1. Presented by Ana Cristina Cardoso
Outcome of the Expert Networks Meeting on the evaluation of the draft IC register
Presented by Ana Cristina Cardoso

2. Goal of Expert Networks:
Lakes, Rivers and Coastal and Transitional Waters (11-13 Feb 2004)
Based on JRC-EEWAI in-depth analysis of the metadata (Jan 2004)
To prepare for finalisation of the IC register in spring 2004

3. Specific Objectives Resolve remaining issues regarding the IC types
Propose revision of the metadata questionnaire for the finalisation of the IC network
Identify what data should and can be collected in 2004
Identify which data should and can be collected in later stages of the IC exercise (2004-6)
1.Agree on omitting or merging the existing types, or to add new types

4. Solution to problems with types
Only few of the common types include the required number of sites to fulfil the agreed criteria (each site should be shared at least by two or more countries, and at least 5 sites per type per quality class boundary should be submitted for each type)
The coastal experts proposed to decrease the number of common types included in the current draft register in order to allow countries to focus their site submission for some selected types.
Along the enlargement of the EU, a new ecoregion for the Black Sea coastal and transitional water will be needed. The work on coastal typology is still on-going in the Black Sea countries, and therefore no proposal for the common intercalibration types is yet available.

5. Lakes - Types with a small number of sites deleted or merged:
The analysis of metadata showed that there were few sites submitted per type in all GIGs, and the distribution of the number of sites per quality class boundary was often not sufficient to allow confidence in a intercalibration exercise. Often sites within a type have been submitted by only one country. The typology has now been revised within the different GIG considering the metadata from the sites selected for the intercalibration register. Several large modifications were proposed to the typology. Mainly types with a small number of sites were merged to achieve a sufficient number of sites per quality class boundary per type needed for intercalibration.
Nordic GIG number (7) unchanged but splitting of one type and removing the split from another

6. Eastern Continental GIG for lakes (
Eastern Continental GIG for lakes (?) ICPDR 3 reservoir types: AT, CZ, SK, HU, SI, BG, RO, GR, (HR)
14 reservoirs from RO and 6 lake sites from HU but IC criteria not fulfilled
RO reservoirs of the former types L-E2 and L-E3 moved to L-M7, and those from L-E4 to L-M8
HU large lakes were compared with the large shallow lakes from NL or from Baltic countries (Naardermeer, Veluwemeer, Võrtsjärv, Burtnieks) but differ in alk and climatic conditions

7. lake size from typology
Central Lakes
Pooled by removing
lake size from typology

8. Lake Typology revision changed the list of countries participating in GIGs
e.g. Spain is no longer in the Alpine GIG

9. Rivers Only minor changes to river types, the most important are:
Baltic GIG merged with the Central GIG
The Eastern Continental GIG has agreed on 6 common IC types

10. Baltic GIG + Central GIG 19 Countries
R-B3
R-B4
R-B2

11. Coastal and Transitional waters
Small number of sites and little geographical coverage:
More sites should be submitted per GIGs/ type
Less types where possible
Geographic enlargement – include the black sea
Sites clumped mostly in NE Atlantic Ecoregion Complex
Only few of the common types include the required number of sites to fulfil the agreed criteria (each site should be shared at least by two or more countries, and at least 5 sites per type per quality class boundary should be submitted for each type)
The coastal experts proposed to decrease the number of common types included in the current draft register in order to allow countries to focus their site submission for some selected types.
Along the enlargement of the EU, a new ecoregion for the Black Sea coastal and transitional water will be needed. The work on coastal typology is still on-going in the Black Sea countries, and therefore no proposal for the common intercalibration types is yet available.

12. 2. Proposed revision of the metadata questionnaire for the finalisation of the IC network

13. Lakes
Not all type parameters are relevant for all types, ask for specific information for the different GIGs and types
Lake mixing - meromictic lakes
New type parameters: lake maximum depth, depth of summer thermocline and residence time
The lake experts considered possible and useful to collect further data to characterise the types, to enable a further analysis of comparability of sites within a type.
Instead of Not applicable, 1, 2 and >2 full mixings per year

14. Rivers
Further data to characterise the types, but specific for GIGs and types
Assessment methods, reference to be made to the STAR Waterview database
Ask for the dominant pressure(s) only
Land cover information directly from the reported latitudes/ longitudes of the sites
Would appreciate possibility to submit data in spreadsheet format
to enable a further analysis of comparability of sites within a type, Alkalinity data should be asked for selected types only; include maximum altitude of the catchment for selected types to characterise alpine influence; ask for annual rainfall for Mediterranean types).
STAR project ( The Waterview database contains a comprehensive compilation of assessment methods for rivers and streams in Europe using the 'biotic elements' macroinvertebrates, macrophytes, phytobenthos, phytoplankton, fish and hydromorphology.
The pressure information as it was asked in the metadata questionnaire was difficult for the Member States to provide and also difficult to interpret.
The CORINE land cover information is very useful, but not all countries have been able to access the CORINE database and have provided estimated values, resulting in some inconsistencies in the data.

15. Coastal and Transitional waters
Modification of some questions concerning the typology parameters (i.e. specify exactly the salinity information required)
Add question specifying what data will be used during the IC exercise
EUNIS level 3 (substratum) habitat types present at each of the IC sites

16. 3. Proposal for the parameters for which to submit data in spring 2004

17. Lakes Collect further data for type parameters
Identified the physicochemical and biological parameters for which there are possibilities for submitting data, e.g. TP, Secchi depth and Chl-a
The Alpine GIG decided not to submit data on phytobenthos, macrophytes, zoobenthos and fish. The information of availibility of these data should be kept in the questionnaire

18. Rivers Collect data for type parameter specific to GIGs and types
Identified possibilities for collecting physicochemical data but recommends not to collect this data in this stage (not clear how it will be used in the IC process)

19. Coastal and Transitional waters
Consider not necessary to collect any numerical data beyond the type parameters already asked for
More specific descriptions of the purpose and analysis of the data would be required including exact description what kind of data, level of aggregation, etc
beyond the type parameters already asked in the metadata questionnaire (and should be more clearly specified in the next phase)

20. 4. Identify parameters for which to collect data later on
in the process
The Experts were asked to discuss and agree what data (common metrics) should be collected later on in the process, with a focus on the biological quality elements. Where possible, existing methods and data should be used. The experts were asked to identify on the level of GIGs:
-                     whether the national methods to be used in each of the Member States would work in the other Member States’ territories in the GIG;
-                     simple methods/metrics that could be used to help compare the results of national methods that do not work in other Member States territories.

21. Lakes
Identified possible common metrics for the biological quality elements:
Chl-a the most promising common indicator but method can obstacle its use
Depending of the GIG, there are good possibilities for deriving common metrics for phytoplankton,macrophytes,and diatoms

22. Lakes Phytoplankton

23. Rivers
Good possibilities for deriving common metrics for benthic macroinvertebrates and benthic algae
This implies that in principle the values of those derived metrics can be compared between Member States, as long as they are related to (agreed) reference conditions.
e.g. of common metrics derived from non comparable raw data diversity indices, sensitive taxa indices, etc.

24. River: macro- invertebrates

25. Rivers: Phytobenthos

26. RIVERS
Macroinvertebrate data collected with different sampling, sorting, and identification methods
metrics derived are comparable
Common metrics will be worked out at GIG level
Dataset available through the STAR/ AQEM recommended use it for common metrics
Experts agreed to initiate testing this option in the spring of 2004

27. Coastal and Transitional waters
Few countries have currently national classification tools and schemes WFD compliant
Many countries are looking at the same tools, therefore it might be possible to agree some common metrics for IC purposes

28. Coastal and Transitional waters
Agreed to collect and circulate information on new and promising WFD compliant classification tools :
to select common metrics within GIGs
to test this in the forthcoming months
where not possible, compare and IC different national assessment systems using the data from the IC network sites

29. WG2A ECOSTAT needs to agree
Revision of common IC types, pressures and quality elements
Recommendations for Member States to revise the IC network
Revision of the metadata questionnaire