IC Guidance Annex III: Reference conditions and alternative benchmarks Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Intercalibration of assessment systems for the WFD: Aims, achievements and further challenges Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute.
Advertisements

Rivers Intercalibration Phase 2 Key Cross-GIG activities  Refining Reference Conditions  Intercalibrating Large River Ecological Status  Initial.
ARROW: system for the evaluation of the status of waters in the Czech Republic Jiří Jarkovský 1) Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Masaryk University,
Fish migration from a Water Framework Directive perspective
Lake Intercalibration: status of ongoing work Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Biological methods to detect the effects of hydrological and morphological pressures Introduction and overview of questionnaire responses.
Intercalibration Guidance: update Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Lakes Intercalibration Results - July 2006 Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Böhmer, J. Birk, S., Schöll, F. Intercalibration of large river assessment methods.
ECOSTAT 8-9 October 2007 River GIGs: Future intercalibration needs/plans Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
Framework for the intercalibration process  Must be simple  Aiming to identify and resolve big inconsistencies with the normative definitions and big.
River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 4 reports Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Intercalibration CB GIG River Macroinvertebrates Final Report ECOSTAT June 2011 Isabel Pardo Roger Owen.
Intercalibration Option 3 results: what is acceptable and what is not ? Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 2 reports Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Meeting of the Working Group 2A on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT) – 3+4 July 2006, Stresa (IT) Eastern Continental GIG Draft final report on the results of.
River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 3 reports Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
CIS Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Overall Approach to the Ecological Classification 01 July 2003 D/UK WGL CIS 2A.
REFCOND EU Water Framework Directive project funded by the European Commission DG Environment Included in the EU Water Directors “Common Strategy on.
Intercalibration progress: Central - Baltic GIG Rivers
Results of the metadata analysis Meeting of the Working Group 2A on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT) March 4-5 , 2004, Ispra, Italy Peeter Nõges Anna-Stiina.
Alan Hildrew Martin Pusch Klement Tockner
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Synthesis of the intercalibration process Working group 2.5.
River GIGs: Future intercalibration needs/plans Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Draft Commission Decision on Intercalibration
EurAqua 8th Scientific and Technical Review,
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Intercalibration process - state of play Wouter van de Bund & Anna-Stiina Heiskanen Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
WG 2A Ecological Status - Ispra, october 15-17th, 2003
Intercalibration of Opportunistic Algae Blooms
Intercalibration : a “WFD compliant” boundary comparing procedure
WG 2.5 Intercalibration.
The normal balance of ingredients
CBriv GIG Macrophyte Intercalibration Status Overview
NE Atlantic GIG ECOSTAT April 2013 Summary of NE ATLANTIC GIG Workshop held in Lisbon (24th-25th January 2013) The Next Phase.
Update on progress since last WG meeting (13-14 June 2002)
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT State of play in the intercalibration exercise Water Directors Meeting, November 2005.
on a protocol for Intercalibration of Surface Water
Progress Report Working Group A Ecological Status Intercalibration (1) & Harmonisation (3) Activities Presented by Anna-Stiina Heiskanen EC Joint Research.
IC manual: what and why Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Intercalibration Decision and Technical Report
Activities of WG A Ecological Status
Saltmarsh Intercalibration CW
ECOSTAT, JRC April 2007 MEDiterranean RIVers GIG Report
WG A Ecological Status Progress report April-October 2009
Working Group A ECOSTAT progress report on Intercalibration Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Water Directors meeting Warsaw, 8-9 December 2011
Rivers X-GIG phytobenthos intercalibration
WG 2.3 REFCOND Progress report for the SCG meeting 30 Sep-1 Oct 2002
Preparation of the second RBMP in Romania
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Guidance for the intercalibration process Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
FITTING THE ITALIAN METHOD FOR EVALUATING LAKE ECOLOGICAL QUALITY FROM BENTHIC DIATOMS (EPI-L) IN THE “PHYTOBENTHOS CROSS-GIG” INTERCALIBRATION EXERCISE.
WG A ECOSTAT Intercalibration guidance : Annexes III, V, VI
WFD CIS 4th Intercalibration Workshop
* 100% = 15 Member States.
Guidelines to translate the intercalibration results into the national classification systems and to derive reference conditions Presented by Wouter.
Lake Intercalibration – IC Decision Annexes + what to do in future
Presented by Ana Cristina Cardoso
ASSIGNING WATER BODY TYPES IN THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION Wouter van de Bund EC Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and sustainability,
Lake Intercalibration
Reporting template for milestone reports
WG A ECOSTAT Draft Mandate
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability Inland.
Intercalibration round 2: finalisation and open technical issues – RIVERS ECOSTAT October 2012.
Typology and Intercalibration Typology System
Working Group on Reference Conditions
Guidance on establishing nutrient concentrations to support good ecological status Introduction and overview Martyn Kelly.
Joint REFCOND and Intercalibration Meeting
Why are we reviewing reference conditions in intercalibration?
Presentation transcript:

IC Guidance Annex III: Reference conditions and alternative benchmarks Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability

Reference conditions RC ? RC = ecosystem with no or minor human impact

RC – benchmark for intercalibration

IC Phase 1 : Problems: Lack of reference sites Diverse reference criteria Diverse approaches for setting RC Comparability of reference conditions across MS, GIGs and BQEs ?? IC Guidance Annex III: Guidelines for deriving RC and alternative benchmarks

