Lake Intercalibration – IC Decision Annexes + what to do in future Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability

Lake IC results – state of play Many problems What is included in the Decision ? 13 Lake GIG results included 2. Remained technical issues SOLVED IN THE GIGs

Only Annex1 Or out of Decision GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern PHYTO In progress MACROPH Only methods BENTHIC FISH Phyto benthos Only Annex1 Or out of Decision Green – included in the Annex Grey – not included in the Annex

Alpine GIG All BQEs intercalibrated What is changed ? What is still missing ?

AT DE FR IT SI Slight adaptation of boundaries GIG PHYTO MACROPH In progress BENTHIC FAUNA Not relevant ? FISH PHYTOBENTHOS Phytoplankton: FR withdrew their method DE included 1st phase results (macrophytes+phytobenthos) Green – MS method included in the Decision Orange and yellow – MS methods not included in the Decision - Orange – MS method not developed, not participated in the IC (in some cases MS submitted the justification – that BQE (or part of the BQE in case of phytobenthos) is not relevant for the given MS water bodies) - Yellow - MS method not included (different reasons, as FR discovered mistakes and withdrew the phytoplankton method, or problems with IC feasibility / compliance etc) Slight adaptation of boundaries

Central Baltic GIG All BQEs intercalibrated, except FISH What is changed ? What is still missing ?

No IC results BE DE DK EE LT LV NL PL UK LT & LV not included GIG BE DE DK EE LT LV NL PL UK PHYTO MACROPH In progress BENTHIC FAUNA FISH No IC results PHYTOBENTHOS Not relevant ? LT & LV not included LT & LV included !!! slight adaptation of boundaries PL, DE - adaptation of boundaries

Eastern Continental GIG No final results What is changed ?

BG HU RO HU - adaptation of boundaries GIG PHYTO No IC results (HU & RO working) MACROPH BENTHIC FAUNA FISH No IC results Not relevant for common type ? PHYTOBENTHOS HU - adaptation of boundaries

Mediterranean GIG Only phytoplankton intercalibrated, What is changed ? What is still missing ?

FR, RO – excluded, re-calculation GIG CY GR FR IT PT RO ES PHYTO MACROPH No IC results BENTHIC FAUNA FISH Not relevant Not relevant?? PHYTOBENTHOS Not relevant ? FR, RO – excluded, re-calculation

Northern GIG All BQEs intercalibrated What is changed ? What is still missing ?

FI IE NO SE UK Types shared by MS GIG FI IE NO SE UK PHYTO MACROPH In progress BENTHIC FAUNA Eutr/prof Acid/litt FISH NI PHYTOBENTHOS Types shared by MS Correction of HA type (only UK,IE, Norway excluded) slight - adaptation of boundaries

Summary 13 GIGs / 21 – results in the Decision 68 MS methods /145 in the Decision – < 50 % Part – justified, part – working, part – unclear Future – in the next presentation !

Lake IC results – state of play What is not included in the Decision ? 8 Lake GIG results not included What to do in future ?

GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern PHYTO In progress MACROPH Only methods BENTHIC FISH Phyto benthos Green – included in the Annex Grey – not included in the Annex 22

Central Baltic FISH GIG A lot of work, no final results, the main reason – too few methods were developed before 2010 the GIG : “We strongly recommend recognizing fish as a valuable BQE to assess the ecological status of lakes. Effective and WFD compliant lake assessment methods based on the fish communities are developed” NL, DE, DK, LT, EE, PL, FR - finalized assessment methods in 2011

Central Baltic FISH GIG Problem: no GIG coordinator No work at this moment Email sent to IC experts, ECOSTAT: Answer only from BE-FL (but participation) From CB benthic fauna coordinator proposing approaches How do we proceed ? Who will pay to the GIG coordinator ?

GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern PHYTO In progress MACROPH Only methods BENTHIC FISH Phyto benthos Green – included in the Annex Grey – not included in the Annex 25

Eastern Continental GIG Work is going on : 3 BQEs (phytoplankton, macrophytes, benthic fauna) 2 countries: HU and RO, as BG postponed The main gaps: Method description Method validation: pressure-response relationships RC and boundary setting clarified Benchmark standardization clarified GIG: To provide work plans Are there reference sites ? Or these alternative benchmark sites ? How RC are set ?

GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern PHYTO In progress MACROPH Only methods BENTHIC FISH Phyto benthos Green – included in the Annex Grey – not included in the Annex 27

Eastern Continental GIG Unclear what to do with Fish IC HU stated: fish are in EC-1 type not relevant because of fisheries, recreation and high rate of invasive species RO and BG no methods RO plans to develop method GIG: To provide workplan

GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern PHYTO In progress MACROPH Only methods BENTHIC FISH Phyto benthos Green – included in the Annex Grey – not included in the Annex 29

Mediterranean GIG No IC possible for natural lakes (for macrophytes and benthic fauna) ? Italy has declared that there is “no possibility to intercalibrate natural Mediterranean lakes, because of the absence of common types with enough lakes.” This view was supported by Spain, Greece, Portugal (by emails) GIG has to prepare document supporting this conclusion with data (national typologies, number of water bodies per each type etc)

GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern PHYTO In progress MACROPH Only methods BENTHIC FISH Phyto benthos Green – included in the Annex Grey – not included in the Annex 31

Mediterranean GIG: Fish IC ? Fish IC for natural lakes ? No, because not possible to define common natural lake type with a sufficient number lakes Fish IC for Mediterranean reservoirs ? Probably, but not in one year Only one method and only for natural lakes (Italy) Explain your plans

Not possible due to lack of common type ? GIG Alpine Central Baltic Eastern Continen Mediter ranean Northern PHYTO In progress MACROPH Not possible due to lack of common type ? BENTHIC FISH Methods OK No coordinator Unclear No methods Phyto benthos Green – included in the Annex Grey – not included in the Annex 33

Summary 3 EC GIGs: we can expect results if there is consistent work …. And the answers to reference and benchmark problems 2 Med GIGs (benthic fauna + macrophytes): probably no IC due to lack of common lake type with sufficient lake numbers = need to provide EC and MED Fish GIGs: no methods developed - explain the plans CB Fish GIG: a coordinator + MS input needed

Problems – some MS with no methods developed: Some have provided justifications (This BQE is not relevant because ..) Some of these justifications are scientifically sound, some …. MS with methods but not IC-ed: Compliance issues Feasibility issues How to deal with this ?