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

2. Phytoplankton Macroalgae Angiosperms Macrobenthic Invertebr.
Report submission
Baltic Sea GIG
NEA GIG
MED Sea GIG
Black Sea
Phytoplankton
Detailed messy,
1st phase results,
4 new ICs(of 8):
FI-SE-EE;
PL-DE; LV-LT
OK detailed
Plenty of analyses
2 versions /opinions – each detailed
New boun-daries IT-SI
New pressure analysis
RO + BU
Macroalgae
New IC analysis DE-DK and FI-EE, only 3 of 8 types submitted
New pressure and IC analyses
New pressure analyses OK
Angiosperms
Seagrasses delayed
Saltmarshesnot submitted
OK detailed last corrections
No separate assessment
Macrobenthic
Invertebr.
OK detailed, only 3 of 8 types submitted
3 versions:
New NL; ES
NEA 8,9,10
2 subinter-calibrations
BU (+RO)

3. Combination rule of metrics
COASTAL WATERS - Black Sea GIG
Phytoplankton: compliance checking normative definitions WFD
coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure
Member State
Full BQE method
Taxonomic composition
Abundance (or cover)
Diversity
(non-mandatory parameter)
Frequency and intensity of algal blooms
Biomass
Combination rule of metrics
Bulgaria & Romania
No but quite complete
C strategy species -colonists, as a propor-tion of total abundance of Dinoflagellates (summer);
2) Sum of the abun-dance of species of microflagellates+ Euglenophyceae+
Cyanophyceae as a % of the total abundance (summer)
Total abundance (cells/l)
Index Menhinick,
Index Sheldon No
Total biomass (mg/m3), chlorophyll ”a” (µg/l) summer, Values are seasonal in order to reflect the great seasonal variability of phytoplankton development.
Average metric scores
Common type has been clarified
Justification against pressures has been submitted for both Member states, there are no strong relationships but an argumentation for the value of the parameters has been demonstrated
In RO and BU common dataset a strong relationship could be demonstrated between the total EQR and a categorical pressure indicator
The boundaries for the total EQR are not specified !

4. COASTAL WATERS - Black Sea GIG - Phytoplankton
Option 1 between Bulgaria and Romania
Continuous benchmarking successfully performed
The class boundaries, so the final classification on this graph, are not clear !
When the final classification is clear to be stringent enough, no major problems anymore for approval on JRC’s behalf for BU and RO

5. EI: 7 sensitivity classes
COASTAL WATERS - Black Sea GIG
Macroalgae - seagrasses: compliance checking normative definitions WFD
coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure
Member State
Full BQE method
Abundance a
Disturbance sensitive taxa
Diversity
Combination rule of metrics
Bulgaria & Romania
Yes
Fresh weight biomass
EI: 7 sensitivity classes
The specific feature for Bulgarian coast is that the index is not estimated according to the percent ratio of the covered area of tolerant and sensitive species but according to the percent ratio of their biomass. No
Decision tree formula
Common type has been clarified
Justification against pressures has been submitted for Bulgaria, a strong relationship could be demonstrated with a categorical pressure indicator
- RO wants to adopt the same method as BU, but do not have sufficient data to demonstrate that the same boundaries can be applied in their region

6. COASTAL WATERS - Black Sea GIG Macroalgae - seagrasses
Option 1 between Bulgaria and Romania
Continuous benchmarking – no successful result due to insufficient data from Romania (5 sites from 1 year) – application of the same method and boundaries seems to give less stringent results in RO RO
No major problems for approval on JRC’s behalf for Bulgaria, there are major problems for Romania

7. COASTAL WATERS - Black Sea GIG
Benthic invertebrate fauna: compliance checking normative definitions WFD
coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure
Member State
Full BQE method
Taxonomic composition
Abundance a
Disturbance sensitive taxa
Diversity
Bio-mass
Taxa indicative of pollution
Combina-tion rule of metrics
Bulgaria & Romania
Yes
Not in strict sense (only composition of 5 preclassified sensitivity classes)
Not in strict sense (only relative abundance of 5 preclassified sensitivity classes)
5 sensitivity classes
Shannon –Wiener’s index, species richness No
Specific opportunistic species
M-AMBI
Common type has not been sufficiently clarified
Justification against pressures has been submitted for both Member States, but:
RO conclusion: index is sensitive to the toxic effects of heavy metals - but almost all sites are classified as good (?)
37 samples for Romania over a ten-year period is insufficient for a reliable assessment and validation of the method – total for BU is not clear
Eforie South until Vama Veche are probably not reference sites
BU : Burgas and Varna Bay are most impacted by pressures but still have good status
The method’s boundaries cannot be considered as validated

