1. CBriv GIG Macrophyte Intercalibration Status Overview

2. Content General overview Details on technical implementation
Preliminary results of data analysis (example: R-C3)
Approach to define common reference conditions
Next steps
General problem in macrophyte IC exercise

3. General overview Participants
classification methods: Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia), France, United Kingdom
data: as above plus Denmark, Poland, Spain, Latvia, STAR
Technical implementation until June 2007

4. Details on implementation
Focus on nutrient pressure and hydromorphology
Agreement on common macrophyte list
exclusion of methods (or parts thereof) dealing with non-macrophytes
Nomination of type-specific reference species and general disturbance indicating species
possible extraction of common metrics  IC Option 2 ?
IC Options
type-specific selection of suitable option (direct comparison using single, common dataset; ICMs using national datasets)

5. Correlation analysis of UK, AT and DE indices
Preliminary results of data analysis
Preliminary results of data analysis (example: R-C3)
Correlation analysis of UK, AT and DE indices

6. Determination of “best correlating” national index
Preliminary results of data analysis
Preliminary results of data analysis (example: R-C3)
R-C3 - Spearman Rank Order Coefficients of Correlation
best correlating
AT-index_EQR
DE-index_RI+
UK_index_EQR
IBMR
mean R
1,000
0,632
0,799
0,649
0,770
0,772
0,759
0,364
0,734
0,661
Determination of “best correlating” national index

7. AT index ranges within national quality classes
Preliminary results of data analysis
Preliminary results of data analysis (example: R-C3)
high
AT index ranges within national quality classes

8. AT index ranges within national quality classes
Preliminary results of data analysis
Preliminary results of data analysis (example: R-C3)
good
AT index ranges within national quality classes

9. AT index ranges within national quality classes
Preliminary results of data analysis
Preliminary results of data analysis (example: R-C3)
moderate
AT index ranges within national quality classes

10. Preliminary results of data analysis (example: R-C3)
Intercalibration for lowland types seems more difficult.

11. Approach to define common reference conditions
Identification of common type-specific biological reference communities
Collation of information about how references have been derived within national methods
Assembly of abiotic and biotic data from national reference sites
Finally checking whether macrophyte reference criteria comply with CB GIG reference criteria

12. Next steps Further data collection
Analysis of common metrics and their relationship to pressures
Definition of common reference conditions
2nd expert workshop in October 2006 (Bordeaux)

13. General problem in macrophyte IC exercise
Next steps
General problem in macrophyte IC exercise
Lack of specific national expertise regarding WFD-compliant river macrophyte assessment, since several countries do not yet hold assessment methods.  IC progress relies on national collaboration.