1. Intercalibration progress: Central - Baltic GIG Rivers
WG 2A ECOSTAT meeting - Ispra, March, 2006
Intercalibration progress: Central - Baltic GIG Rivers
CB GIG steering Group
Jean-Gabriel WASSON
Lyon, France 1

2. IC problems for Rivers
Ancient (and new) different assessment methods
sampling, laboratory procedures
Concepts and classifications
Extensive monitoring networks in all MS
Various pre-existing classifications (MS and / or QE)
WFD Ecological Status boundaries existing in most MS
Not possible to construct a common boundary setting protocol on such different tools

3. Invertebrates Very Good participation (18 countries)
Very difficult task :
different methods / many concepts
Biotic Indices, Saprobic System, Biotic integrity, MS specific methods
A lot of data : a huge work !
(Almost) All technical problems solved (Asterics software).
Data collection : almost completed

4. Invertebrates: concepts
Agreement on concepts:
Deviation (EQR) from Dataset specific Reference Conditions
Measured by a common, multimetric, WFD compliant ICM index
Reference conditions based on REFCOND guidance concepts
Comparison with an "external independant dataset".

5. Invertebrates: methods
Agreement on Methods:
Dataset requirements
ICM index
Statistical comparison methods
In final stage of agreement :
Detailed pressure criteria for Reference sites (samples) included in the datasets (this week).
Including some chemical parameters (next week)

6. Reference criteria To be circulated Friday March 17th
Point source pollution
Other effluents/discharges (Urban pollution)
REFCOND-Guidance
No or very local discharges with only very minor ecological effects.
Suggestion for GIG
Only minor impairments of the physical and chemical conditions, this means: Near-natural background values
No known industrial cause of particular pollution (e.g. NaCl, thermal pollution, etc…)
The following criteria can be used to validate the very low level of point source pollution :
Very low level of urbanisation, evaluated by the percentage area of artificial areas in the catchment CLC class 1 : see line 26 ). The following thresholds can be used :
"Reference" threshold : < 0.4% of artificial land use in the catchment area. (Between 0.4% and 0.8%, see line 19 )
"Rejection" threshold : 0.8 % of artificial area in the catchment.
Above 0.8%, a validation with physico-chemical parameters at the site scale is necessary.
See separate table for chemical reference values.
For small streams : no known point source discharge, or very localised impact with self purification.
For larger streams and rivers : very low point source discharge level. If point sources are present, a validation with chemical parameters is necessary. See separate table for chemical reference values.
Alternatively, the saprobiological water quality class (according to Types or ecoregions) can be used to validate the "very minor" ecological effects. This criteria must be explicited.
To be circulated Friday March 17th

7. Invertebrates : progress
Comparison of boundaries:
Still preliminary results (11 MS)
But many G/M boundaries in relatively narrow EQR range (ca 10%)
Not very different from a (provisional) external dataset.
But still some problems

8. Invertebrates: problems
Inadequate Reference conditions
(Type, criteria) : expected to be solved
Some MS methods are very different from "ICM / general degradation" concept
MMI Fitted to a particular type /pressure
Specific MS classification index (discrete classes
justify specific comparison methods (external dataset, bilateral…)
Technical / Statistical problems
(weak datasets, non linear regressions, …)
Rise the question of the expected precision…

9. Invertebrates: harmonisation ?
Comparison of MS Boundaries
Comparison with external dataset
Final agreement on the dataset composition
Agreement on WFD compliant boundaries
Fixed Value or Range ? Precision ? Statistical difference ?
How to use of the external dataset at this stage ?
Wait for the results of comparison…
Feed back from MS
MS accept harmonised boundaries Or
MS justify difference in boundaries

10. Phytobenthos Common sampling, taxonomy
Software OMNIDIA
Candidate Common metrics (IPS, TDI)
Reference Conditions :
same as invertebrates, (precision on nutrients)
Comparison : end of May
Harmonisation ? Autumn ?

11. Macrophytes Common sampling, taxonomy Comparison : Option 3 :
Data collection started
Comparison : Option 3 :
Direct comparison of MS methods at IC sites
Not all MS have agreed indices / classifications
Reference Conditions ?
List of Reference species ?
Pressures ?
Nutrients / Hydro-Morphology ?
IC Progress
Comparison : end of August
Final report ? Late autumn

12. Fish Few MS have data, methods, classifications.
Experience from the FAME project :
Methodology, pressures, ICM
Comparison : Common Index (FAME)
Reference Conditions :
Need probably to be adapted for fishes…
IC Progress
Kick off IC Fish meeting : Paris, (26) April 2006
For all GIGs
Then the Fish group will organise itself …(GIG ? Basins ?)

13. Merci Thank you Danke Tack Hvala Multumesc Köszönöm Grazie Gracias
Obrigado
Ephcharisto
Kiitos…
(please add your own)