8. BT1: Vistula and Curanian lagoon,
Baltic Sea typology
BT1: Vistula and Curanian lagoon,
PL-LT
BC1
BC6
BC8
BC3
Extra type
BC5
BC4
BC2: lagoons DE-PL
BC7

9. Baltic Sea typology for phytoplankton
2nd phase BC1 type subdivided in old B0 and B2 types
BC1
2nd ICphase
BC3 benthos
Phytoplankton
BC1 excludes Archipelago Sea for phytoplankton.
The outer Archipe-lago Sea and the NW and SW Gulf of Finland + outer Askö archipelago + Archipelago of Östergötland(?) = new type BC3 for phytoplankton
≠ for benthos
Old type B3a sheltered is not regarded any more, only exposed old B3b
SE in south-east Baltic not intercalibrated

10. COASTAL WATERS – Baltic Sea GIG - Phytoplankton
Member State
Full BQE method
Taxonomic composition
Abun-dance
(or cover)
Frequency and intensity
of algal blooms
Biomass
Germany CW
Yes, for W part
No, for E part
biovolume of Cyanophytes (still under development) biovolume of Chlorophytes (still under development)
Chlorophyll a (μg/l) -
total biomass (biovolume [mm3/L])
Estonia CW No
Median chlorophyll a conc. - Total median wet weight autotrophic biomass (including autotrophic ciliate Mesodinium rubrum) mg/l (months VI-IX)
Finland
Mean chlorophyll a – total biomass (mg/l)
(months VII-IX)
Latvia
Still under
development
Mean chlorophyll a concentration – biovolume (mg/m3, month VI-IX)
Lithuania
CW, TW
Still under development
Mean Chlorophyll a – total biomass (mg/l) (months VI-IX)
Poland
Chlorophyll a (mean conc. of summer months (VI-IX) - total biomass, mean of summer months (VI-IX)
Sweden
Chlorophyll a concentration (µg/L) and Total biovolume (mm3/L) (if available) June-August (mean) from at least 3 years from the latest 6-year period
Denmark
Under development
Summer (V-IX) mean Chlorophyll a concentration or 90th percentile of Chl-a conc. from March through September

11. PROBLEMS Phytoplankton June 2011 IC Option Results
No progress with Option 1
Results
No progress - Problematic, no analysis capacity and no coordination
Any analysis result?
BC1
BC6
Any analysis result?
Any analysis result?
BC3
SE-FI-EE
Any analysis result?
BC8
Any analysis result?
BC5
Any analysis result?
Any analysis result?
BC4
BC7

12. Phytoplankton October 2011
Improved reporting per type
No coordination for comprehensive conclusions in Milestone report
BC1
Any analysis result?
Chl a
BC6
Option 1
Any analysis result?
BC3 Option 1
SE-FI-EE
Chl a
BC8
Option 2
Any analysis result?
BC5
No acceptable result
BC4
DE: full method
PL: Chl a + biovolume
BC7

13. COASTAL WATERS – Baltic Sea GIG - Phytoplankton
BC1
FI - SE
BC3 SE-FI-EE
Option 1
Chlorophyll a
Option 1
Chlorophyll a
Common type has been clarified, map would be helpful
Relationship between chla & nutrients has been submitted for FI-SE-EE
Continuous benchmarking (problem slope analysis)
Boundaries similar as in 1st phase, FI boundaries lowered a bit
G/M boundaries very close
Still differences more than ¼ class for H/G boundary
No clear relationship between total biomass and nutrients: abandoned
Common type has been clarified, map would be helpful
Relationship between chla & nutrients has been submitted for FI
Benchmarking/standardization has not been fully understood
Boundaries similar as in 1st phase, FI boundaries lowered a bit
For Quark FI & SE boundaries differ more than ¼ class – link with lack of benchmark standardization not clear
No clear relationship between total biomass and nutrients: abandoned
No major problems but some exchange for clarification still needed

14. COASTAL WATERS – Baltic Sea GIG - Phytoplankton
Option 2
DE: full method (chla +
PL: Chl a + biovolume
Relationship between DE method & nutrients has been submitted
Continuous benchmarking plotted – standardization based on selection of benchmark sites
Values and EQRs of boundaries for parameters has to be clarified
G/M boundaries are comparable
For H/G boundary more bias but just within acceptable limits
BC7
DE - PL
Benchmark standardized common metric
No major problems but some exchange for clarification still needed

15. Chlorophyll a (μg/l) H/G G/M 1st phase conc. EQR 1,3 0.92 1,6 0.75
COASTAL WATERS – Baltic Sea GIG - Phytoplankton
Chlorophyll a + total biomass
No data for PL
Option 1
BC5
LV-LT-PL
Chlorophyll a
(μg/l)
H/G
G/M
1st phase conc.
EQR
1,3
0.92
1,6
0.75
New proposal
2,49
0.69
4,0
0.43
Relationship between chl a – total biomass and TP has been demonstrated for LT-LV
Continuous benchmarking plotted –selection of benchmark sites in pressure window – no differences between LT-LV
PL proposes boundaries without having data
Subjective adaptation of boundaries in “option 1” without calculations in 2-country case
Major doubts to accept less stringent boundaries than in 1st phase
Result would be good and high status for LT and LV for phytoplankton
Proposal JRC:
Benchmarking showed no differences between LT-LV
Sticking to 1st phase boundaries without subdistinction until further evidence for proposed adjustment is provided

16. COASTAL WATERS – Baltic Sea GIG – Macroalgae and seagrasses
Member State
Full BQE method
Abundance
Disturbance sensitive taxa
Diversity
(non mandatory parameter)
Method tested against pressure
Germany
ELBO
CW shallow inshore brackish + inner fjords
Yes
Depth distribution (belt of at least 10% coverage) and abundance of
angiosperms and charophytes (no macroalgae in pure soft bottom)
Assessment of presence and abundance of different angiosperm and charophyte species to define vegetation communities
Only definition of vegetation communities with specific key-species (low overall number of species)
Not yet
BALCOSIS
CW open coast
Depth distribution (belt of at least 10% coverage) of Zostera marina (from 50 shoots/m2) and Fucus spp.,
Fucus abundance (% dominance cover) in the Fucus zone (0-2 m depth)
- Biomass ratio of opportunists in the Zostera seagrass zone,
- Biomass ratio of opportunists in the red algae zone (5-7 m depth),
- Biomass ratio of Furcellaria lumbricalis in the red algae zone (5-7 m depth)
Species reduction in the red algae zone (5-7 m depth)
Estonia CW
Depth limit single attached vegetation, Depth limit single Fucus vesiculosos plants
Proportion of perennial species (% dry biomass – angiosperms + macroalgae)
No (low number (3-4) of macroalgal key species)
Poland TW
% cover of “positive” taxa (2 seagrasses and 9 other taxa) and %cover of 5 “negative” taxa
MQAI biomass of 12 "positive" macro-algae and angiosperm taxa / biomass of 4 "negative" macroalgae taxa (dry biomass values multiplied by % cover) No
Sweden
Depth limit of 3 to 9 species
Assessment of presence of 3 to 9 species, species disappeared = 0.2 EQR
Denmark
Depth limit of Zostera marina: distribution of at least 10% coverage;
Total macroalgal cover
Presence of the dominant sensitive angiosperm;
No. of perennial species;
Ratio of opportunists (in areas of low salinity)
Number of perennial species
Finland
Lower depth limit growing zone of 1 species: Fucus vesiculosus
Assessment of presence of
1 macroalgal species Fucus
Lithuania
CW , TW
Maximum depth limit of 1 species: Furcellaria lumbricalis
1 macroalgal species Furcellaria
TW (Lagoon)
Maximum depth limit of potameids
Assessment of presence of 1 potameids group
Latvia

17. Baltic Sea results macroalgae and seagrasses
BT1: LT-PL
Vistula and Curanian lagoon, not enough data
BC1
Results SE-DK
not feasible?
1st phase results
not comparable
BC6
Results DE-DK
not feasible
BC3
Extra type
BC8
New comparison EE-FI
BC2: DE-DK
BC5
No results
LV method not ready
LV no macro-algae, PL different sediment
No results
PL no macroalgae
BC4
BC7

18. COASTAL WATERS – Baltic Sea GIG – Macroalgae and seagrasses
BC2: Only on DE data
Relationship between methods and nutrients demonstrated
No benchmarking (reference is adjusted for DE according to DK protocol + DK boundaries)
for H/G boundary not enough data DE
vs. DK
Data
ELBO
Inner CW
(soft and hard bottom)
Eelgrass depth limit (soft bottom)
7 DE WBs –
33 data sets
DK had to increase G/M boundary
this does not give a stable G/M boundary – impossible to adjust
Average absolute class difference 0.96 (5 classes)
Average absolute class difference 0.22 (3 classes)
Proposal JRC:
Still unfeasible to intercalibrate

19. FI – EE
BC3
Only on EE data
No benchmarking
Conclusion to lower FI G/M boundary and lower the EE H/G boundary
This does not give a stable result
Proposal JRC:
Major clarification still needed
EE needs to increase its boundaries, FI should not lower it

20. Baltic Sea results benthic invertebrate fauna
BT1: Vistula and Curanian lagoon
BC1
Results SE-DK
1st phase results
+ benchmarking
BC6
BC3
Extra type
Results DE-DK
BC8
New comparison EE-FI
No results
LV method not ready
BC5
No results
PL method too late - data?
No results
LV-LT methods not ready
BC4
BC7

21. Message to ECOSTAT
Phytoplankton: no clear conclusions on outstanding types from 1st phase
Macroalgae and seagrasses:
Only results for 1 type: EE – FI
= 5-10% of Baltic intercalibrated
Benthic invertebrate fauna:
Only results for 3 (probably 4) types
= 25% of Baltic intercalibrated in 2nd phase
+ old results for SE-FI (boundary adjustment still needs clarification): total of 50% of Baltic intercalibrated

22. COASTAL WATERS - Mediterranean Sea GIG
Phytoplankton: compliance checking normative definitions WFD
coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure
Member State
Full BQE method
Taxonomic composition
Abundance (or cover)
Frequency and intensity of algal blooms
Biomass
Method tested against pressure
France No
Work in progress
Chlorophyll a
Against Land Use Simplified Index
Spain, Italy, Slovenia, Greece, Cyprus, Croatia
Against Land Use Simplified Index for ES and CY
Against nutrients and oxygen for IT, SI, HR
Malta
Only chlorophyll a
No contribution from Greece in 2nd phase – no additional data for validation
Lacking coordination over the MED-GIG - reporting is done per Member State instead of per Type as required (for Type IIA and IIIW)
Proposal JRC:
New submission by 9 November

23. COASTAL WATERS - Mediterranean Sea GIG - Phytoplankton
IT – SI – HR
Adriatic Sea has been demonstrated to respond differently to the pressure indicator TP than W-Italy
Joint boundary setting protocol IT-SI-HR for Adriatic subtype IIA
H/G boundary more stringent than 1st phase – G/M boundary a bit less stringent IT
Reference conditions are the same for the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian ?
Unclarity about Sardinia
ES – FR
Benchmarking solved – no significant differences
Mathematical correctness of correlation needs to be verified (logarithmic against categorical data)
Doubts on exceedences over EQR 1

24. COASTAL WATERS - Mediterranean Sea GIG - Phytoplankton
GR – CY
G/M boundary is set at 0.4
No 2nd phase data from Greece to check
Should G/M boundary be published when there are no data in moderate class? – so no validation in moderate class

25. Ecological Quality Ratios
Member State
Classification
Biomass - Chlorophyll a
Ecological Quality Ratios
Chlorophyll a values
Method
H/G
G/M
Italy - Type I
(based on annual geometric mean in µg/l of Chlorophyll-a)
0.32
(0.80)
0.25
(0.60)
(1)
7 (90%)
(2)
17.3 (90%)
Croatia, Italy & Slovenia Type II-A Adr.
0.23
0.095
(0.20)
1.58 (90%)
(0.60)
3.81 (90%)
France and Spain - Type IIA
(based on 90th percentile in µg/l of Chlorophyll-a)
0.80
0.53
2.4
3.58
Italy - Type II-A west-IT
0.34
0.17
1.06 (90%)
(0.20)
2.19 (90%)
(0.60)
France and Spain –
Type III-W
0.50
1.1
1.8
Croatia, Italy and Slovenia - Type III-W /
Not possible
(0.09)
(0.20)
Type Island ?
1.2
Cyprus and Greece –
Type III-E
0.1
0.4

