1. Central-Baltic Rivers GIG progress
ECOSTAT WG2A
Stresa, Italy October 2005
John Murray-Bligh

2. Organisation Chair, Roger Owen Secretary, John Murray-Bligh
Steering Group
Macrophyte data collation and analysis, Sebastian Birk
Phytobenthos data collation and analysis - Martyn Kelly
Co-ordinators and experts from 17 member states + JRC + STAR Project + CNR-IRSA

3. All 51 GIG documents on web site

4. Summary
Agreed to intercalibrate invertebrates based on comparison using ICMi developed in STAR project and harmonisation against STAR benchmark data set
Method for macrophyte comparison
Method for phytobenthos comparison
Only preliminary investigation of methods for fish
Not using IC site register for any element

5. Current GIG tasks
Collect reference criteria (template based on REFCOND) and numerical values of key parameters
Collect information on data (sites x type x quality) for invertebrates
Confirm agreement to intercalibrate macrophytes
Confirm agreement to intercalibrate phytobenthos
Produce detailed instructions for invertebrate intercalibration (comparison and harmonisation)

6. Work plan Detailed work plan in MS project All actions dated
Gantt chart in pdf
Invertebrates:
Sept - collect data
Oct - check data
Nov - ICMi
Dec - harmonise

7. Invertebrates Comparison of class boundaries by
Intercalibration Common Metric index (ICMi)
a multimetric covering all aspects of invertebrate quality in WFD normative definitions (tolerance, abundance/habitat, richness/diversity) with equal weighting
based on family-level data
an index of overall quality
WFD compliant - i.e.normalised with respect to the reference state and expressed as an EQR

8. Converting class boundaries from national metric to ICMi
by regression - all data normalised as EQRs

9. Results of the pilot intercalibration
Detailed report in STAR Project Deliverable 11:
Towards European Inter-calibration: Procedures and examples for different river types from the E.C. Project STAR
Download from
Few differences in class boundaries - most of which can be explained ...

10. Harmonisation
GIG has agreed in principle to use indirect comparison with benchmark + bilateral comparison
Median ICMi for Good and High classes in national (=test) and benchmark datasets compared. Bilateral comparison of similar methods to fine tune
OK for non-compliant methods, reference state pre-determined, boundaries pre-determined
STAR benchmark data is a pan-european, WFD compliant, and independent

11. Harmonisation
1. Compare statistical difference between ICMi values for good status based on benchmark and test data
2. If there is a statistical difference in ICMi values, adjust the good/moderate boundary for national method by 1 unit
3. repeat statistical comparison and if difference, adjust boundary again; repeat until...
4. when no difference in ICMs, Good class is calibrated
5. Repeat for high class
H/G and G/M boundaries are now harmonised
(Repeat process to harmonise the other classes)

12. Pilot harmonisation
Comparing the median values of the ICMi obtained in the test and benchmark datasets for Good class ...
<0.005
0.62
0.16
<0.005 p
0.015
0.12
0.89
0.31
0.07

13. Statistical comparison by Mann-Whitney U test
… and then High class p
0.036 p
0.87
0.16
0.04
0.22
0.27
0.09
Statistical comparison by Mann-Whitney U test
General Results
only 33% of countries adjust H/G boundary
only 44% of countries adjust G/M boundary
repositioning boundaries usually involves minor changes (10% of sites moving from one class to another)

14. Invertebrates
Reference state criteria and type-specific values have not been agreed. Few member states responded to request for information
Should we ask again on Friday 14?
Detailed instructions for comparison nearly complete
Detailed instructions for harmonisation to be prepared - some member states do not understand the details yet

15. Macrophytes
Method considered in expert workshop in Tallinn and STAR project
Data is available from 8 member states with informal agreement to participate
Reference and pressure indicator species have been identified
Method based on bilateral comparison
Work plan produced by Sebastian Birk (D)

16. Macrophytes
Central data collation and analysis by Sebastian Birk and Karin Pall (A)
We have asked member states to confirm participation and agreement with method
Method covers comparison only - method for harmonisation has not been decided yet

17. Phytobenthos
Method considered in workshop of national experts in Tallinn
Martyn Kelly (UK) produced work plan
Calculate a range of metrics using Omnidia software and collate results centrally
Martyn Kelly will collate and analyse results - funded by SEPA

18. Phytobenthos Current work plan will take 7 months
Method for harmonisation to be decided
Some member states do not have data and so cannot participate
On Friday (15 October) we will ask member states to confirm participation and agreement with method

19. Phytobenthos
Will member states that do not participate be bound by the results of intercalibration?
(We will ask member states if they agree to accept the results even if they do not participate)
What do we do if one or more member states do not agree?
What are the benefits of proceeding if any answers are no?
Should we proceed?

20. Fish FAME consulted Considering using FAME index
IC river types C3 C4 and C5 only
Very little data (very few responses from member states to participate)
Spain testing IC in small streams

21. Boundary Setting Protocol
REBECCA has been asked to help relate ICMi to pressures
pressures rarely occur in isolation

22. Further information: