1. Water Framework Directive
Directive 2000/60/EC
Intercalibration
for coastal waters
Wendy Bonne
JRC

2. ? IC organization GIG / BQE / IC Groups Baltic Sea GIG NEA GIG
* on a non-continuous basis
Baltic Sea GIG DK
Henning Karup
NEA GIG UK
Peter Holmes
MED Sea GIG IT
Anna Maria Cicero
Black Sea
RO Gabriel Chiriac
+ Ramona Bercea
Phytoplankton
No lead (JRC) ?
Mike Best HR
Robert Precali* BU
Snejana Moncheva
Macroalgae
Karsten Dahl*
ES José A. Juanes + IE Robert Wilkes blooming
Luisa Mangialajo*
Kristina Dencheva
Angiosperms
Dorte Krause-Jensen*
PT João M. Neto seagrass + BE Erika Van de Bergh saltmarsh ES
Teresa Alcoverro
Macrobenthic
Invertebr. DE
Torsten Berg
Angel Borja
Fuensanta Salas RO
Camelia Dumitrache

3. Phytoplankton Macroalgae Angiosperms Macrobenthic Invertebr.
Report submission
Baltic Sea GIG
NEA GIG
MED Sea GIG
Black Sea
Phytoplankton
OK detailed on methods, lacking detail on progress
OK detailed
Late report, lacking detail on progress
Something from BU/sentences from RO, no progress
Macroalgae
No report submitted, no progress
Angiosperms
OK, lacking detail on progress
OK detailed and finalised
Macrobenthic
Invertebr.
Only activity for TW + ES BOPA for CW
Some sentences from RO, no progress

4. Phytoplankton Macroalgae Angiosperms Macrobenthic Invertebr.
Member states’ participation
Baltic Sea GIG
NEA GIG
MED Sea GIG
Black Sea
Phytoplankton
No MS lead
Problems FI OK
GR, MT missing
Major problems
Macroalgae
LV missing
MT missing
Angiosperms
Macrobenthic
Invertebr.
PL missing
Only activity for TW –
ES for CW

5. Phytoplankton Macroalgae Angiosperms Macrobenthic Invertebr.
Typology
Baltic Sea GIG
NEA GIG
MED Sea GIG
Black Sea
Phytoplankton
Adapted to benthos type redefinition
B3 old type unclear
Division of Skagerrak and Kattegat
Check of 1st phase common types/ Balearics as biotypes
No changes
Macroalgae
Taken over from benthos, slight exten-sion DK-DE
B3 old type disregarded +
Check of biotypes
No subdivision
No activity?
&
Angiosperms
Macrobenthic
Invertebr.
Type redefinition approved,
+ slight extension
Only activity for TW

6. Baltic Sea typology
Extra type

7. Baltic Sea typology Proposed extension of BC 8 to the Darß Sill.
Figure 1: Proposed extension of BC8 to the Darß Sill.

8. Baltic Sea typology Comment SE: BC1
BC1 only include a very small part of old type B3. Most of the old type B3a sheltered and B3b exposed is not included.
BC1
2nd ICphase
Old type B3:
Sites in the area extending from the southern Bothnian Sea to the Archipelago Sea and the western Gulf of Finland
No conclusion – documentation on discussion for old type B3 in 2nd phase
SE in central Baltic disregarded

9. Baltic Sea typology
Differences for phytoplankton and benthos to be documented if needed – delaying/avoiding is no solution
Bottom layer salinity
(mean value )
Surface water salinity

10. split of Skagerrak and Kattegat
NEA GIG typology:
split of Skagerrak and Kattegat
National typology for the Swedish and Danish Coastal Waters in Kattegat and Skagerrak. The red line suggest the division between Kattegat and Skagerrak where 8a is north of the line and 8b is south of the line.
Common Type
Countries
involved
National
Name
Upper Layer
salinity
Deep water
Exposure SE DK NO
NEA 10
SE NO 3
Sk1
25- 30
32-35
Exposed
NEA 9 2
Sk3
Sheltered
NEA 8a 1*
Sk2
25-30
Moderately exposed
NEA 8b
SE DK
1*, 4, 5, 6
OW2
10- 25
18-30
Moderately to sheltered
Hard bottom
Shallow soft bottom

11. Black Sea GIG
Common types
macrobenthos
IC with 2 WBs was initiated, but wrong
No different types
macrophytes
1 area
Same reference for sandy/mixed
Same reference for muddy
IC was focused on 1 RO WB and 1 BU WB while they had the same reference conditions as other water bodies for macroalgae/ seagrasses and benthic invertebrate fauna! The common IC type was not defined in the correct way.