26. COASTAL WATERS – Mediterranean Sea GIG – Seagrasses
Member State
Full BQE method
Abundance a
Disturbance sensitive taxa
Diversity
Method tested against pressure
Spain, Croatia
POMI
Yes
Shoot density, meadow cover, shoot leaf surface
1 selected sensitive species, Posidonia oceanica + percent foliar necrosis, sucrose content in rhizomes, δ15N and δ34S isotopic ratio in rhizomes, N content in epiphytes, Pb content in rhizomes
No, only
1 species
Yes, with antropiza-tion index
Spain
Valencian-CS
Shoot density, meadow cover, dead matter cover, shoot leaf surface area
1 selected sensitive species, Posidonia oceanica + percent of plagiotropic rhizomes, rhizome baring/burial, percent of foliar necrosis, herbivore pressure, leaf epiphyte biomass
France, Italy, Cyprus
PREI
Shoot density, shoot leaf surface area, maximum depth of the meadow (lower limit), type of lower limit
1 selected sensitive species, Posidonia oceanica,+ ratio of epiphytic biomass and leaf biomass (E/L ratio)
No, only 1 species
Greece
No ?
???
Leaf length distribution asymmetry of 1 selected sensitive species Cymodocea nodosa
Malta No
Greece submitted justification for Cymodocea method, but GR is not intercalibrated

27. Italy and Cyprus submitted requested method – pressure relationship
For Cyprus all seagrasses (PREI French method) are in good status, also under higher pressure indicator values (boundary G/M 0.55)

28. COASTAL WATERS – Mediterranean Sea GIG – Macroalgae and seagrasses
Member State
Full BQE method
Abundance a
Disturbance sensitive taxa
Diversity (non mandatory parameter)
Method tested against pressure
Croatia, France, Italy, Spain
(CARLIT)
Yes
Cover (length of coast in meters) of 9 preclassified sensitivity classes
Communities sorted into 9 sensitivity classes No
Against Land Use Simplified Index
Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Slovenia (EEI)
Percentage cover (destructively collected sample cm2) of 5 preclassified sensitivity classes
Species sorted into 5 sensitivity classes
Malta -
Successfully intercalibrated

29. ES FR IT HR SI CY

30. COASTAL WATERS – Mediterranean Sea GIG – Benthic invertebrate fauna
Member State
Full BQE method
Taxonomic composition
Abundance a
Disturbance sensitive taxa
Diversity
Bio-mass
Taxa indicative of pollution
Spain
MEDOCC
No (to be justified)
Not in strict sense (the composition of 4 preclassified classes including all the species)
Not in strict sense (relative abundance of 4 preclassified classes)
4 sensitivity classes
No, unimodal relationship No
Specific opportunistic species
BOPA
Not in strict sense (only composition of 2 preclassified sensitivity classes for polychaetes & amphipods)
Relative abundance of opportunistic polychaetes and amphipods only
2 sensitivity classes for polychaetes and amphipods only
Greece, Cyprus
BENTIX
Not in strict sense (only composition of 2 preclassified sensitivity classes)
Not in strict sense (only relative abundance of 5 preclassified sensitivity classes)
2 sensitivity classes
Italy, Slovenia
M-AMBI
Yes
Not in strict sense (only composition of 5 preclassified sensitivity classes)
5 sensitivity classes
Shannon –Wiener’s index, species richness,
linear model
France
AMBI
Malta
Croatia

31. COASTAL WATERS – Mediterranean Sea GIG – Benthic invertebrate fauna
M-AMBI vs. % of Corine agricultural areas (agric), the load of phosphorous released per Km2 of agricultural land (LoadP_s), the stability of the water column that represents the fresh water inputs (stab) and Iron, Mercury and Zinc sediment content (Fe, Hg, Zn)
COASTAL WATERS – Mediterranean Sea GIG – Benthic invertebrate fauna
IT – SI
M-AMBI did not show relationship with other methods: AMBI, BENTIX, MEDOCC, BOPA separate subintercalibration
Check of benchmark standardization mistakes still needed (based on selection of alternative benchmark sites)
Difference in EQR between benchmark sites of 0.12 has probably been calculated wrongly
Therefore no clarity yet on comparability of boundaries
Analysis of confirmation to use different maximum number of species was started but not completed in the right way
Proposal JRC:
New submission by 9 November

