1. José Ortiz-Casas GIG COORDINATOR
LAKE-MEDITERRANEAN GIG
8th Meeting
21-22 February 2008, Madrid
INTRODUCTION
José Ortiz-Casas GIG COORDINATOR

2. But uncertainties remain on IC types, data base, methods, BSP,
INTRODUCTION (1)
1st IC phase, completed…
But uncertainties remain on IC types, data base, methods, BSP,
clasification system…
And some BQE and parameters are still pending

3. CHALLENGES FROM NOW ON:
INTRODUCTION (2)
CHALLENGES FROM NOW ON:
1) To implement the current IC results for the upcoming RBMPs
2) To review the whole IC output in order to agree on what is worth improving and how to try it
3) To start the process for the pending BQEs

4. INTRODUCTION (3)
NEW STAGE, NEW STRUCTURE
The performance of continued IC process, is not any more entirely entrusted to GIGs, but to new horizontal BQE (sub?)Groups
How will be carried out the coordination between BQE and GIG Groups?

5. Action plan for IC continuation, as envisaged in the 3rd Annual Lake Meeting (Amsterdam, 5-6 Nov 2007)
GIG working Plans have to be elaborated to deal with missing MS, missing types, and a number of smaller issues. (!)
[…] an (a)cross-GIG BQE group is expected to be an efficient structure in this stage of the work.
But the GIG structure is not ommitted, it will be still one of the keys for reporting and harmonization.(!)

6. A MORE DIRECT QUESTION:
What is the role
left to the GIG?

7. José Ortiz-Casas GIG COORDINATOR
LAKE-MEDITERRANEAN GIG
8th Meeting
21-22 February 2008, Madrid
STATE OF PLAY, OPEN ISSUES AND POSSIBLE WAYS TO CONTINUE
José Ortiz-Casas GIG COORDINATOR

8. STATE OF PLAY, OPEN ISSUES AND POSSIBLE WAYS TO CONTINUE
TYPES
2. RANGES
3. PROCEDURES
4. RESULTS
5. INTERCALIBRATION APPROACHES

9. STATE OF PLAY, OPEN ISSUES AND POSSIBLE WAYS TO CONTINUE
TYPES
2. RANGES
3. PROCEDURES
4. RESULTS
5. INTERCALIBRATION APPROACHES

10. Three Questions: 1. TYPES
Types adjustment was early found to be necessary
Later on, the three types turned out to become two, after withdrawing “Sil-Arid”
Three Questions:
1. Should “Cal” Type be likewise split?
2. How do IC and national typologies fit each other?
3. Do we really share types for natural lakes?

11. STATE OF PLAY, OPEN ISSUES AND POSSIBLE WAYS TO CONTINUE
TYPES
2. RANGES
3. PROCEDURES
4. RESULTS
5. INTERCALIBRATION APPROACHES

12. 2. RANGES (1) L-M took a late decision to calculate ranges for
G/M boundary values, rather than single G/B
boundarie values, for THREE RESASONS:
Some concern arose that IC results might come to be too stringent as compared to other GIGs.
Almost all GIGs issued ranges, claiming that their IC types proved too brood.
Data collected collected had to be constrained to one single sampling year, while interannual variability is very high for Mediterranean reservoirs.

13. Two challenges are involved with ranges:
To explain how to use them in practice
To explore some alternative way to account for interannual variability

14. STATE OF PLAY, OPEN ISSUES AND POSSIBLE WAYS TO CONTINUE
TYPES
2. RANGES
3. PROCEDURES
4. RESULTS
5. INTERCALIBRATION APPROACHES

15. Content of %Cyanobacteria index
3. PROCEDURES
Whatever the ranges, the boundary values, and the
overall IC approach, some aspects on procedures call for
review:
Sampling procedure
Content of %Cyanobacteria index
Phytoplankton EQR values integrating parameters /indices

16. STATE OF PLAY, OPEN ISSUES AND POSSIBLE WAYS TO CONTINUE
TYPES
2. RANGES
3. PROCEDURES
4. RESULTS
5. INTERCALIBRATION APPROACHES

17. L-M GIG is concerned as for composition indices
4. RESULTS (1)
An analysis of IC results was performed by the Steering Group on all Lake GIGs.
Strong objections leading to suggestions/ /decision for withdrawal of a part of IC results from the Decission Annex, “even though it may seem a step backwards”.
L-M GIG is concerned as for composition indices

18. 4. RESULTS (2)
Aside fron the objections by the Steering Group against IC composition results, it should be acknowledge that:
It does not seem consistent to work with ranges for one parameter, while working with single boundary values for other parameters.
Uncertainty remains as for IC sites selection, typology, and interannual variability.

19. STATE OF PLAY, OPEN ISSUES AND POSSIBLE WAYS TO CONTINUE
TYPES
2. RANGES
3. PROCEDURES
4. RESULTS
5. INTERCALIBRATION APPROACH

20. 5. INTERCALIBRATION APPROACH
Possible ways to continue :
To stand still (current chlorophyll ranges)
To stand on WFD -LM GIG approach (improved IC sites register)
To move to REBECCA-like approach, thus mimicking the other GIGs (covering the whole spectrum of eutrophy)