1. General framework and definitions

MS: for national assessment systems and national types IC: for intercalibration for the common IC types using the common dataset Ref sites, historical data, paleoreconstruction, modeling, expert judgement Reference sites= Unimpacted sites for RC setting (if ref sites available) Altern benchmark sites= with similar impact for alternative benchmark If RC sites no available Reference conditions National RC setting Common benchmarking

2. National RC setting  Spatial network of reference sites  Modelling aproaches  Expert judgement  Historical data  Paleological data  What is new ?  2 kinds of reference sites (2.6)

Reference sites Non impacted Impacted but with reference conditions Idealistic / Academic Pragmatic / realistic Few sites survive screening Many sites survive screening Finding a balance “Realistically idealistic”

2.6. Reference sites - definitions  Tier 1  “true” reference sites  sites with no or minimal anthropogenic pressure  fulfill all REFCOND criteria  for all pressures  for all the BQEs  Tier 2  “indicative” reference sites or “partial” reference sites  greater anthropogenic disturbance  certain BQE = reference  e.g. “phytoplankton reference sites” with significant hydromorphological pressure

MS: for national assessment systems and national types IC: for intercalibration for the common IC types using the common dataset Ref sites, historical data, paleo, modeling, expert judgement Reference sites= Unimpacted sites for RC setting (if ref sites available) Altern benchmark sites= with similar impact for alternative benchmark If RC sites no available Reference conditions National RC setting Common benchmarking

3. Common benchmarking 3.1. Tiered approach Alternative benchmarks 3.2. Transparent and Verifiable Independent of national reference setting 3.3. Harmonised criteria Based on common database (preferable approach) or separate datasets 3.4. Common approach to allow consistency on presur eidentification across water categories

Common benchmarking What is new ?  3 tiers of sites  Common framework  Alternative benchmarks

Reference sites - definitions  Tier 1  “true” reference sites  Tier 2  “indicative” reference sites or “partial” reference sites

Tiered approach Tier 1 “True” reference sites Tier 2 – “Indicative” reference sites or “partial” reference sites Tier 3 – Alternative benchmark sites Similar level of disturbance Similar level of impairment to biology

 Common view for pressures / indicators / criteria ? Common framework ? RC Lakes Transitional WB Coastal WB Rivers Physico-chemical parameters Phyto plankton

3.4. Common framework To come to a common understanding for reference conditions or an alternative benchmark Similar methodologies should be adopted for the characterization of very low pressure levels or similar pressure levels a list of the most important pressures for each water category, together with potential pressure indicators The most important pressure Potential pressure indicators Thresholds

Table on pressures (under development) Coastal and TW

3.7. Altern benchmark sites= with similar impact for alternative benchmarking (if RC sites not available ) 3.6. Reference sites= Unimpacted sites for RC setting (if ref sites available) Common benchmarking

RC setting (2.9 & 3.6) Abiotic reference criteria Statistically derived thresholds Agreed at water category level Reference sites Reference conditions Biological conditions need to be reviewed to avoid the influence of impacts caused by other pressures

Level of pressure/stressor High Low Condition of the biotic community Water category / type specific High Low i.e. Artificial land use 0.8% 2. Reference conditions Steps to establish status classes: 1.Application of RC criteria to sites 2.Reference benchmark 3.High/Good boundary 4.Good/Mod boundary 5.Mod/Def boundary 6.Def/Bad boundary

3.8. Alternative Benchmark Abiotic criteria Similar level of human pressure Best available conditions Alternative benchmark sites Biological benchmark conditions Biological conditions need to be reviewed to avoid the influence of impacts caused by other pressures

Condition of the biotic community Water category / type specific High Low Level of pressure/stressor High Low i.e. Artificial land use 0.8% 4% 2. Alternative Benchmark Steps to establish status classes for alternative benchmarks : 1.Application of abiotic criteria to select benchmark sites 2.Establishing biological alternative benchmark 1

3.10. Virtual reference  To identify the position of benchmark we need “virtual reference”  Distance between “the virtual reference” – alternative benchmark  How to establish: –Few true reference sites –Extrapolating dose-response relationship –Virtual reference sites – literature, expert judgement –Muiltiple regression models

Condition of the biotic community Water category / type specific High Low Level of pressure/stressor High Low i.e. Artificial land use 0.8% 4% 3. Virtual Reference 2. Alternative Benchmark Steps to establish status classes for alternative benchmarks : 1.Application of abiotic criteria to select benchmark sites 2.Establishing biological alternative benchmark 3.Establishing “virtual reference” 4.Identification of the deviation of the selected benchmark from reference conditions 1 4

Alternative Benchmark – example ?

ParameterHighGood BOD (mg/l)< 2.5<5 HM (class)11 and 2 Land use index < 50< 140

 Description of intercalibration type specific reference/benchmark communities

Example – CB Macrophytes

Sandy lowland streams - High

Sandy lowland streams - Good

Annex III in a nutshell  Common benchmark - important part in the intercalibration  Find reference sites and set RC  If not possible,,, find alternative benchmark !  Describe ecology