GM harmonisation band: ES, IE, LT, SE, BE-F, EE.

Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates Questions: LT, NL, PL, SE, BE-F, CZ, DK, EE are not included in the harmonisation calculations Report does not indicate the reasons No national method Data quality criteria not met Problems with reference conditions and boundary setting What are the consequences for those MS? What will MS outside the agreed range do?

Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates AT, BE-W, DE, UK, IT, LU – OK ES, IE – outside GM boundary range FR – outside HG boundary range LT – no official method, outside GM range NL – different RC approach (accepted by GIG), low correlation, boundaries OK PL, CZ – no official method, boundaries OK SE – no official method, both boundaries outside range BE-F – different RC approach (not accepted by GIG?), boundaries very low DK – different RC approach, outside HG boundary range EE – no official method, outside GM boundary range

Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates Open issues identified by CB GIG: No reference sites in some countries according to GIG criteria Not all MS have official methods Types with no existing reference sites (e.g. large rivers) not included – other approaches needed Issue of reference conditions needs to be properly addressed in the future

Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates Does ECOSTAT approve the results? Which MS boundaries go into the Decision Annex?

Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates Two separate reports: Acidification  work in progress, no boundary setting yet Organic/nutrients  boundary setting completed

Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates FI - X IE NO SE UK

Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates Methodology comparable to CB GIG: Comparison of boundaries using ICMi Both type-by-type and combined all-type approach Acceptable range: average +/- 5% of accepted MS boundaries (as ICMi) Two different methods to calculate ICMi boundaries

Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates Method 1: The HG (GM) boundary for each MS within each type is calculated as the half-way point between the average ICMi value for the adjacent status classes of High (Good) and Good (Moderate). Method 2: For comparison with CBGIG a second boundary method is used that simply compares the boundaries taken directly from the regression lines.

Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates All comparisons indicate that harmonisation is not required at the +/-5% tolerance level indicated above. All MSs are within the +/-5% band for individual NGIG river types and for all types combined.

Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates Method 1 – all types - HG

Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates Method 1 – all types - GM

Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates Method 2– all types

Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates MS National Boundary ICMi ICMi, mean of all MSs (range ± 5 %) Method of comparison H/G FI 0,95 0,92 (0,87 – 0,97) Method 2 SE 0,93 UK 0,90 IE 0,92 0,95 (0,90 – 1,0) Method 1 NO 0,96 G/M 0,74 0,78 (0,72 – 0,82) 0,75 0,81 0,79 (0,74 – 0,84) 0,80

Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates Discussion issues Is it necessary to maintain the diversity of approaches: Method 1 and Method 2 for boundary calculation Type-by-type and all types combined? Accept proposed boundary values?

Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates Type River characteristics Cyprus France Greece Italy Portugal Spain R-M1 Small mid-altitude Y R-M2 Medium lowland R-M4 Medit mountains R-M5 Temporary, small

Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates

Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates Common criteria for reference conditions Boundary setting following common procedure (‘REFCOND approach’): The H/G boundary is set as the 25th percentile of the reference samples and the gradient from the H/G boundary to the lower value (zero) is divided into 4 equal width classes. Different boundary setting approach proposed by Spain “No further harmonisation needed with this approach”

Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates R-M1: Boundaries Boundaries France IBGN (1) ICM (2) Greece Italy Portugal Spain STAR benchmark GUADALMED High-Good: ICM7 quantitative 0.81 0.90 0.948 0.806 0.91 0.92 ICM9 qualitative 0.86 0.99 1.00 0.974 0.798 0.95 0.80 STAR index 0.83 0.93 0.894 0.966 0.843 0.94 0.89 Good/Moderate: 0.75 0.68 0.711 0.575 0.69 0.79 0.74 0.750 0.731 0.569 0.67 0.73 0.60 0.76 0.70 0.670 0.724 0.600 0.71 (1): The national classification (EQR IBGN) is transformed in each EQR ICM values. REFCOND Method used on IBGN values (2): The REFCOND classification applied on each ICM is transformed in equivalent EQR IBGN values for each ICM

Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates R-M2 Boundaries following the REFCOND method. Boundaries Italy Portugal Spain GUADALMED benchmark High - Good ICM7 quantitative 0.892 0.793 0.92 ICM9 qualitative 0.944 0.695 0.97 0.80 STAR index 0.908 0.723 0.94 0.95 Good-Moderate 0.669 0.565 0.69 0.708 0.496 0.73 0.60 0.681 0.515 0.72

Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates R-M4: Boundaries following the REFCOND method. Boundaries Cyprus Greece Italy Spain GUADALMED benchmark High - Good ICM7 quantitative 0.946 0.951 0.92 0.87 ICM9 qualitative 0.934 0.809 0.914 0.94 0.82 STAR index 0.972 0.975 0.938 0.88 Good-Moderate 0.709 0.713 0.69 0.65 0.700 0.606 0.685 0.70 0.62 0.729 0.731 0.703 0.66

Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates . R-M5: Boundaries following the REFCOND method. Boundaries Italy Portugal Spain GUADALMED benchmark High-Good ICM10 quantitative 0.953 0.852 0.86 0.89 ICM11 qualitative 0.976 0.831 0.82 0.95 STAR index 0.977 0.938 0.88 0.93 Good-Moderate 0.715 0.607 0.65 0.67 0.732 0.592 0.62 0.72 0.729 0.668 0.69 0.70

Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates Discussion issues How should the results be interpreted? GIG report does not clearly report MS boundary values Is the approach accepted by ECOSTAT Is it possible to finalise this work with so few national methods?

E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates Participating countries IC type Participating countries R-E1 CZ, SK, HU, RO R-E2 RO, SK, HU R-E3 BG, HU R-E4 AT, HU, SK, RO R-E6 AT, SK, HU, RO, BG

E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates country name category WFD compliant Austria1 Slovak System for Ecological River Status Assessment Multimetric Index yes Slovak Republic1 Austrian System for Ecological River Status Assessment Czech Republic Czech Saprobic Index following Zelinka & Marvan (1961) Saprobic Index no Hungary Hungarian Average Score Per Taxon Biotic Index Romania Romanian Saprobic Index following Pantle & Buck (1955) Bulgaria Bulgarian Biotic Index for River Quality Assessment (Q-Scheme)

E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates Real reference sites lacking –> alternative approach using agreed criteria for H/G status sites Boundary setting by applying GIG agreed criteria to MS data sets Now completed for SK (RE1, RE2, RE4) and AT (RE4)

E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates

E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates

E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates

E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates Work on RC6 (Danube river) still ongoing: No agreed national methods  only comparison of existing, non-compliant methods EC GIG plans to continue work after the current IC exercise focusing on Danube river (JDS2) Including methods from all MS when finalised Involving all countries in the Danube river basin

E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates Discussion issues: Should the current results be included in the technical report/Decision annex? Are further results expected by spring 2007?

CB GIG: Macrophytes Updates Milestone report Meeting October 2006 Separate macrophyte report following Technical Report template Contents are the same as reported for July ECOSTAT Meeting October 2006 Results expected June (?) 2007

Northern GIG: Mediterranean GIG: Alpine GIG: EC GIG: Macrophytes Work in planning stage – no results reported yet Mediterranean GIG: No concrete plans to date Alpine GIG: Macrophytes not relevant EC GIG: Not addressed in this intercalibration

Discussion issues: Macrophytes Will it be possible for the CB, Northern, and Med GIGs to complete macrophyte intercalibration spring 2007 (as previously announced)? Is the CB approach applicable for Northern/Med GIGs?  Further discussions: River expert meeting 4-5 December

CB GIG: Phytobenthos Work in progress Milestone report Separate macrophyte report following Technical Report template Agreement on approach, common metric First results of comparison are included Expected to be completed spring 2007

Phytobenthos CB GIG Preliminary results – HG boundary

Phytobenthos CB GIG Preliminary results – GM boundary

Northern GIG: Mediterranean GIG: Alpine GIG: EC GIG: Phytobenthos No concrete plans reported Mediterranean GIG: Alpine GIG: M6 report: start September 2006, follow CB approach EC GIG: Not addressed in this intercalibration

Discussion issues: Phytobenthos Will it be possible for the CB, Alpine, Northern, and Med GIGs to complete phytobenthos intercalibration spring 2007 (as previously announced)? Is the CB approach applicable for Alpine/Northern/Med GIGs?  Further discussions: River expert meeting 4-5 December

Invitations will be sent out next week All-GIG Rivers Expert Network meeting JRC, Ispra, Italy 4-5 December 2006 Invitations will be sent out next week