CW-TW Intercalibration results Fuensanta Salas Herrero, CW-TW IC Coordinator Brussels, 1-2 February 2017
CW-TW IC GIG results 2. MSs Methods and Gaps
1. CWTW IC RESULTS
1. CWTW IC RESULTS Denmark, Norway and Sweden share the common intercalibration types BC6, NEA 8a, NEA 8b, NEA 9 and NEA 10; the first area located within the Baltic Geographical Intercalibration Group and the four latter located in the North East Atlantic Geographical Intercalibration Group The three countries have the same data acquisition for assessing phytoplankton biomass (using chlorophyll a), but assessment methods differ.
1. CWTW IC RESULTS
1. CWTW IC RESULTS TN, TP, Clh a Salinity, temperature, Secchi depth, stratification, water depth The three national chlorophyll a metrics have been calculated for all water bodies and assessment periods.
For comparing chlorophyll a levels in these water bodies and assessment periods, the Danish metric was selected as the common metric. The strong relationships between the national and the common chlorophyll were used to translate current national reference conditions (RC) and class boundaries for high-good (HG) and good-moderate (GM) to the common metric scale.
After comparing these boundaries on the common scale, an intercalibrated value was decided (in most cases by averaging). Differences in these values between Denmark and Sweden in BC6 and NEA 8b were generally small, whereas differences between Norway and Sweden were larger.
1. CWTW IC RESULTS NEA GIG TW Benthic invertebrate fauna Transitional water bodies were classified into 6 different types (A to F) according to size, river flow and intertidal area (relative to total area of the water body) and 3 of them were included in the IC: Large estuaries (Type D), small-medium estuaries with >50% intertidal area (Type E) and small-medium estuaries with <50% intertidal area (Type F).
WFD compliant methods Ok Pressures addresses OK Boundary setting ok Assessment concept All methods are based on similar parameters (diversity and presence/absence of sensitive and/or opportunistic species) and most of them are calculated at sample level BEQI and AeTV, are calculated at ecosystem and water body level, respectively IQI attempts to account for within-habitat changes in metric values, where other MSs have fixed values for each habitat.
Option 3
Positive review panel evaluation
1. CWTW IC RESULTS NEA GIG CW Saltmarshes WFD compliant methods Ok Pressures addresses OK Boundary setting OK Assessment concept OK
1. CWTW IC RESULTS NEA GIG CW Saltmarshes With the current available data set the continuous benchmarking standardization has not been possible; Therefore, IC is not possible
1. CWTW IC RESULTS NEA GIG CW Saltmarshes
1. CWTW IC RESULTS NEA GIG CW Saltmarshes WFD compliant methods Ok Pressures addresses OK Boundary setting OK Assessment concept OK
1. CWTW IC RESULTS NEA GIG TW Saltmarshes Continuos benchmarking Option 2
NEA GIG TW Saltmarshes Methods from ES, PT and UK proceeded in further steps of the intercalibration process; 2. BE was not considered since it presents only two WB data points; 3. DE was not included due to its inverse relationship to pressure; 4. NL was also not included due to the absence of any significant correlation to the pressure index.
NEA GIG TW Saltmarshes Positive Review panel evaluation on the IC procedure
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Germany: Baltic BC7, BC8: Macroalgae and Angiosperms Ic not feasible-Method accepted NEA 1/26: Saltmarshes Ic not feasible-Method accepted NEA 3/4: Opportunistic macroalgae: Ic not feasible-Method accepted NEA 5: All BQEs: Ic not feasible-Methods accepted BC2: All BQEs: Ic not feasible-Methods accepted
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Denmark: Baltic BC6, BC8: Macroalgae and Angiosperms Ic not feasible-Method accepted
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Denmark: Baltic BC6, BC8: Macroalgae and Angiosperms Ic not feasible-Method accepted
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Estonia: Baltic BC4:Benthic invertebrates Ic not feasible-Method accepted Latvia: Baltic BC4:Benthic invertebrates Ic not feasible-Method accepted
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Finland: Angiosperms-No method Justification accepted
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Croatia: Benthic fauna Method not intercalibrated
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Ireland: Saltmarshes Ic not feasible-method accepted
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Malta: Benthic invertebrates, Phytoplankton Methods developed-Not Intercalibrated
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Netherlands: Saltmarshes Ic not feasible-method accepted
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Norway: Phytoplankton NEA 7 Ic not feasible-method accepted Seagrasses: Method in development
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Poland: BC5: Benthic invertebrates, Phytoplankton Method developed, not intercalibrated
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Portugal: Saltmarshes Ic not feasible-method accepted
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Sweden: Baltic BC6, BC1: Macroalgae and Angiosperms Ic not feasible-Method accepted
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters UK: Phytoplankton NEA 7 Ic not feasible-method accepted Saltmarshes:
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Belgium: Phytoplankton Ic not feasible-method accepted Saltmarshes:
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Germany: NEA 11 Phytoplankton No method-justification accepted NEA 11 Saltmarshes: Ic not feasible-method accepted
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Spain: NEA 11 Seagrasses: Ic not feasible-method accepted MED GIG Estuaries, coastal lagoons Benthic invertebrates, phytoplankton: Ic not feasible-method accepted Macroalgae and angiosperms, fish Methods not developed
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters France: NEA 11 Benthic invertebrates Method in development MED GIG Estuaries, coastal lagoons Benthic invertebrates, fish: Method in development
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Greece: Fish: Method in development
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Croatia: Benthic invertebrates, Angiosperms Methods in development Phytoplankton, Fish Ic not feasible-methods accepted
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Ireland: Benthic invertebrates, saltmarshes Ic not feasible-methods accepted
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Italy: Fish Ic not feasible-methods accepted
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Lithuania, Poland Benthic invertebrates, Macroalgae and Angisoperms In Development Fish Methods developed, but not intercalibrated
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Netherlands NEA 11 Saltmarshes: Ic not feasible-method accepted
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Portugal NEA 11 opportunistic macroalgae: method developed-not intercalibrated
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Romania Phytoplankton, Benthic invertebrates Ic not feasible-methods accepted Macroalgae and angiosperms No method, justification accepted Fish: Method in development
2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters UK Benthic invertebrates Ic not feasible-method accepted
Around 70 reports (including GIG reports, Gaps reports) Around 100 experts involved in the IC work Around 25 meetings during third Ic phase 44 TW methods intercalibrated 84 CW methods intercalibrated
THANK YOU!!