1. CW-TW IC Work progress Fuensanta Salas Herrero, CW-TW IC Coordinator
Den Helder, October 2016

2. COASTAL WATERS
CW Benthic invertebrates NEA ¾
CW MED GG Phytoplankton Type IIIE
CW BALTIC BC7 Benthic invertebrates
CW NEA 1/26,NEA 7 Phytoplankton
TRANSITIONAL WATERS
NEA TW Benthic invertebrates
MED GIG FISH

3. Mediterranean Sea GIG Type I Type II A Type IIA adriatic Type IIIW
Type IIIE
Type Island-W  

4. Intercalibration results
Phytoplankton element
Mediterranean Sea GIG
Harmonization Clh a boundaries
Low but significant relationships with LUSI index

5. Intercalibration results
Phytoplankton element
Mediterranean Sea GIG
Harmonization Clh a boundaries
Technical Report provided
Positive Evaluation

6. Intercalibration results
Phytoplankton element
Harmonization Clh a boundaries
Baltic Sea GIG
BC 1
BC3
BC4
BC5
BC6
BC7
BC8
BC9 
In progress
BC1, BC9 Technical Reports provided
Review panel evaluation indicating issues to be improved
BC9 has provided new report having into account the reviewer reccomendation.

7. Intercalibration results
Phytoplankton element
North East Atlantic GIG
NEA 1/26
NEA 3/4
NEA 7
NEA 8a
NEA 8b
NEA 9
NEA 10 
In progress 

8. Intercalibration results
Phytoplankton element
NEA 1/26 reviewer evaluation
Are the results of the intercalibration acceptable?
The results are acceptable for 14 regions that appear to have been successfully intercalibrated for P90Chl-a.
The information provided and the work done is of high quality. However, the report should be re-organized for clarity and to provide the scientific knowledge base to support the implementation of the Water Framework Directive.

9. Intercalibration results
Phytoplankton element
NEA 7 (NO, UK)
IC NOT FEASIBLE
The different transparency regime in Scottish and Norwegian cases introduces unequal primary production conditions.
There is no consistent relationship between the levels of chlorophyll biomass produced for a given concentration of nutrients.
Under Evaluation

10. Intercalibration results
Phytoplankton element
NEA 3/4 (DE, NL)
Drafts results provided
Review panel evaluation not very positive, giving recommendations and highlighting problems
Experts meeting last Tuesday for solving problems

11. Intercalibration results
Benthic invertebrates
NEA 3/4
M-AMBI (DE)
BEQI2 (NL)
Similar assessment concept
Option 3a
Very slight adjustment G/M NL boundaries
Technical report provided
Reviewer evaluation positive

12. Intercalibration results
Benthic invertebrates
BC7
MARBIT (DE)
B (PL)
Similar assessment concept
Option 3a
Technical report provided

13. Intercalibration results
Benthic invertebrates
BC7 reviewer evaluation
The report shows that benthic assessment approaches are comparable (after adaptation of the H/G and G/M boundaries by B for Poland), and meet the IC criteria, but…the H/G boundary should not be considered as intercalibrated as high sites were not included in the IC.
Information provided should be improved

14. Intercalibration results
Benthic invertebrates
TW NEA 11
Method
Appropriate for IC types / subtypes
AeTV
Oligohaline-mesohaline stretches in types D and F
BEQI-2
Type D
BAT
RC for types D, E and F
TaSBEM
M-AMBI
QSB
RC for type E
IQI
Types D, E and F

15. Intercalibration results
Benthic invertebrates
TW NEA 11
Continuous benchmarking: problems to find a common pressure
Type D: Option 2
Type E,F: Option 3
Results and report provided
UK has concerns on the procedure results
Probably UK boundaries adjustments are due to differences on assessment concept

16. Intercalibration results
TW MED GIG FISH
Results and technical report provided
Negative evaluation due to not enough gradient pressure
IC not feasible; it is needed to improve information on methods, methodology
Report provided with improved information
Reviewer evaluation with some concerns on the methods

17. CONCLUSIONS In general good progress
Recommendations by reviewers are followed by experts and in most of the cases, results with improved information are accepted
Now, it is only necessary the last effort for complete the IC!

18. THANK YOU!!