Test data exchange to support development of a biological indicators in rivers and lakes Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA EEA European Topic Centre on Water EIONET meeting 27-28 September 2010, EEA, Copenhagen

Outline of presentation What is the added value of reporting biological data to EEA relative to the WFD reporting to EC? Overview and examples of results from first test reporting 2009 Feedback to test results, major issues Request for 2nd test reporting 2010, incl. phytobenthos in rivers, Plan for regular reporting from 2011 onwards Links to other indicators Conclusions

Added value relative to what is already reported to Commission Provides info on how different BQEs respond to different pressures in different types of water bodies Enables trend analyses on numerical scale through EQR-data Example of degradation: change from EQR=0,75 to EQR=0,65 show increasing risk of failing good status (EQR>0.6), although WB is still within the same class (good status) Example of improvement: change from EQR=0,45 to EQR=0,55 show approaches towards good status objective (EQR>0.6), although WB is still within the same class (moderate status)

Example of future time series for different BQEs Dummy graph 2011-2023 Macroinv rivers Phytobenthos rivers Phytoplankton lakes Macrophytes lakes EQRn 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023

Process for test data exercise in 2009: Idea, content and process discussed with Ecostat and WG Reporting in 2008 New reporting sheets for biological quality elements included into SoE guidance in 2008 First test data requested from countries in summer 2009 Test results presented to Ecostat and Eionet, Oct. 2009

Freshwater test data exercise: What data was requested in 2009? Benthic macroinvertebrates in rivers Phytoplankton in lakes Macrophytes in lakes

Overview of data reported in 2009 32 500 biological values from 8300 stations in 16 countries !!! Sweden Norway Finland UK Estonia Denmark Ireland Lithuania Netherlands Slovakia Belgium Austria France Romania Cyprus Spain

Overview of data reported: Benthic invertebrates in rivers Ca. 5000 water bodies in 16 countries

Overview of data reported: Phytoplankton in lakes Ca. 1000 water bodies in 13 countries Macrophytes: 500 water bodies in 8 countries

New EEA database: biological data from test reporting Data compilation Station table National Station ID Waterbody info RBD info etc. EEA WISE-SoE databases Pressure table Land-use info Nutrients table NO3, Total P, PO4 New EEA database: biological data from test reporting Biology table National Station ID Metric Biology Value (EQR) etc. Type-specific class boundaries table Metric biology Waterbody type Reference condition H/G boundary G/M boundary etc. Station table National Station ID Waterbody ID Waterbody type Longitude, Latitude etc. Show Ecological status for each BQE Calculation of normalised EQR

Macroinvertebrates in rivers: Ecological status per station Some stations have unknown status class: Missing status class, EQR values and/or class boundaries (DK, ES) Some results may not be comparable: HMWB (NL) Acidification metrics (SE, UK-SC) Other non-intercalibrated metrics

Macroinvertebrates in rivers: Ecological status summarised per country

Phytoplankton in lakes: Ecological status summarised per country

Feedback to first test results from EEA to countries summer 2010, Major issues addressed in feedback: Representativity of stations is doubtful (uneven or insufficient spatial cover, biased distribution of status classes, few water types reported) Missing class boundaries and reference values prevent normalisation of EQRs Many countries reported non-intercalibrated metrics or class boundaries that is not comparable to other countries

Representativity of stations Most countries reported: > 70% of their RBDs > 70% of stations were Eionet stations But biased distribution of status classes (heavy weight on water bodies in high or good status) and pressure types in some countries y-axis: 1= low representativity, 3 = high representativity in terms of status class or pressures

Country replies to feedback Sept. 2010 Data content and consistency will be improved for many countries in 2009 (type info, station ID, additional metrics and BQEs, class boundaries, reference conditions) More countries indicate interest to join the test reporting in 2010

Problems with HMWBs, these are not IC Problems with national types Country replies to feedback Sept. 2010 – Compliance with intercalibration (IC) Not EEAs business (NL) Problems with HMWBs, these are not IC Problems with national types Improved reporting feasible after 2nd phase of IC EEA prefers reporting of intercalibrated metrics and water bodies that belong to common IC types to ensure comparability of data between countries.