12. Phytoplankton: compliance checking normative definitions WFD
COASTAL WATERS
Phytoplankton: compliance checking normative definitions WFD
coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure
GIG
Full BQE method
Taxo-nomic composi-tion
Abundance
Diver-sity
Frequency and intensity of algal blooms
Biomass
Method tested against pressure
Baltic Sea GIG
No for all MS + DE E part
Yes for DE W part
1 (DE) of
8 MS
0 of 8 MS
(x)
0 of
8 MS chl a,
Total biomass
6 or 7 MS (DK not, FI pending)
Yes for chl a but not common type specific!
Yes for DE method
NEA GIG
Yes for UK
No for 9 of 10 MS + NO
1 (UK) of 10 MS + NO
5 of 10 MS for blooms +
3 MS for
1 species, 2 MS (SE, DK) +NO not at all
5 of 10 MS +
1 species,
2 MS (SE, DK) + NO not
10 MS + NO; SE + biovolume
NO + cell carbon
Against risk assessment
Mediter-ranean Sea GIG
No for all
7 MS
0 of 7 MS
1 (FR) of
7 MS for blooms
1 of 7 MS
6 of 7 MS + HR
Yes for chl a + blooms FR (not finalized)
Black Sea GIG
Yes for BU
No for RO
1 (BU) of 2 MS
1 (BU) of
2 MS
2 of 2 MS Chl a + total biomass
No 
MT lacking

13. Coastal - Phytoplankton
WFD - composition, abundance, frequency and intensity of algal blooms and biomass;
All MS – biomass through chlorophyll a;
Majority (8 of 10) in NEA GIG assesses blooms
3 examples methods of 3 different GIGs including composition
MED GIG only chlorophyll a (except FR) – no added value of blooms (stated by ES)
Baltic GIG only chlorophyll a + almost all total biomass
Justifications do not reflect a consensus
Recommendation:
- to include only methods that have been validated
- to improve scientific documentation for exclusion of abundance and bloom parameters

14. Chlorophyll a Biovolume
Summer chla versus winter-spring TN mean concentrations for 37 different sites. Solid line shows the estimated relationship averaged over all sites, and dotted lines show relationship with the lowest factor (Dybsø Fjord) and the highest factor (Ringkøbing Fjord before change of sluice practice).
DK: Relationship between total phytoplankton biovolume and TN based on data since 1998 from 22 Danish sites
Similar scientific results are used to support the argumentation to include one parameter on the one hand but exclude another potential parameter on the other hand.

15. Explained by MS as too much scatter in the full salinity zone, but focused on one salinity zone (as for another MS) may give better relationship
DK: Biovolume of euglenophytes versus TN at 22 different sites
MSs should ask themselves if they can really define the G/M boundary with sufficient reliability before excluding any other parameter
Figure DE 2:
Relation between specific phytoplankton indices and TN concentration. Summer means May-September (n = 209)

16. Macroalgae - seagrasses: compliance checking normative definitions WFD
COASTAL WATERS
Macroalgae - seagrasses: compliance checking normative definitions WFD
coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure
GIG
Full BQE method
Abundance
(Cover)
Disturbance sensitive taxa
Diver-sity
Method tested against pressure
Baltic Sea GIG
 4 of 8 MS
5 (DK, DE, SE, PL, EE) of 8 MS
4 (DK, DE, PL, EE) of 8 MS
(x)
 DE: BALCOSIS, EE
DK macroalgae cover, eelgrass
FI, LT: 1 species depth limit
FI, LT: 1 species, SE: # species depth limit
DE: ELBO not yet
FI, LT, PL, SE
Mediter-ranean Sea GIG
6 of 7 MS 
6 of 7 MS
Macroalgal relative cover GR, SI, CY
Total cover: ES, FR, IT + HR
Seagrasses ES, FR, IT, CY + HR
Macroalgae rocky GR, SI, CY, ES, FR, IT + HR
Macroalgae GR, ES, IT, FR, SI
Seagrasses ES, FR
Macroalgae
 CY, HR?
Seagrasses
IT, CY, HR?
Seagrasses GR
Black Sea GIG
 Yes for BU
No for RO
BU ? No
RO ?
LV lacking
MT lacking

