Presented by Ana Cristina Cardoso Outcome of the Expert Networks Meeting on the evaluation of the draft IC register Presented by Ana Cristina Cardoso

Goal of Expert Networks: Lakes, Rivers and Coastal and Transitional Waters (11-13 Feb 2004) Based on JRC-EEWAI in-depth analysis of the metadata (Jan 2004) To prepare for finalisation of the IC register in spring 2004

Specific Objectives Resolve remaining issues regarding the IC types Propose revision of the metadata questionnaire for the finalisation of the IC network Identify what data should and can be collected in 2004 Identify which data should and can be collected in later stages of the IC exercise (2004-6) 1.Agree on omitting or merging the existing types, or to add new types

Solution to problems with types Only few of the common types include the required number of sites to fulfil the agreed criteria (each site should be shared at least by two or more countries, and at least 5 sites per type per quality class boundary should be submitted for each type) The coastal experts proposed to decrease the number of common types included in the current draft register in order to allow countries to focus their site submission for some selected types. Along the enlargement of the EU, a new ecoregion for the Black Sea coastal and transitional water will be needed. The work on coastal typology is still on-going in the Black Sea countries, and therefore no proposal for the common intercalibration types is yet available.

Lakes - Types with a small number of sites deleted or merged: The analysis of metadata showed that there were few sites submitted per type in all GIGs, and the distribution of the number of sites per quality class boundary was often not sufficient to allow confidence in a intercalibration exercise. Often sites within a type have been submitted by only one country. The typology has now been revised within the different GIG considering the metadata from the sites selected for the intercalibration register. Several large modifications were proposed to the typology. Mainly types with a small number of sites were merged to achieve a sufficient number of sites per quality class boundary per type needed for intercalibration. Nordic GIG number (7) unchanged but splitting of one type and removing the split from another

Eastern Continental GIG for lakes ( Eastern Continental GIG for lakes (?) ICPDR 3 reservoir types: AT, CZ, SK, HU, SI, BG, RO, GR, (HR) 14 reservoirs from RO and 6 lake sites from HU but IC criteria not fulfilled RO reservoirs of the former types L-E2 and L-E3 moved to L-M7, and those from L-E4 to L-M8 HU large lakes were compared with the large shallow lakes from NL or from Baltic countries (Naardermeer, Veluwemeer, Võrtsjärv, Burtnieks) but differ in alk and climatic conditions

lake size from typology Central Lakes Pooled by removing lake size from typology

Lake Typology revision changed the list of countries participating in GIGs e.g. Spain is no longer in the Alpine GIG

Rivers Only minor changes to river types, the most important are: Baltic GIG merged with the Central GIG The Eastern Continental GIG has agreed on 6 common IC types

Baltic GIG + Central GIG 19 Countries R-B3 R-B4 R-B2

Coastal and Transitional waters Small number of sites and little geographical coverage: More sites should be submitted per GIGs/ type Less types where possible Geographic enlargement – include the black sea Sites clumped mostly in NE Atlantic Ecoregion Complex Only few of the common types include the required number of sites to fulfil the agreed criteria (each site should be shared at least by two or more countries, and at least 5 sites per type per quality class boundary should be submitted for each type) The coastal experts proposed to decrease the number of common types included in the current draft register in order to allow countries to focus their site submission for some selected types. Along the enlargement of the EU, a new ecoregion for the Black Sea coastal and transitional water will be needed. The work on coastal typology is still on-going in the Black Sea countries, and therefore no proposal for the common intercalibration types is yet available.