Request for 2nd test reporting 2010 BQEs: Phytobenthos in rivers now included (new reporting sheet available in July) Macroinvertebrates in rivers (2009,2010) Phytoplankton in lakes (2009, 2010) Macrophytes in lakes (2009, 2010) Request included in regular data request sent to countries from EEA 2nd Aug 2010 Deadline for reporting: 31st Oct. 2010 (as for other data flows on emissions, water quantity and chemical state indicators) Reportnet should be used for reporting, Full data dictionaries for biology and revised data templates can be downloaded from Reportnet: http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/dataset.jsp?mode=view&ds_id=2852 Results from test data flows will not be published, but used for discussion and as a basis for starting a regular data flow in 2011

Plan for regular reporting of biological data from 2011 onwards Based on evaluation of the two test -reporting processes in 2009 and 2010 Sufficient geographic coverage of Europe, countries, RBDs? Representativity of stations in terms of station density, status classes, pressures and water types Data quality in terms of comparability of metrics reported, links to intercalibration results Data request in autumn 2011 with the other regular request for the other indicators Use of data in future reports (data reported in 2011 may contribute to assessment of status in the 2012 Blueprint for Water report and next SOER report) Contribute to ensure continued and regular biological monitoring in all countries that join the reporting

Links to other indicators on emissions and nutrient status Emissions (point and diffuse) HyMo pressures Nutrients in lakes and rivers Ecological status, different BQEs Biodiversity Ecosystem services

Links to future indicators on freshwater biodiversity and ecosystem services Is good ecological status equivalent to: High biodiversity? Favorable conservation status (Habitats)? Acceptable provision of ecosystem services? How to use biological quality elements data to assess impacts of other pressures, e.g. hydromorphology, climate change, invasive species?

Conclusions: Promising results Biological data is the core of the WFD objective Comprehensive submission of data in 2009: 32500 values from 8300 stations and 16 countries Data content, consistency and comparability will improve in 2010 and onwards Data from 2011 onwards will contribute to assessments of impacts of human pressures on different ecosystem components, incl. Biodiversity, ecosystem services and distance to WFD target Clear potential for future trend analysis showing impact of WFD programme of measures on the different ecosystem components More countries should join! (DE, PL, IT, others)

Thank you for your attention and support !

Standardised format for data reporting: Template: xls-file with 3 separate tables Biology data table Station and water body info (reported only once and if changed) Method and class boundaries (reported only once and if changed)

Data compilation: obstacles Problem Consequence Class boundaries or ref. cond. and status class missing Cannot use results to show status class nor to calculate normalised EQR Class boundaries or ref. cond. missing or given for original metric (not for EQR) Cannot calculate normalised EQR Non-matching links between tables Biological metric Waterbody type NationalStationID NationalStationID is not unique for each station Wrong links between stations and biology values, non-sense results NationalStationID is different from previously reported to EEA Cannot link biological data with information in WISE-SoE Waterbody info is missing Cannot aggregate results to WB level Various errors in data, f.ex. longitude/latitude mixed up or wrong unit Must make corrections or ask data providers for more information Class boundaries given for national waterbody types (instead of IC types) Results not comparable to other countries Non-intercallibrated metrics reported

Overview of data reported: Macrophytes in lakes Ca. 500 water bodies in 8 countries

Macroinvertebrates in rivers: Normalised EQR per country * Metrics and boundaries in agreement with IC results (ref. JRC-EEWAI)

Macrophytes in lakes: Ecological status summarised per country

Country replies to feedback Sept. 2010, Replies received from 8 countries (BE-FL, CH, CY, FR, LT, NL, SE, UK)

Representativity of stations 1 y-axis: 1= <1/1000km2 or /mill. popul., 3 = >10/1000 km2 or /mill. popul. y-axis: 1= low representativity, 3 = high representativity in terms of status class or pressures

Representativity of stations 2 y-axis: 1= <30% of RBDs reported, 3 = >70% of RBDs reported y-axis: 1= <30% overlap with EIONET water bodies, 3 = >70% overlap with EIONET water bodies

Links to future indicators on freshwater biodiversity and ecosystem services do good ecological status lakes and rivers have: High biodiversity? Favorable conservation status? Acceptable provision of ecosystem services? If yes: can we quantify the relationships between these concepts? can we use land cover data (density of urban, and agricultural areas and infrastructure) and modelling to predict ecological status, biodiversity and capacity to provide ecosystem services? (ref. EEA report 2010 on ecosystem accounting and costs of biodiversity losses)

Way forward Comparison of test data results with WFD RBMPs results for the same WBs (when WISE summary is available) Need to decide on stations or WB reporting and on frequency, annual or less Updated guidance on representativity of stations or WBs needed Encourage more countries to participate in data request 2010 (DE, PL, IT + several smaller countries) Continued collaboration with Ecostat/JRC/GIGs to ensure comparability of metrics and correct interpretation of data Start regular priority data flow in 2011