17. Macroalgae - seagrasses: compliance checking normative definitions WFD
coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure
COASTAL WATERS NEA GIG
Biological Quality Element
Full BQE method
Abundance (cover)
Disturbance sensitive taxa
Diversity
Method tested against pressure
Intertidal
Macroalgae
 6 of 6 MS
NO not?
6 of 6 MS (UK, IE only for blooming species)
6 of 6 MS + NO
(x)
6 of 7 MS (not DE)
 ES
NO in NEA1/26
Blooming not in NO, ES
UK, IE, DE, FR, PT
Seagrasses
5 of 5 MS
5 MS: UK, IE, NL, DE, FR
UK, IE, DE, NL, FR NO
Subtidal
in NEA 8/9/10, not in NEA1/26
1 (DK) of 3 MS
NO, SE depth limit 9 species, DK total cover DK
DK: No. of perennials
NO, SE ?
NO, SE?
0 of 3 MS ? 
DK, NO, SE depth limit 1 species?
NO, SE
Saltmarshes
(DE, NL, UK, IE)
4 of 4 MS No
Not BE, NL, DK in NEA 1/26
Not DK, SE, NO in NEA 8/9/10
Not ES, PT in NEA 1/26
Not DK, SE, NO in NEA 8/9/10

18. Coastal – Macroalgae - seagrasses
WFD - abundance or cover and disturbance sensitive taxa;
Combined assessment in Baltic and Black Sea
- 4 of 7 methods compliant in Baltic (of which 1 not validated)
- methods in Black Sea not validated – only relative cover – sufficient assessment seagrasses?
Seagrass and saltmarsh assessment: parameters covered in MED GIG and NEA GIG – in latter not validated
Macroalgal assessment: only relative cover for 1 method in MED GIG – 2 subtidal methods only depth limit of species in NEA – only 4 of 11 methods validated

19. Coastal – Macroalgae - seagrasses
Recommendation:
- to include only methods that have been validated
- to include methods with relative abundance only
if they correlate well with a common metric
(including all required parameters)

20. Clear illustrations of method validation graphs
Baltic Sea GIG
(Although poor is lacking and better put depen-dent variable on X-axis for Baltic example)
MED GIG

21. coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure
COASTAL WATERS
Benthic invertebrate fauna: compliance checking normative definitions WFD
coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure
GIG
Full BQE method
Taxo-nomic composi-tion
Abundance
Distur-bance sensitive taxa
Diver-sity
Biomass
Taxa indicative of pollution
Method tested against pressure
Baltic Sea GIG
6 of 8 MS
1 (DE) of
8 MS
Absolute (DE) or weighted (4 MS) or relative (DK),
7 of EE
6 of 7 MS
NEA GIG
10 MS + NO BE
Absolute or relative
9 MS + NO
Most methods – check needed
Mediter-ranean Sea GIG
2 of
7 MS
0 of 7 MS
Relative
2 of 7 MS
(x)
Coverage of moderate?
Black Sea GIG
2 MS
0 of 2 MS
No 
PL lacking
EE ?
EE not
LT not
MT lacking

22. Coastal – Benthic invertebrate fauna
WFD - diversity, abundance, sensitive taxa, composition and taxa indicative of pollution;
21 of 27 methods cover required parameters;
Broad consensus: abundance is assessed as relative abundance for the majority of the methods, especially in MED GIG, NEA GIG and Black Sea
1 case in Baltic with biomass instead of abundance
In MED GIG 5 of 7 methods exclude diversity
Recommendation:
- to include EE method
- to include only methods that are validated (has to include moderate class as well)
- only Greece has provided requested graphs, to
exclude other methods without better info

23. Justification for Estonia
Linear regression of abundance-based ZKI index with BSPI, 76 observations,
p = 0.087
Linear regression of biomass-based ZKI index with BSPI, 76 observations, p = 0.002

24. Clear illustrations of method validation graphs
Greece Bentix
Variation of Shannon diversity and Bentix along a gradient of increasing pressure indicator (organic carbon values)
Slovenia M-AMBI

