Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byΠαλλάς Ζερβός Modified over 6 years ago
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
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.