1. Test data exchange to support development of a biological indicators in rivers and lakes
Anne Lyche Solheim, NIVA
EEA European Topic Centre on Water
EIONET meeting September 2010, EEA, Copenhagen

2. Outline of presentation
What is the added value of reporting biological data to EEA relative to the WFD reporting to EC?
Overview and examples of results from first test reporting 2009
Feedback to test results, major issues
Request for 2nd test reporting 2010, incl. phytobenthos in rivers,
Plan for regular reporting from 2011 onwards
Links to other indicators
Conclusions

3. Added value relative to what is already reported to Commission
Provides info on how different BQEs respond to different pressures in different types of water bodies
Enables trend analyses on numerical scale through EQR-data
Example of degradation:
change from EQR=0,75 to EQR=0,65 show increasing risk of failing good status (EQR>0.6), although WB is still within the same class (good status)
Example of improvement:
change from EQR=0,45 to EQR=0,55 show approaches towards good status objective (EQR>0.6), although WB is still within the same class (moderate status)

4. Example of future time series for different BQEs Dummy graph
Macroinv rivers
Phytobenthos rivers
Phytoplankton lakes
Macrophytes lakes
EQRn

5. Process for test data exercise in 2009:
Idea, content and process discussed with Ecostat and WG Reporting in 2008
New reporting sheets for biological quality elements included into SoE guidance in 2008
First test data requested from countries in summer 2009
Test results presented to Ecostat and Eionet, Oct. 2009

6. Freshwater test data exercise: What data was requested in 2009?
Benthic macroinvertebrates in rivers
Phytoplankton in lakes
Macrophytes in lakes

7. Overview of data reported in 2009
biological values from 8300 stations in 16 countries !!!
Sweden
Norway
Finland UK
Estonia
Denmark
Ireland
Lithuania
Netherlands
Slovakia
Belgium
Austria
France
Romania
Cyprus
Spain

8. Overview of data reported: Benthic invertebrates in rivers
Ca water bodies in 16 countries

9. Overview of data reported: Phytoplankton in lakes
Ca water bodies in 13 countries
Macrophytes: 500 water bodies in 8 countries

10. New EEA database: biological data from test reporting
Data compilation
Station table
National Station ID
Waterbody info
RBD info
etc.
EEA WISE-SoE
databases
Pressure table
Land-use info
Nutrients table
NO3, Total P, PO4
New EEA database: biological data from test reporting
Biology table
National Station ID
Metric Biology
Value (EQR)
etc.
Type-specific class boundaries table
Metric biology
Waterbody type
Reference condition
H/G boundary
G/M boundary
etc.
Station table
National Station ID
Waterbody ID
Waterbody type
Longitude, Latitude
etc.
Show Ecological status
for each BQE
Calculation of normalised EQR

11. Macroinvertebrates in rivers: Ecological status per station
Some stations have unknown status class:
Missing status class, EQR values and/or class boundaries (DK, ES)
Some results may not be comparable:
HMWB (NL)
Acidification metrics (SE, UK-SC)
Other non-intercalibrated metrics

12. Macroinvertebrates in rivers: Ecological status summarised per country

13. Phytoplankton in lakes: Ecological status summarised per country

14. Feedback to first test results from EEA to countries summer 2010,
Major issues addressed in feedback:
Representativity of stations is doubtful (uneven or insufficient spatial cover, biased distribution of status classes, few water types reported)
Missing class boundaries and reference values prevent normalisation of EQRs
Many countries reported non-intercalibrated metrics or class boundaries that is not comparable to other countries

15. Representativity of stations
Most countries reported:
> 70% of their RBDs
> 70% of stations were Eionet stations
But biased distribution of status classes (heavy weight on water bodies in high or good status) and pressure types in some countries
y-axis: 1= low representativity, 3 = high representativity in terms of status class or pressures

16. Country replies to feedback Sept. 2010
Data content and consistency will be improved for many countries in 2009 (type info, station ID, additional metrics and BQEs, class boundaries, reference conditions)
More countries indicate interest to join the test reporting in 2010

17. Problems with HMWBs, these are not IC Problems with national types
Country replies to feedback Sept – Compliance with intercalibration (IC)
Not EEAs business (NL)
Problems with HMWBs, these are not IC
Problems with national types
Improved reporting feasible after 2nd phase of IC
EEA prefers reporting of intercalibrated metrics and water bodies that belong to common IC types to ensure comparability of data between countries.

