1. Baltic GIG Progress reportby
Jens Brøgger Jensen
Danish Environmental Protection Agency
Ecostat meeting March 2005

2. Outline Meetings Workplan Overview of data, metrics and options
Boundary setting protocol
a) Reference conditions
b) Boundary setting tools
Further work and meetings

3. Meetings 1st GIG meeting in Copenhagen 13 - 14 December 2004.
Participants: Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Germany and Denmark
2nd GIG meeting in Helsinki February 2005.
Participants: Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania. Poland, Germany and Denmark

4. Workplan

5. Workplan The main outcomes from the GIG will be:
type specific assessment methods and metrics for each the individual biological quality elements.
methods and metrics that could be used for the various intercalibration sites.
options for intercalibration
Evaluation of data for the type specific assessment methods and metrics across the GIG.
reference conditions for the biological quality elements for the agreed common Baltic intercalibration-types.
the boundary setting protocol to identify the high/good and good/moderate boundaries for the type specific assessment methods and metrics for the biological quality elements.
Interim reports on progress from the GIG contact persons. Interim reports from the GIG Co-ordinator to JRC and to WGA Ecostat.
Final intercalibration type-specific report from the GIG

6. Workplan

7. Overview of data

8. Metrics and options Quality Element Metric Option
Chlorofyll a all types Mean summer value 2
(June- September)
Macroalgae 3 types Fucus depth limit 2
1 type Furcellaria depth limit 2
Angiosperms 1 type Zostera depth limit 2
Benthic fauna all types no common metric 3

9. Boundary setting protocol Reference conditions
Historical data used to the extent possible
Agreed not to use the best status of available sites.

10. Boundary setting protocol Boundary setting tools
Options discussed:
Pressure gradient to be established by modelling and bounderies found from
a) Main changes of pressure gradient
b) Percentage change from reference conditions
c) Combination

11. Boundary setting protocol Boundary setting tools - discussion
Zostera
Reference condition and EQO at 25% deviation
Ulva biomass 300 % deviation from reference!! {
- or should the threshold for exponential growth of Ulva be used as a marker for “slight deviation”?

12. Other indicators may react differently
Zostera
Reference condition and EQO at 25% deviation
Ulva biomass 66% deviation from reference {
- or is there a maximum deviation for it to be accepted inside the definition “slight deviation”?

13. Further work and meetings
Data overview and assessment methods by end of March 2005
Reference conditions established for each type
Data Collection
Progress report from type co-ordinators by 1 June 2005
Next full GIG meeting: September 2005 in Stockholm

14. Further work and meetings