Central-Baltic Rivers GIG progress ECOSTAT WG2A Stresa, Italy 13-14 October 2005 John Murray-Bligh

Organisation Chair, Roger Owen Secretary, John Murray-Bligh Steering Group Macrophyte data collation and analysis, Sebastian Birk Phytobenthos data collation and analysis - Martyn Kelly Co-ordinators and experts from 17 member states + JRC + STAR Project + CNR-IRSA

All 51 GIG documents on web site http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/jrc/jrc_eewai/library

Summary Agreed to intercalibrate invertebrates based on comparison using ICMi developed in STAR project and harmonisation against STAR benchmark data set Method for macrophyte comparison Method for phytobenthos comparison Only preliminary investigation of methods for fish Not using IC site register for any element

Current GIG tasks Collect reference criteria (template based on REFCOND) and numerical values of key parameters Collect information on data (sites x type x quality) for invertebrates Confirm agreement to intercalibrate macrophytes Confirm agreement to intercalibrate phytobenthos Produce detailed instructions for invertebrate intercalibration (comparison and harmonisation)

Work plan Detailed work plan in MS project All actions dated Gantt chart in pdf Invertebrates: Sept - collect data Oct - check data Nov - ICMi Dec - harmonise

Invertebrates Comparison of class boundaries by Intercalibration Common Metric index (ICMi) a multimetric covering all aspects of invertebrate quality in WFD normative definitions (tolerance, abundance/habitat, richness/diversity) with equal weighting based on family-level data an index of overall quality WFD compliant - i.e.normalised with respect to the reference state and expressed as an EQR

Converting class boundaries from national metric to ICMi by regression - all data normalised as EQRs

Results of the pilot intercalibration Detailed report in STAR Project Deliverable 11: Towards European Inter-calibration: Procedures and examples for different river types from the E.C. Project STAR Download from http://www.eu-star.at/ Few differences in class boundaries - most of which can be explained ...

Harmonisation GIG has agreed in principle to use indirect comparison with benchmark + bilateral comparison Median ICMi for Good and High classes in national (=test) and benchmark datasets compared. Bilateral comparison of similar methods to fine tune OK for non-compliant methods, reference state pre-determined, boundaries pre-determined STAR benchmark data is a pan-european, WFD compliant, and independent

Harmonisation 1. Compare statistical difference between ICMi values for good status based on benchmark and test data 2. If there is a statistical difference in ICMi values, adjust the good/moderate boundary for national method by 1 unit 3. repeat statistical comparison and if difference, adjust boundary again; repeat until... 4. when no difference in ICMs, Good class is calibrated 5. Repeat for high class H/G and G/M boundaries are now harmonised (Repeat process to harmonise the other classes)

Pilot harmonisation Comparing the median values of the ICMi obtained in the test and benchmark datasets for Good class ... <0.005 0.62 0.16 <0.005 p 0.015 0.12 0.89 0.31 0.07

Statistical comparison by Mann-Whitney U test … and then High class p 0.036 p 0.87 0.16 0.04 0.22 0.27 0.09 Statistical comparison by Mann-Whitney U test General Results only 33% of countries adjust H/G boundary only 44% of countries adjust G/M boundary repositioning boundaries usually involves minor changes (10% of sites moving from one class to another)

Invertebrates Reference state criteria and type-specific values have not been agreed. Few member states responded to request for information Should we ask again on Friday 14? Detailed instructions for comparison nearly complete Detailed instructions for harmonisation to be prepared - some member states do not understand the details yet

Macrophytes Method considered in expert workshop in Tallinn and STAR project Data is available from 8 member states with informal agreement to participate Reference and pressure indicator species have been identified Method based on bilateral comparison Work plan produced by Sebastian Birk (D)

Macrophytes Central data collation and analysis by Sebastian Birk and Karin Pall (A) We have asked member states to confirm participation and agreement with method Method covers comparison only - method for harmonisation has not been decided yet

Phytobenthos Method considered in workshop of national experts in Tallinn Martyn Kelly (UK) produced work plan Calculate a range of metrics using Omnidia software and collate results centrally Martyn Kelly will collate and analyse results - funded by SEPA

Phytobenthos Current work plan will take 7 months Method for harmonisation to be decided Some member states do not have data and so cannot participate On Friday (15 October) we will ask member states to confirm participation and agreement with method

Phytobenthos Will member states that do not participate be bound by the results of intercalibration? (We will ask member states if they agree to accept the results even if they do not participate) What do we do if one or more member states do not agree? What are the benefits of proceeding if any answers are no? Should we proceed?

Fish FAME consulted Considering using FAME index IC river types C3 C4 and C5 only Very little data (very few responses from member states to participate) Spain testing IC in small streams

Boundary Setting Protocol REBECCA has been asked to help relate ICMi to pressures pressures rarely occur in isolation

Further information: http://forum.europa.eu.int/Public/irc/jrc/jrc_eewai/library