18. Request for 2nd test reporting 2010
BQEs:
Phytobenthos in rivers now included (new reporting sheet available in July)
Macroinvertebrates in rivers (2009,2010)
Phytoplankton in lakes (2009, 2010)
Macrophytes in lakes (2009, 2010)
Request included in regular data request sent to countries from EEA 2nd Aug 2010
Deadline for reporting: 31st Oct (as for other data flows on emissions, water quantity and chemical state indicators)
Reportnet should be used for reporting,
Full data dictionaries for biology and revised data templates can be downloaded from Reportnet:
Results from test data flows will not be published, but used for discussion and as a basis for starting a regular data flow in 2011

19. Plan for regular reporting of biological data from 2011 onwards
Based on evaluation of the two test -reporting processes in 2009 and 2010
Sufficient geographic coverage of Europe, countries, RBDs?
Representativity of stations in terms of station density, status classes, pressures and water types
Data quality in terms of comparability of metrics reported, links to intercalibration results
Data request in autumn 2011 with the other regular request for the other indicators
Use of data in future reports (data reported in 2011 may contribute to assessment of status in the 2012 Blueprint for Water report and next SOER report)
Contribute to ensure continued and regular biological monitoring in all countries that join the reporting

20. Links to other indicators on emissions and nutrient status
Emissions (point and diffuse)
HyMo pressures
Nutrients in lakes and rivers
Ecological status, different BQEs
Biodiversity
Ecosystem services

21. Links to future indicators on freshwater biodiversity and ecosystem services
Is good ecological status equivalent to:
High biodiversity?
Favorable conservation status (Habitats)?
Acceptable provision of ecosystem services?
How to use biological quality elements data to assess impacts of other pressures, e.g. hydromorphology, climate change, invasive species?

22. Conclusions: Promising results
Biological data is the core of the WFD objective
Comprehensive submission of data in 2009: values from 8300 stations and 16 countries
Data content, consistency and comparability will improve in 2010 and onwards
Data from 2011 onwards will contribute to assessments of impacts of human pressures on different ecosystem components, incl. Biodiversity, ecosystem services and distance to WFD target
Clear potential for future trend analysis showing impact of WFD programme of measures on the different ecosystem components
More countries should join! (DE, PL, IT, others)

23. Thank you for your attention
and support !

24. Standardised format for data reporting: Template: xls-file with 3 separate tables
Biology data table
Station and water body info (reported only once and if changed)
Method and class boundaries (reported only once and if changed)

25. Data compilation: obstacles
Problem
Consequence
Class boundaries or ref. cond. and status class missing
Cannot use results to show status class nor to calculate normalised EQR
Class boundaries or ref. cond. missing or given for original metric (not for EQR)
Cannot calculate normalised EQR
Non-matching links between tables
Biological metric
Waterbody type
NationalStationID
NationalStationID is not unique for each station
Wrong links between stations and biology values, non-sense results
NationalStationID is different from previously reported to EEA
Cannot link biological data with information in WISE-SoE
Waterbody info is missing
Cannot aggregate results to WB level
Various errors in data, f.ex.
longitude/latitude mixed up or wrong unit
Must make corrections or ask data providers for more information
Class boundaries given for national waterbody types (instead of IC types)
Results not comparable to other countries
Non-intercallibrated metrics reported

26. Overview of data reported: Macrophytes in lakes
Ca. 500 water bodies in 8 countries

27. Macroinvertebrates in rivers: Normalised EQR per country
* Metrics and boundaries in agreement with IC results (ref. JRC-EEWAI)

28. Macrophytes in lakes: Ecological status summarised per country

29. Country replies to feedback Sept. 2010,
Replies received from 8 countries (BE-FL, CH, CY, FR, LT, NL, SE, UK)

30. Representativity of stations 1
y-axis: 1= <1/1000km2 or /mill. popul., 3 = >10/1000 km2 or /mill. popul.
y-axis: 1= low representativity, 3 = high representativity in terms of status class or pressures

31. Representativity of stations 2
y-axis: 1= <30% of RBDs reported, 3 = >70% of RBDs reported
y-axis: 1= <30% overlap with EIONET water bodies, 3 = >70% overlap with EIONET water bodies

32. Links to future indicators on freshwater biodiversity and ecosystem services
do good ecological status lakes and rivers have:
High biodiversity?
Favorable conservation status?
Acceptable provision of ecosystem services?
If yes: can we quantify the relationships between these concepts?
can we use land cover data (density of urban, and agricultural areas and infrastructure) and modelling to predict ecological status, biodiversity and capacity to provide ecosystem services? (ref. EEA report 2010 on ecosystem accounting and costs of biodiversity losses)

33. Way forward
Comparison of test data results with WFD RBMPs results for the same WBs (when WISE summary is available)
Need to decide on stations or WB reporting and on frequency, annual or less
Updated guidance on representativity of stations or WBs needed
Encourage more countries to participate in data request 2010 (DE, PL, IT + several smaller countries)
Continued collaboration with Ecostat/JRC/GIGs to ensure comparability of metrics and correct interpretation of data
Start regular priority data flow in 2011