32. Ecological Quality Ratios Good-moderate boundary
COASTAL WATERS – Mediterranean Sea GIG – Benthic invertebrate fauna
ES (MEDOCC & BOPA) – GR – CY (BENTIX) – FR (AMBI)
Member State
Classification
Ecological Quality Ratios
Method
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
France
AMBI
0,83
0, ,57
Greece
BENTIX
0,75
0,58
Cyprus
Spain (Catalonia-Balearic islands)
MEDOCC
0,73
0,47
Spain (Murcia-Valencia-Andalusia regions)
BOPA
0, ,95
0,54
Proposal JRC:
Overall class agreement analysis between M-AMBI and other methods
New submission by 9 November
Reservation for AMBI of FR

33. COASTAL WATERS – Mediterranean Sea GIG – Benthic invertebrate fauna
FR (AMBI)
Validation still unsatisfactory
Everything in good status
Opposite opinion as in 1st phase

34. COASTAL WATERS - NEA GIG - Phytoplankton
Member State
Full BQE method
Taxonomic composition
Abundance (or cover)
Frequency and intensity
of algal blooms
Biomass UK
Yes
Seasonal succession of functional groups (diatoms, dino- (or micro-) flagellates)
Used in frequency parameter
Frequency of elevated counts of small and large phytoplankton, of
Phaeocystis
90%ile chlorophyll a
Ireland No
Not planned due to high natural variability
Frequency of elevated counts of small and large phytoplankton
90%ile & median chlorophyll a (worst class taken)
Sweden, Norway, Denmark
(under development for NO & DK)
(under development for NO)
Possibly to be developed for DK?
90%ile chlorophyll a for SE, NO, DK
and cell carbon (NO) Biovolume (mean summer) for SE
Germany, Netherlands, Belgium
Only 1 species in frequency parameter
Frequency of elevated counts of Phaeocystis
France, Spain, Portugal
Work in progress for FR

35. COASTAL WATERS - NEA GIG - Phytoplankton
Huge report of 200 pages – huge evaluation
BE is not included
MDS analyses used to select benchmark sites for each type
Option 2: 7 Common metrics tested (single parameters, combinations of parameters, confidence of class tool)
To be checked
Use of benchmark standardized common metric
Use of MDS to confirm differences of reference conditions used in benchmark standardized common metric (the different reference conditions are used as defined in the 1st phase without justification)
Impact of lumping types (with same boundary distances)

36. NEA GIG phytoplankton group do not feel that this process produces stable boundary EQRs

37. MS sharing IC common type
COASTAL WATERS - NEA GIG – Macroalgae
Common IC type
Type characteristics
MS sharing IC common type
CW-NEA 1/26
Established after the physicochemical characterization of coastal areas all around NEA Region
BE, DE, DK, ES, FR, NL, NO, PT, IE, UK
INTERTIDAL ROCKY MACROALGAE
Biotype A1: ES
Biotype A2: ES, FR, PT
Biotype B21: NO, UK, IE, FR
ANGIOSPERMS
Biotype B1: BE, DE, FR, NL
(DK has no Angiosperms in NEA 1/26 and cannot participate in IC here)
Biotype B21: IE, UK, FR, (NO has no intertidal Angiosperms in NEA 1/26 and cannot participate in IC here)
CW-NEA 3/4
DE, NL
CW-NEA 5
DE (only)
CW-NEA 7
NO, UK (not enough data for IC)
CW-NEA 8b
SE, DK
CW-NEA 8a,9,10
SE, NO

38. COASTAL WATERS - NEA GIG – Macroalgae
NEA 1/26 Intertidal macroalgae
A lot of effort has been put to gather pressure information to validate the methods
Not satisfactory for IE and weak for UK
MARMAT has a strange behavior in relation to the pressure indicator – it increases with slight pressure

39. COASTAL WATERS - NEA GIG – Macroalgae
NEA 1/26 Intertidal macroalgae
Selection of reference sites for benchmarking – usually no differences (closer verification of benchmarking process still needed) but strange lower value for MARMAT
Three different alternatives have been tested in order to provide as much information as possible locking for the best possible adjustment for each national method:
Option 2, including methods from all the NEA-GIG MSs, using as “Common Metric (ICM) the Standardized Richness value (EQR).
Option 2, including methods from MSs located within biotype A2 (ES-FR-PT), using as “Common Metric (ICM)” the EQR value of the CFR.
Option 3 between ES(Cantabria) and PT (the same approach than IC1) – results have to be recalculated with the 2-country sheets
Check of results still needed
Results possible

