1. Intercalibration round 2: finalisation and open technical issues – RIVERS
ECOSTAT October 2012

2. Rivers - Results in draft Decision

3. Rivers - Previously identified open issues for COM Decision (see templates)
Problem with reference conditions setting invertebrates does not apply to Alpine GIG  Alpine results to Annex 1
MED invertebrates: Spain accepted harmonised boundaries
Fish, large rivers results: requested updates provided by MS (final fish results as national EQRs; boundary harmonisation large rivers clarified)
Eastern Continental phytobenthos problem with nutrient concentrations: extensive justification provided  propose to include results if ECOSTAT agrees with the conclusions

4. EC GIG Phytobenthos larger river types – additional justification
Demonstrated that there is a weak response of the diatom metrics to SRP over a wide range of concentrations for these types using the IC data set
This is also consistent with literature findings, low retention is an important factor
Other pressure criteria (e.g. land use) are more relevant
Demonstrate that EC level of ambition for these types is comparable with the IC results for very large rivers
Question to ECOSTAT
Is the justification acceptable?
Recommendation to include types R-E2, R-E3, R-EX5?

5. Rivers CB and NO GIG – proposal to move to Annex 2: why?
IC guidance: lack of comparability in the application of criteria for setting reference conditions in phase 1 should be resolved in phase 2
This is especially important for invertebrates due to the intercalibration methodology used (‘Option 2’ with no common data set)
Effort were undertaken to resolve this thanks to efforts from some MS, but not all participated and the issue is not resolved
Tech report: “Lack of consistency remains a problem”
Comparability of class boundaries is therefore not certain
QUESTION TO ECOSTAT: DO YOU AGREE? IF NOT, WHAT ARE THE ARGUMENTS FOR INCLUDING THESE RESULTS IN ANNEX 1?

6. Macrophytes and Phytobenthos in the Decision (1)
WFD Annex V: BQE “Macrophytes and Phytobenthos”
Macrophytes/Phytobenthos are therefore technically not BQEs, but sub-BQEs or parameters (but not in the same simple sense as Chl-a)
The large majority of MS have in practice treated them separately and and have developed independent assessment methods for macropytes and phytobenthos
This is reflected in the intercalibration where we now have separate results
Combination of the two was not addressed in intercalibration; different approaches exist in different Member States, no common approach
Same applies to lakes and coastal (but not for transitional where angiosperms and macroalgae are separate BQEs)
How to deal with this in the COM Decision?

7. Macrophytes and Phytobenthos in the Decision (2)
Proposed solution:
Include macrophytes and phytobenthos separately in the Decision
Indicate that these are not results for the BQE, but for a parameter
Include in the text of the Decision that parameters level results need to be combined to a BQE level assessment, and that MS are free to choose which combination rule to apply
In Annex 1 if these results are considered final and no follow-up is expected
Or in Annex 2 if BQE level results are expected in the IC follow-up
Question to ECOSTAT: which approach is preferred, and why?