1. Working Group A ECOSTAT Summary Milestone 5 Reports: River GIGs Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability

2. GIG ‘Milestone 5’ Reports
Questionnaire to all GIGs January 2006:
Organisation of the GIGs
Scope and expected outcome of the intercalibration
Data collection
Class boundary setting procedure
Plans for future work (additional QE)
Harmonisation and standardisation needs
Responses from all GIGs (eventually…)

3. 1. Organisation of the GIGs

4. Organisation: involvement of countries
Northern OK
Central/ Baltic
- Little information about Italian participation
CZ now fully involved
funding problems for some countries
Alpine
Mediterranean
France, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus fully involved
Cyprus bases participation on 2006 data only
Italy, Greece got involved only recently
Malta opted out (lack of comparable rivers)
Eastern Continental
AT, BG, CZ, HU, RO, SK fully involved
Greece not involved     

5. Total 37 meetings GIG meetings (1) Northern Central/ Baltic Alpine
Stockholm, March 2004
Oslo, November 2004
Helsinki, April 2005
Stockholm November 2005
Edinburgh, February 2006
Ireland, April 2006
Central/ Baltic
Brussels, April 2004
Ispra, July 2004
Milano, September 2004
Berlin, February 2005
Lyon, May 2005 (steering group)
Tallin, June 2005 (GIG meeting)
Tallin, June 2005 (macrophyte WS)
Tallin, June 2005 (phytobenthos WS)
Soller, November 2005 (steering group)
Paris, February 2006 (steering group)
Paris, February 2006 (phytobenthos WS)
Paris, February 2006 (GIG meeting)
tbc, 16 May 2006 (steering group)
Warsaw, May 2006 (macrophyte WS)
Vilnius, October or earlier (GIG meeting)
Alpine
Vienna, June 2004
Ispra, October 2004
Vienna, August 2005
Trento, February 2006
Zaragoza, 9-10 May 2006
Mediterranean
Evora, May 2004
Ispra, March 2004
Lyon, November 2004
Soller, November 2005
Barcelona, March 2006 [partial meeting]
Cyprus, April 2006
Eastern Continental
Vienna, December 2004
Bratislava, May 2005
Sofia, September 2005
Bucharest, January 2006
Budapest, April 2006
Total 37 meetings

6. GIG meetings (2): joint river meetings
1st ‘River steering group meeting’, Lyon, May 2005 (CB steering group + GIG leaders)
REBECCA / river GIG leads meeting, Bratislava, Sept 2005
2nd ‘River steering group meeting’, Mallorca, Nov 2005
Cross-GIG fish workshop, Paris, late April 2006
Cross-GIG workshop on future IC activities, December 2006

7. 2. Scope and expected outcome of the intercalibration exercise

8. Quality elements included?
full intercalibration
preparatory work
no intercalibration
Phyto-plankton
Benthic invertebrates
Fish fauna
Macrophytes
Phytobenthos
Northern
Nutrient/organic and acidification separately
Common fish workshop April 2006
Central/ Baltic
Work delayed
8 MS involved
Diatoms; 11 MS involved
Alpine
Diatoms
Mediterranean
Eastern Continental 

9. Expected outcome by GIG and QE
Report expected in time
Report may be slightly delayed
No report expected in this IC round
Phyto-plankton
Benthic invertebrates
Fish
Macrophytes
Phytobenthos
Northern A
(C for acid.)
Central/ Baltic
A/B
(E)
B? (October) B
(October)
Alpine D
Mediterranean B/
(A)
Eastern Continental
agreement on boundaries, EQRs for all MS
agreement on boundaries, EQRs for some MS
agreement on common metrics boundaries, no EQRs for MS
class boundary setting started, but not finished
differences between MS demonstrated, harmonisation not guaranteed

10. Status of national invertebrate methods – prospects for EQR setting
# MS
finalized method
method under de-velopment
no method
no infor-mation
Remarks on EQR setting
Northern -org&nut
Northern – acidif. 1 3
For all countries except NO
For common metric only
Central/ Baltic 5 12
Expected for all countries
Alpine 4 2
Mediterranean
Expected for CY, FR, PT, ES; GR and IT unknown
Eastern Continental
Only for AT and SK methods at this stage

11. Expected for all countries except IT
Status of national macrophytes and phyto benthos methods – prospects for EQR setting
Macrophytes
# MS
agreed national method
national method in develop-ment
no national method
no informa-tion
Remarks on EQR setting
Central/ Baltic 1 9 6 2
Not reported
Phytobenthos
# MS
agreed national method
national method in develop-ment
no national method
no informa-tion
Remarks on EQR setting
Alpine 3 2 1
Expected for all countries except IT
Central/ Baltic 12 6
Not reported