40. COASTAL WATERS - NEA GIG – Macroalgae
NEA 1/26 Blooming macroalgae DE, FR, IE, UK
Low data availability for validation of methods
Calculations have been done without benchmarking (no refernce conditions for DE, continuous benchmarking not possible)
Option 2 with common metric ‘amount of Available intertidal area covered by algae’
Check of results needed – results probably feasible de fr ie uk
Max
1.000
H/G
0.800
0.760
G/M
0.600
0.610
0.530
M/P
0.400
P/B
0.200
NEA 8a, 9, 10 Subtidal macroalgae SE - NO
Option 1
No regional differences (checked) – same method and same boundaries

41. COASTAL WATERS - NEA GIG – Benthic invertebrate fauna
NL – BEQI2 NEA 1/26
Only temporal trends provided, no link with pressure information
Weak validation
Comparison with 1 method: M-AMBI only, on data from the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Portugal
2nd IC phase Guidance not followed
Conclusion to use the same boundaries as M-AMBI
BE only Member State using original BEQI – not included anymore ?

42. Ecological Quality Ratios Good-moderate boundary
COASTAL WATERS - NEA GIG – Benthic invertebrate fauna
ES – BO2A NEA 1/26
Comparison with M-AMBI (ES and FR) and BAT on Spanish, Portuguese and French data
2nd IC phase guidance closely followed (due to difficulty with assumptions of the regression different approaches performed)
Selection of alternative benchmark sites performed
After verification of final calculation sheets, probably acceptable intercalibration
Member State
Classification
Ecological Quality Ratios
Method
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
ES(AN)
BO2A
0.83
0.50
ES(BC)
M-AMBI
0.77
0.53 PT
BAT
0.79
0.58 FR

43. Ecological Quality Ratios Good-moderate boundary
COASTAL WATERS - NEA GIG – Benthic invertebrate fauna
ES – NEA
Distinction between type 8a and 8b was previously reported not to be applicable on macrobenthos !?
Best available alternative benchmark sites selected – benchmark standardization performed
2nd IC phase guidance closely followed
After verification of final calculation sheets, probably acceptable intercalibration
Member State
Classification
Ecological Quality Ratios
Method
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
NEA8b – DK
DKI
0.84
0.68
NEA 8b – SE
BQI
0.71
0.54
NEA 8a,9,10 – SE
NEA 8a, 9,10 - NO
NQI
0.65

44. Bench-marking Baltic Sea GIG NEA GIG MED Sea GIG Black Sea
Phytoplankton
Reference or Alternative benchmark sites
Alternative benchmark sites
Check needed
Continuous bench-marking
Problem IIA
Macroalgae
Impossible
on data from 1 Member State
Reference sites (problem PT)
Opportunistic macroalgae impossible
Angiosperms
Not separately inter-calibrated ?
Very low number alternative benchmark sites
Macrobenthic
Invertebr.
Alternative benchmark sites (enough?)
Only for ES BO2A checked
No common pressures

45. Phytoplankton composition /blooms
COASTAL WATERS - April 2011
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

46. COASTAL WATERS – October 2011
BQE
Baltic Sea
North-East Atlantic
Mediterranean
Black Sea
Phytoplankton composition /blooms
Extended phytoplank-ton tool
Macroalgae and Angiosperms
Bulgaria
Not Romania
Macrobenthic invertebrate fauna
ES – BO2A feasible
NL doubtful
BE absent ?
Time to assess data and for discussion
Cooperation between Member States to do common boundary setting or Option 1
Conclusions for
3 of 8 types
Macroalgae
Common metric clarifications !
Seagrasses/
saltmarsches ?
Macroalgae
Sea-grasses
Only 1 type intercalibrated
Finished
Finished
2 parallel subinter-calibrations
Overall class agreement ?
Revision 1st phase with monitoring data added
3 (4) of 8 types

47. Remaining questions
Approval of a boundary for a class where there are no data ? Based on interpolation?
First phase results without further effort ?
2 subintercalibrations ?
Comparisons with only 1 of 10 methods ?
What if data were not sufficient to check for regional differences?