25. Coverage of ecological gradient
Greece Bentix
G M
Spain MEDOCC
G M

26. Spain BOPA

28. Phytoplankton Macroalgae Angiosperms Macrobenthic Invertebr.
Benchmarking
Baltic Sea GIG
NEA GIG
MED Sea GIG
Black Sea
Phytoplankton TN
G & M! sites
Enough data per common type?
Risk assessment
H sites only for UK
LUSI
Reference or H sites
Probably sufficient data
No relevant data for pressure assessment
Macroalgae
Not considered yet, no pressure information
Considered for intertidal macroalgae with 7 reference sites
Planned with 37 selected reference sites
No information
Angiosperms
Pressure information compilation planned, difficulties with WB EQR data
Performed with 14 selected reference sites
Macrobenthic
Invertebr.
Evaluated for BSPI for good or moderate sites
1st phase to be checked
Planned with 40 reference sites
No information/not considered

29. Coastal - Phytoplankton
Baltic Sea GIG:
- Reference was set based on historical data/modelling/ relation with secchi depth and TN
- benchmarking considered using TN. Probably with moderate sites (some high status) – unclarity on sufficiency of data per common type.
NEA GIG:
- reference based on expert judgment/current reference sites
- benchmarking considered based on expert judgment of risk assessments – only H status sites in UK available
- with risk assessment only distinction between G/M possible

30. Coastal - Phytoplankton
MED GIG:
- reference based on existing reference sites
- benchmarking considered using Land Uses Simplified Index (LUSI) in the frame of a common boundary setting procedure
- data probably sufficient
Black Sea GIG:
- benchmarking not considered - no relevant data for pressure assessment available.
- Reference and boundaries were set based on expert judgment of historical data, not in relation to a pressure indicator.

31. Coastal - Macroalgae - Angiosperms
Baltic Sea GIG:
- Reference was set based on historical data/modelling/ relation with secchi depth and TN
- benchmarking not considered yet. Pressure information not compiled
NEA GIG:
- Reference based on expert judgment
- Only for intertidal macroalgae for 1 biotype between FR – PT and ES (Cantabria) 7 reference sites available for benchmarking. For other elements (intertidal green macroalgae blooms - subtidal macroalgae – seagrasses - saltmarshes) not clear. Pressure information compilation planned. Due to water body assessments and in case of saltmarshes sometimes entire estuary, feasibility of any benchmarking is questioned and establishing relationship with pressure indicators is difficult.

32. Coastal - Macroalgae - Angiosperms
MED GIG:
- Reference based on existing reference sites
- Seagrasses: benchmarking performed with 10 ES and 4 FR high status sites selected according to the same criteria
- Macroalgae: benchmarking is considered for 37 reference sites (sampled once except CY) selected according to the same criteria:
IT 3 sites - GR 4 stations - HC 20 sites - ES 6 sites - CY 2 sites - SI 2 sites
Black Sea GIG:
- Reference based on expert judgment or MED GIG reference
- benchmarking not considered yet. Pressure information not compiled. Boundaries were set based on expert judgment, not in relation to a pressure indicator.

33. Coastal – Benthic invertebrate fauna
Baltic Sea:
- reference was mainly set on biological criteria
- for benchmarking the HELCOM Baltic Sea Pressure Index is evaluated.
NEA GIG:
- reference based on some existing sites considered to be applicable to specific areas in the NEA. Check needed
MED GIG:
- benchmarking is considered using reference sites selected according to the same criteria: Number of stations: ES 16 - GR 6 - CY 4 - IT 7– SI 4 - FR 3 sites
Black Sea: benchmarking not considered. Pressure information not compiled. Boundaries were taken over from NEA based on expert judgment, not established in relation to a pressure indicator.

34. Established – still optimized Re-established from 1st phase
Common dataset
Baltic Sea GIG
NEA GIG
MED Sea GIG
Black Sea
Phytoplankton
Established – still optimized FI
missing
Established
All MS
New GR
No progress
Macroalgae
Little progress
In progress
Re-established from 1st phase
Angiosperms
Established (only for bench-mark extra in 2nd phase)
Macrobenthic
Invertebr.
Only activity for TW –
ES for CW
1st + 2nd phase

35. Phytoplankton Macroalgae Angiosperms Macrobenthic Invertebr.
Common metric
Baltic Sea GIG
NEA GIG
MED Sea GIG
Black Sea
Phytoplankton
Chl a and/or total biomass?
Chl a or others in progress
Chl a ?
No evaluation
Macroalgae
Little progress
(total macroalgal cover and eelgrass depth limit prepared by DK)
In progress?
COMMA in progress
Angiosperms
ICM finished
Macrobenthic
Invertebr.
Lack of common metric
Only activity for TW –
ES for CW
AMBI valid common metric?