2. Proposed revision of the metadata questionnaire for the finalisation of the IC network

Lakes Not all type parameters are relevant for all types, ask for specific information for the different GIGs and types Lake mixing - meromictic lakes New type parameters: lake maximum depth, depth of summer thermocline and residence time The lake experts considered possible and useful to collect further data to characterise the types, to enable a further analysis of comparability of sites within a type. Instead of Not applicable, 1, 2 and >2 full mixings per year

Rivers Further data to characterise the types, but specific for GIGs and types Assessment methods, reference to be made to the STAR Waterview database Ask for the dominant pressure(s) only Land cover information directly from the reported latitudes/ longitudes of the sites Would appreciate possibility to submit data in spreadsheet format to enable a further analysis of comparability of sites within a type, Alkalinity data should be asked for selected types only; include maximum altitude of the catchment for selected types to characterise alpine influence; ask for annual rainfall for Mediterranean types). STAR project (http://starwp3.eu-star.at/) The Waterview database contains a comprehensive compilation of assessment methods for rivers and streams in Europe using the 'biotic elements' macroinvertebrates, macrophytes, phytobenthos, phytoplankton, fish and hydromorphology. The pressure information as it was asked in the metadata questionnaire was difficult for the Member States to provide and also difficult to interpret. The CORINE land cover information is very useful, but not all countries have been able to access the CORINE database and have provided estimated values, resulting in some inconsistencies in the data.

Coastal and Transitional waters Modification of some questions concerning the typology parameters (i.e. specify exactly the salinity information required) Add question specifying what data will be used during the IC exercise EUNIS level 3 (substratum) habitat types present at each of the IC sites

3. Proposal for the parameters for which to submit data in spring 2004

Lakes Collect further data for type parameters Identified the physicochemical and biological parameters for which there are possibilities for submitting data, e.g. TP, Secchi depth and Chl-a The Alpine GIG decided not to submit data on phytobenthos, macrophytes, zoobenthos and fish. The information of availibility of these data should be kept in the questionnaire

Rivers Collect data for type parameter specific to GIGs and types Identified possibilities for collecting physicochemical data but recommends not to collect this data in this stage (not clear how it will be used in the IC process)

Coastal and Transitional waters Consider not necessary to collect any numerical data beyond the type parameters already asked for More specific descriptions of the purpose and analysis of the data would be required including exact description what kind of data, level of aggregation, etc beyond the type parameters already asked in the metadata questionnaire (and should be more clearly specified in the next phase)

4. Identify parameters for which to collect data later on in the process The Experts were asked to discuss and agree what data (common metrics) should be collected later on in the process, with a focus on the biological quality elements. Where possible, existing methods and data should be used. The experts were asked to identify on the level of GIGs: -                     whether the national methods to be used in each of the Member States would work in the other Member States’ territories in the GIG; -                     simple methods/metrics that could be used to help compare the results of national methods that do not work in other Member States territories.

Lakes Identified possible common metrics for the biological quality elements: Chl-a the most promising common indicator but method can obstacle its use Depending of the GIG, there are good possibilities for deriving common metrics for phytoplankton,macrophytes,and diatoms

Lakes Phytoplankton

Rivers Good possibilities for deriving common metrics for benthic macroinvertebrates and benthic algae This implies that in principle the values of those derived metrics can be compared between Member States, as long as they are related to (agreed) reference conditions. e.g. of common metrics derived from non comparable raw data diversity indices, sensitive taxa indices, etc.

River: macro- invertebrates

Rivers: Phytobenthos

RIVERS Macroinvertebrate data collected with different sampling, sorting, and identification methods metrics derived are comparable Common metrics will be worked out at GIG level Dataset available through the STAR/ AQEM recommended use it for common metrics Experts agreed to initiate testing this option in the spring of 2004

Coastal and Transitional waters Few countries have currently national classification tools and schemes WFD compliant Many countries are looking at the same tools, therefore it might be possible to agree some common metrics for IC purposes

Coastal and Transitional waters Agreed to collect and circulate information on new and promising WFD compliant classification tools : to select common metrics within GIGs to test this in the forthcoming months where not possible, compare and IC different national assessment systems using the data from the IC network sites

WG2A ECOSTAT needs to agree Revision of common IC types, pressures and quality elements Recommendations for Member States to revise the IC network Revision of the metadata questionnaire