12. Scope of the work – main points
Focus on macroinvertebrates (all GIGs)
Phytobenthos and macrophytes work initiated
Strong focus on ‘general pressure’
Acidification included for Northern GIG
Many of the national methods that will be intercalibrated are still in development

13. 3. Data collection

14. Data collection Macroinvertebrates: Diatoms Macrophytes
Raw data is not directly comparable between MS due to lack of standardisation
All data normalised to reference conditions
Comparison of classification results through ICMi
Different ICMi for different GIGs
Outcome of comparison still uncertain in most GIGs
Diatoms
Compilation of raw data is possible because MS use the same (CEN) method
Macrophytes
Compilation of raw data is possible because MS use sufficiently comparable methods

15. GIG level Data Collection – macroinvertebrates (1)
What?
How many sites/data points?
How will data be made publicly available?
Mediter-ranean
Regressions ICMi vs. national metrics
Not reported
EEWAI-CIRCA
Eastern Conti-nental
National data centally compiled to calculate regressions ICMi vs. national metrics
ICPDR hosted database; will be available on request

16. GIG level Data Collection – macroinvertebrates (2)
What?
How many sites/data points?
How will data be made publicly available?
Northern
ICMi and national indices (aggregated data)
Pressure data
Several 100s of sites
EEWAI CIRCA, but some ownership issues
Alpine
Regressions ICMi vs. national metrics (also raw data?)
Not reported
EEWAI CIRCA, but possibly ownership issues
Central/
Baltic
Regressions ICMi vs. national metrics
Benchmark data for harmonisation
Ca so far (with data from 7 MS still missing)
In progress

17. GIG level Data Collection – macroinvertebrates (2)
What?
How many sites/data points?
How will data be made publicly available?
Northern
ICMi and national indices (aggregated data)
Pressure data
Several 100s of sites
EEWAI CIRCA, but some ownership issues
Alpine
Regressions ICMi vs. national metrics (also raw data?)
Not reported
EEWAI CIRCA, but possibly ownership issues
Central/
Baltic
Regressions ICMi vs. national metrics
Benchmark data for harmonisation
Ca so far (with data from 7 MS still missing)
In progress
Delayed – all data expected March 2006

18. Delayed data delivery in Central-Baltic GIG
CB GIG intented to finalise comparision in February 2006
Only 7 of 18 countries had delivered data in time
Situation 14 March 2006:
Data received from AT, BE, CZ, DK, EE, FR, IE, LT. LU, PL, ES, SE
Data not received from DE, IT, LV, NL, UK (promised for this week…)
Comparision and harmonisation delayed – results expected early autumn 2006

19. GIG level Data Collection – phytobenthos/diatoms
What?
How many sites/data points?
How will data be made publicly available?
Central/Baltic
Raw data centrally compiled
Ca so far (with data from 7 MS)
UK (SEPA); public availability to be decided

20. GIG level Data Collection – Macrophytes
What?
How many sites/data points?
How will data be made publicly available?
Central/Baltic
Raw data centrally compiled
Not reported
University of Duisburg-Essen; public availability to be decided

21. Data Collection – main points (1)
Macroinvertebrates
All GIGs follow roughly comparable approach (with slightly different ICMi’s)
Delays in data delivery for CB GIG
Requires agreement on reference conditions and class boundaries within each MS
Most GIGs plan to use EEWAI CIRCA to make their data available (but there may be some ownership issues)

22. Data Collection – main points (2)
Phytobenthos/Diatoms and macrophytes
It is possible to construct GIG wide databases due to availability of standardised methods

23. 4. Class boundary setting procedure

24. Class boundary setting – metrics (macroinvertebrates)
Northern
ICMi (possibly to be adapted)
For acidification: various MS methods
Central/ Baltic
First choice: benchmark classification (AQEM/STAR)
MS methods combined with ICMi-Alpine for comparison as fallback
Alpine
MS methods
Mediterranean
MS metrics – each separately (?)
Eastern Continental
ICMi-EC

25. Class boundary setting – Northern GIG
Document “Reference conditions working definitions and thresholds for selection of reference sites” including guidelines for boundary setting
GIG interpretation of REFCOND criteria
Values for physicochemical and general characteristics for reference sites
General guidelines for boundary setting 

26. Class boundary setting – CB and Alpine GIGs
Class boundary setting protocol in good progress
GIG interpretation of REFCOND criteria
Values for physicochemical and general characteristics for reference sites
General framework for boundary setting
Overview sheets of national methods and criteria for boundary setting
CB GIG: Description of boundary setting criteria for benchmark classification needs urgent completion   