36. Macroalgae MED GIG
Common metric

37. Greek EEI method Technical report 1st phase EEI = 10 = High
EEI = 8 = Good
EEI = 6 = Moderate
EEI = 4 = Poor
EEI = 2 = Bad
EQR = 1 = High
EQR = 0.75 = Good
EQR = 0.5 = Moderate
EQR = 0.25 = Poor
EQR = 0 = Bad

38. Greece Slovenia Cyprus >
The EEI value can be transformed in accordance to the EQRs of WFD:
EEIEQR=
1.25x(EEIvalue/RCvalue)-0.25, RC=10
>
The average absolute abundance (%) of ESG I and II are cross compared in a matrix to determine the Ecological Status Class of a Site, using 5 classes from high to bad, corresponding to 5 different numbers as the EEI value. EEI values 8 and 10
indicate sustainable ecosystems of good or high ESC, whereas EEI values of 6, 4 and 2 indicate that the ecosystems should be restored to a higher ESC.

39. Fast (early-successional) vs. slow-growing (late-successional) species
HOW TO USE EEI
Fast (early-successional) vs. slow-growing (late-successional) species
(Macrophyte graphs are not original and were based on diverse sources)
Ecological Status Groups

41. MED GIG
Macroalgae
New common metric

42. Option 1 for chlorophyll a
IC option
Baltic Sea GIG
NEA GIG
MED Sea GIG
Black Sea
Phytoplankton
No option reported
Option 2
Option 1 for chlorophyll a
Not
option 1?
Macroalgae
Option 3 FR-ES-PT – rest?
Option 1 NO-SE
Option 2 for blooming
Angiosperms
Macrobenthic
Invertebr.
Option 3 for 5/7 types
Option 2 for 1 type?
1 alternative option
Only activity for TW –
ES for CW Option 3

43. Phytoplankton Macroalgae Angiosperms Macrobenthic Invertebr.
Meetings
Baltic Sea GIG
Not planned
NEA GIG
September 2011
MED Sea GIG
Black Sea
Phytoplankton
BQE meeting?
Webex April 2011
April 2011
NOT planned
Macroalgae
6 April 2011
exchange
Angiosperms
Finished
Macrobenthic
Invertebr.
ES case
exchange

44. Phytoplankton composition /blooms
COASTAL WATERS
BQE
Baltic Sea
North-East Atlantic
Mediterranean
Black Sea
Phytoplankton composition /blooms
Macroalgae and Angiosperms
Macrobenthic invertebrate fauna
Improvement 1st IC after finalization of the TW IC
Cooperation between Member States to do common boundary setting or Option 1
Time to assess data and for discussion
Cooperation between Member States to do common boundary setting or Option 1
Cooperation and monitoring
Macroalgae
Sea-grasses
Common metric clarifications !
Cooperation WISER
Cooperation and monitoring
Common metric clarifications !
Cooperation WISER
Revision 1st phase + 1 MS
Revision
Revision 1st phase with monitoring data added
3 of 8 types green, others yellow or red
Revision 1st phase
+ 2 additional MSs
Meeting ?

45. Phytoplankton composition /blooms
COASTAL WATERS
BQE
Baltic Sea
North-East Atlantic
Mediterranean
Black Sea
Phytoplankton composition /blooms
Macroalgae and Angiosperms
Macrobenthic invertebrate fauna
Improvement 1st IC after finalization of the TW IC
Cooperation between Member States to do common boundary setting or Option 1
Time to assess data and for discussion
Cooperation between Member States to do common boundary setting or Option 1
Cooperation and monitoring
Macroalgae
Sea-grasses
Common metric clarifications !
Cooperation WISER
Cooperation and monitoring
Common metric clarifications !
Cooperation WISER
Revision 1st phase + 1 MS
Finished
Revision 1st phase with monitoring data added
3 of 8 types green, others yellow or red
Revision 1st phase
+ 2 additional MSs