1. CW-TW Intercalibration results
Fuensanta Salas Herrero, CW-TW IC Coordinator
Brussels, 1-2 February 2017

2. CW-TW IC GIG results
2. MSs Methods and Gaps

3. 1. CWTW IC RESULTS

4. 1. CWTW IC RESULTS
Denmark, Norway and Sweden share the common intercalibration types BC6, NEA 8a, NEA 8b, NEA 9 and NEA 10; the first area located within the Baltic Geographical Intercalibration Group and the four latter located in the North
East Atlantic Geographical Intercalibration Group
The three countries have the same data acquisition for assessing phytoplankton biomass (using chlorophyll a), but assessment methods differ.

5. 1. CWTW IC RESULTS

6. 1. CWTW IC RESULTS TN, TP, Clh a
Salinity, temperature, Secchi depth, stratification, water depth
The three national chlorophyll a metrics have been calculated for all water bodies and assessment periods.

7. For comparing chlorophyll a levels in these water bodies and assessment periods, the Danish metric was selected as the common metric.
The strong relationships between the national and the common chlorophyll were used to translate current national reference conditions (RC) and class boundaries for high-good (HG) and good-moderate (GM) to the common metric scale.

8. After comparing these boundaries on the common scale, an intercalibrated value was decided (in most cases by averaging).
Differences in these values between Denmark and Sweden in BC6 and NEA 8b were generally small, whereas differences between Norway and Sweden were larger.

9. 1. CWTW IC RESULTS NEA GIG TW Benthic invertebrate fauna
Transitional water bodies were classified into 6 different types (A to F) according to size, river flow and intertidal area (relative to total area of the water body) and 3 of them were included in the IC:
Large estuaries (Type D), small-medium estuaries with >50% intertidal area (Type E) and small-medium estuaries with <50% intertidal area (Type F).

12. WFD compliant methods Ok Pressures addresses OK Boundary setting ok
Assessment concept
All methods are based on similar parameters (diversity and presence/absence of sensitive and/or opportunistic species) and most of them are calculated at sample level
BEQI and AeTV, are calculated at ecosystem and water body level, respectively
IQI attempts to account for within-habitat changes in metric values, where other MSs have fixed values for each habitat.

13. Option 3

14. Positive review panel evaluation

15. 1. CWTW IC RESULTS NEA GIG CW Saltmarshes WFD compliant methods Ok
Pressures addresses OK
Boundary setting OK
Assessment concept OK

16. 1. CWTW IC RESULTS NEA GIG CW Saltmarshes
With the current available data set the continuous benchmarking standardization has not been possible;
Therefore, IC is not possible

17. 1. CWTW IC RESULTS
NEA GIG CW Saltmarshes

18. 1. CWTW IC RESULTS NEA GIG CW Saltmarshes WFD compliant methods Ok
Pressures addresses OK
Boundary setting OK
Assessment concept OK

19. 1. CWTW IC RESULTS NEA GIG TW Saltmarshes Continuos benchmarking
Option 2

20. NEA GIG TW Saltmarshes
Methods from ES, PT and UK proceeded in further steps of the intercalibration process;
2. BE was not considered since it presents only two WB data points;
3. DE was not included due to its inverse relationship to pressure;
4. NL was also not included due to the absence of any significant correlation to the pressure index.

21. NEA GIG TW Saltmarshes
Positive Review panel evaluation on the IC procedure

22. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Germany:
Baltic BC7, BC8: Macroalgae and Angiosperms
Ic not feasible-Method accepted
NEA 1/26: Saltmarshes Ic not feasible-Method accepted
NEA 3/4: Opportunistic macroalgae: Ic not feasible-Method accepted
NEA 5: All BQEs: Ic not feasible-Methods accepted
BC2: All BQEs: Ic not feasible-Methods accepted

23. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Denmark:
Baltic BC6, BC8: Macroalgae and Angiosperms
Ic not feasible-Method accepted

24. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Denmark:
Baltic BC6, BC8: Macroalgae and Angiosperms
Ic not feasible-Method accepted

25. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Estonia:
Baltic BC4:Benthic invertebrates
Ic not feasible-Method accepted
Latvia:
Baltic BC4:Benthic invertebrates
Ic not feasible-Method accepted

26. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Finland: Angiosperms-No method
Justification accepted

27. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Croatia: Benthic fauna
Method not intercalibrated

28. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Ireland: Saltmarshes
Ic not feasible-method accepted

29. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Malta:
Benthic invertebrates, Phytoplankton
Methods developed-Not Intercalibrated

30. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Netherlands: Saltmarshes
Ic not feasible-method accepted

31. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Norway: Phytoplankton NEA 7
Ic not feasible-method accepted
Seagrasses: Method in development

32. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Poland:
BC5: Benthic invertebrates, Phytoplankton
Method developed, not intercalibrated

33. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Portugal: Saltmarshes
Ic not feasible-method accepted

34. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters Sweden:
Baltic BC6, BC1: Macroalgae and Angiosperms
Ic not feasible-Method accepted

35. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Coastal Waters UK: Phytoplankton NEA 7
Ic not feasible-method accepted
Saltmarshes:

36. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Belgium: Phytoplankton
Ic not feasible-method accepted
Saltmarshes:

37. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Germany:
NEA 11 Phytoplankton
No method-justification accepted
NEA 11 Saltmarshes:
Ic not feasible-method accepted

38. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Spain: NEA 11 Seagrasses:
Ic not feasible-method accepted
MED GIG Estuaries, coastal lagoons
Benthic invertebrates, phytoplankton:
Ic not feasible-method accepted
Macroalgae and angiosperms, fish
Methods not developed

39. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters France: NEA 11
Benthic invertebrates
Method in development
MED GIG Estuaries, coastal lagoons
Benthic invertebrates, fish:
Method in development

40. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Greece: Fish:
Method in development

41. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Croatia:
Benthic invertebrates, Angiosperms
Methods in development
Phytoplankton, Fish
Ic not feasible-methods accepted

42. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Ireland:
Benthic invertebrates, saltmarshes
Ic not feasible-methods accepted

43. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Italy: Fish
Ic not feasible-methods accepted

44. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Lithuania, Poland
Benthic invertebrates, Macroalgae and Angisoperms
In Development
Fish
Methods developed, but not intercalibrated

45. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Netherlands
NEA 11 Saltmarshes:
Ic not feasible-method accepted

46. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Portugal
NEA 11 opportunistic macroalgae:
method developed-not intercalibrated

47. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters Romania
Phytoplankton, Benthic invertebrates
Ic not feasible-methods accepted
Macroalgae and angiosperms
No method, justification accepted
Fish: Method in development

48. 2. MSs Methods and Gaps Transitional Waters UK Benthic invertebrates
Ic not feasible-method accepted

49. Around 70 reports (including GIG reports, Gaps reports)
Around 100 experts involved in the IC work
Around 25 meetings during third Ic phase
44 TW methods intercalibrated
84 CW methods intercalibrated

50. THANK YOU!!