27. Class boundary setting – Med and EC GIGs
Class boundary setting protocol has been initiated
Overview of MS criteria for reference sites
Further steps yet to be completed 

28. Overview class boundary setting procedure - macroinvertebrates
completed
in progress
Not started yet
1. Criteria reference conditions
2. Conceptual model of degradation and normative definitions
3. Metrics selection; pressure /impact relations
4-5. Class boundary setting based on disconti-nuities
6-7. Class boundary setting based on paired metrics
8. Class boundary setting where steps 4-7 failed
Northern
Well advanced
Not relevant
Central/ Baltic
Not relevant for ICMi
(but examples from individual MS)
Alpine
Mediterranean
Compilation of MS criteria
Not yet
Eastern Continental
In progress

29. Class boundary setting examples
RNO GIG:
characteristics
of reference sites
Table 2. Further Guidelines Physico-chemical Characteristics and General Characteristics of Reference River Sites. Physico-chemical values to be regarded as maximum threshold values for screening reference sites.
(See also Table 3 for extended status class characteristics descriptions which place this in a wider context).
Quality Element of Characteristic
Concentration or Descriptor at Reference Condition
EQR
>=0.95
(To be confirmed following harmonisation)
Pollution Status
Pristine, Unpolluted
Organic Waste Load
None
Nutrient Loads
Background
90%ile B.O.D.
< 2.7 mg/l
Mean BOD
<1.6
Dissolved Oxygen
Close to 100% (>80% and < 120% saturation at all times)
Annual Median Ammonia (mg/l N)
<=0.03mg/l
Annual Mean Ammonia (mg/l N)
<0.06 mg/l
Annual Median ortho-Phosphate
<0.015 mg P/l
Annual Mean ortho-Phosphate
<0.03 mg P/l
Annual mean total P
R-N1 < 20 ug/l
R-N2 < 20 ug/l
R-N3 < 30ug/l
R-N4 < 18 ug/l
R-N5 <18 ug/l
R-N6 <18 ug/l
R-N7 <18 ug/l
R-N8 <18 ug/l
R-N9 <18 ug/l
Annual Mean Nitrate (mg N/l)
< 1.6 mg N/l (tentative)
Annual Mean Total N (mg/N/l)
2.6 mg N/l (tentative)
Anthropogenic Siltation
‘Sewage Fungus’
Never
Impact of Anthropogenic Acidity
Toxic Priority Substances
Phytobenthos - Filamentous Algae
Limited development. Diverse communities Generally limited growths
Macrophytes
Macroinvertebrates (from shallow riffles)
Diverse communities. Normal density. Sensitive forms usually numerous.
Dominant Fish Communities
Salmonid (R-N3 may have other spp dominant)
Water Quality
Highest quality
Abstraction Potential
Suitable for all
Fishery Potential
Game fisheries
Amenity value
Very high
Condition
Satisfactory

30. Class boundary setting examples
Alpine GIG – Austrian data:
Linear pressure/impact response does not give arguments for boundary setting

31. Class boundary setting examples
CB GIG – Spanish method:
Boundary setting based on taxonomic composition
and abundance,sensitive taxa, and diversity

32. Class boundary setting examples
CB GIG – UK method:
Boundary setting based on missing major taxonomic groups

33. Class boundary setting examples
CB GIG – UK method:
Boundary setting based on sensitive/insensitive taxa (paired metrics)

34. Class boundary setting in practice…
ICMi comparison approach poses challenges for boundary setting:
agreement on reference conditions required
ICMi indices too generic to allow boundary setting based on ‘discontinuities’ and ‘paired metrics’
Application of BSP and national level as undertaken in Alpine and CB GIGs promising

35. The problem of harmonisation
ICMi comparison approach poses challenges for harmonisation of class boundaries:
Benchmark classification can be basis for comparison – but needs to be widely accepted by all
River GIGs count on not having to make large changes in MS class boundaries – but yet have to demonstrate that this is really the case
There is a risk that it will not be possible to resolve differences between MS

36. Conclusions +:
Good prospects for finishing macroinvertebrate work in all GIGs
Common approach (ICMi)
Good progress in work on reference conditions (in all GIGs) and boundary setting protocol (in some GIGs) -:
Outcome is still uncertain; there is no guarantee for:
agreement on reference conditions criteria
agreement on benchmark classification
agreement on harmonisation of boundaries in case there are large differences
Work is delayed in CB GIG
Boundary setting protocol needs further work in Med and EC GIGs