1. Intercalibration in transitional waters (TW) Phase 2: Milestone 4 Reports (M4R)
Presented by Nikolaos Zampoukas Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability

2. Contents of the presentation
Fact sheets for each important topic in the intercalibration process:
Responsibilities
Participation
Availability and status of national methods
Feasibility (incl. typology, pressures & assessment concepts)
Dataset collection
IC procedure progress (choice of option)
Common metrics development
Worries emerging from reports and conclusions

3. Biological Quality Elements (BQEs) for TW
Phytoplankton
Angiosperms
Macroalgae
Benthic invertebrate fauna
Fish

4. IC organisation Baltic Sea DK Henning Karup NEA UK Peter Holmes MED IT
Franco Giovanardi
Phytoplankton
No lead
Mike Best ES
Inmaculada Romero Gil
Macroalgae
Karsten Dahl
IE Robert Wilkes (opportunistic macroalgae) GR
Sotiris Orfanidis
Angiosperms
DK Dorte Krause-Jensen
PT Joao Neto (seagrasses)
BE Erika van den Bergh (Angiosperms in saltmarshes)
Benthic invertebrate fauna DE
Torsten Berg
ES: Angel Borja
ES Isabel Pardo
Fish
No lead, no M4R
no activity (almost), no experts
Steve Coates FR
Mario Lepage

5. Problems in participation
Baltic Sea
NEA
MED
Phytoplankton
All MSs are participating
GR did not sent info for the report.
Macroalgae
ES: initial participation with a method for HMWB and decided not to proceed. What about natural WB?
Angiosperms
Benthic invertebrate fauna
Poland is not currently participating
Fish
No lead, no experts, no activity

6. Methods
Baltic Sea
NEA
MED
Phytoplankton
Only for Chla
Finalized for all MSs but not for all parameters
Finalized only for IT
FR, ES under development
GR no method
Macroalgae
No common types
No method for SE, DE, BE, ES, NL
Are there macrolalgae in their WB?
IT, FR, GR finalized
Angiosperms
No method for SE
Benthic invertebrate fauna
Probably no common types
All finalized except 1
All finalized
Fish
No activity – maybe no common types
Under development: FR, IT, GR. ES has no method but may adopt another MSs method.

7. Feasibility in terms of typology
Baltic Sea
NEA
MED
Phytoplankton
One possible common type shared by PL & LT
Probably one common type
4 common types according to salinity and restriction
Macroalgae & Angiosperms
No common types
Feasible, one common type.
Benthic invertebrate fauna
Probably no common types
six common types but data available only for four
Feasible. Four common types.
Fish
No activity – maybe no common type
Probably four common types,
according to size.
No consideration of types yet – focus on data collection

8. Is IC feasible in the Stetting Lagoon (Baltic Sea) ?
DE:
Natural CW due to non significant influence of fresh water
Currently in poor status.
According to DE: IC not meaningful with the Polish WB as they are designated in different water categories
PL:
HMTW
Ecological status not known

9. Feasibility in terms of pressures
Baltic Sea
NEA
MED
Phytoplankton
Feasible for Chla
Feasible
Macroalgae & Angiosperms
Check ongoing
Benthic invertebrate fauna
Fish
Probably feasible

10. Feasibility in terms of assessment
concept
Baltic Sea
NEA
MED
Phytoplankton
Feasible for Chla
Feasible
Check ongoing
Macroalgae & Angiosperms
Probably feasible
Benthic invertebrate fauna
Different sampling zones & devices – under consideration
Fish

11. IC dataset collection Baltic Sea NEA MED Phytoplankton
LT & PL submitted data
All MSs provided data
IT, ES & FR OK
GR no data
Macroalgae
Only from IE, UK, FR and PT
Angiosperms
Not started
Benthic invertebrate fauna
Data collected from all MSs exept IE
Fish
UK & PT national data + data from common sampling
Ongoing

12. Data acceptance check Baltic Sea NEA MED Phytoplankton Ongoing
Macroalgae & Angiosperms
OK for FR, IT & GR
Benthic invertebrate fauna
Fish

13. Selection of IC option Baltic Sea NEA MED Phytoplankton Not decided
Probably 1 or 3 supported by common metrics
Macroalgae & Angiosperms 3
Benthic invertebrate fauna
Fish
Probably 2

14. Development of IC common metric(s)
Baltic Sea
NEA
MED
Phytoplankton
No consideration
Under consideration
Chla
Macroalgae & Angiosperms
SPA (a relevant transformed PCA)
Benthic invertebrate fauna
Under discussion
Not started
Fish
Consideration on using an abiotic (pressure) common metric

15. What’s new in M4R? Baltic Sea NEA MED Phytoplankton
Finalized method and data from IT/ Considerations on pressure index for benchmarking
Macroalgae & Angiosperms
New leads.
Dataset collection from macroalgae started.
Benthic invertebrate fauna
Dataset collected
Fish
Considerations on pressure index and abiotic common metric 15

16. Conclusions
According to the guidance document no 14 there should already be preliminary IC results by now.
For many BQEs/GIGs there are still major gaps in methods and data! However for most BQEs/GIGs there is hope for results by October 2011 (new extended deadline)

17. Situation Oct 2010
Baltic
NEA
MED
Phytoplankton
Macroalgae & Angiosperms
Benthic invertebrate fauna
Fish

18. Current focus of IC efforts
Baltic
NEA
MED
Phytoplankton
1type (PL, LT)
Estuaries (UK, IE, PT, FR & ES)
4 types of coastal lagoons (ES, IT & FR)
Macroalgae & Angiosperms
Estuaries ( IE, UK, BE, DE, FR, ES & PT)
Meso-poly-euhaline coastal lagoons (IT, FR & GR)
Benthic invertebrate fauna
4 types of estuaries: (BE, FR, ES, PT, SE, NL, UK, DE)
4 types of coastal lagoons (GR, ES, IT & FR)
Fish
4 types of estuaries:
(BE, FR, ES, PT, NL, UK, DE)
Most probably not in Focus on methods development and collection of data

19. Thank you for your time and attention