Lake Macroinvertebrate IC EC-GIG Gabriel Chiriac for RO (lead) Gabor Varbiro for HU Georg Wolfram for BG Jürgen Böhmer for statistics

Methods, Pressures IC Option HU RO BG Own method Adopts HU method Eutr., Hymo, lake use IC Option Assessment methods differ and sampling is too different for option 3 (sampling area, sampled habitats, determination level etc.)  Option 2 (common metrics) Pressure relationships: Assessments, sampling and pressures on lake level Demonstrated well for Hu and RO Not possible for BG (only one lake)

Data Basis HU: 29 samples in 20 lakes RO: 232 samples in 22 lakes BG: 3 samples in 1 lake  no statistics possible  BG adopted HU method Whole lake pressure data: chemistry, landuse, hydromorphology, recreational pressure and fisheries Multivariate stressor index chosen for standardisation, common metric selection and other analyses: All lakes are IC-Type L-EC1

Benchmarking Only very few reference lakes  reference benchmarking not possible  Continuous benchmarking applied Linear mixed models with with the biological metrics as dependent variable, the combined pressure variable as covariates and the country as random factor; slope as fixed and intercept as random factors  intercept deviation Subtraction method for standardisation of the metrics

Common Metrics All candidate metrics were standardised by continuous benchmarking as described before Standardised single metrics were normalised using 10- and 90-%tiles of all metric values as anchors to get comparable values for the different metrics  1 near reference conditions, 0 at worst status Final intercalibration common metric (ICM) average of normalised Shannon-Wiener diversity, BMWP and % dominant families, thus covering all WFD criteria (diversity, sensitive/tolerant taxa, composition): ICM = ([ShW_norm]+[BMWP_norm]+[domFam_norm])/3

Ecological Quality Ratios Good-moderate boundary Boundary comparison Romania‘s boundaries needed adjustment  Final boundaries (agreed and accepted): Member State Classification Ecological Quality Ratios Method High-good boundary Good-moderate boundary HU/BG HMMI lakes 0.85 0.65 RO ECO-NL-BENT 0.93 0.60

Suitability of the HU method for BG BG assessments with HU method fit into the pressure response curve of HU (and also the EQR / common metric relationship)  The BG lake can be treated like a HU lake

Conclusions Boundaries are agreed and accepted Ecercise was reviewed and accepted with minor changes, which have been carried out