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

2. IC organization GIG / BQE / IC Groups * 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) ? UK Mike Best HR Robert Precali* BU Snejana Moncheva Macroalgae No lead (JRC) DK Karsten Dahl* ES José A. Juanes + IE Robert Wilkes blooming IT Luisa Mangialajo* BU Kristina Dencheva Angiosperms No lead (JRC) DK Dorte Krause- Jensen* PT João M. Neto seagrass + BE Erika Van de Bergh saltmarsh ES Teresa Alcoverro BU Kristina Dencheva Macrobenthic Invertebr. No lead (JRC) DE Torsten Berg ES Angel Borja ES Fuensanta Salas RO Camelia Dumitrache

3. Report submission Baltic Sea GIG NEA GIG MED Sea GIG Black Sea Phytoplankton Report submitted but no update, lacking detail on progress! No activity? OK detailedOK RO + BU Macroalgae Report submitted but no update, lacking detail on progress! Some activity OK detailed Slightly OK BU Angiosperms OK, lacking detail on progress OK detailed and finalized? Macrobenthic Invertebr. OK, finalization attempted No activity other types Only activity for TW ES for CW OK detailed OK RO

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

5. Baltic Sea typology Extension of BC 8 to the Darß Sill.

6. Baltic Sea typology for 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 BC1 2 nd ICphase BC3 benthos Phytoplankton 2 nd phase BC1 type subdivided in old B0 and B2 types Old type B3a sheltered is not regarded any more, only exposed old B3b SE in south-east Baltic not intercalibrated

7. 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 CW No Mean chlorophyll a – total biomass (mg/l) (months VII-IX) Latvia CW No Still under development Mean chlorophyll a concentration – biovolume (mg/m3, month VI-IX) Lithuania CW, TW No Still under development Mean Chlorophyll a – total biomass (mg/l) (months VI- IX) Poland CW, TW No Chlorophyll a (mean conc. of summer months (VI-IX) - total biomass, mean of summer months (VI-IX) Sweden CW No Chlorophyll a concentration (µg/L) and Total biovolume (mm 3 /L) (if available) June-August (mean) from at least 3 years from the latest 6-year period Denmark CW NoUnder development Summer (V-IX) mean Chlorophyll a concentration or 90th percentile of Chl-a conc. from March through September COASTAL WATERS – Baltic Sea GIG - Phytoplankton

8. PROBLEMS Phytoplankton Methods 8 methods, chl a and biovolume Compliance – a. Justification required parameters At Member State level: EE, LV, LT, FI, DK DE includes composition at low salinity No clarification from PL b. Method-pressure relationship Yes, additions done, still some compilation work for technical report necessary Typology Solved but no clarification of difference between phytoplankton and benthos type BC3 Dataset OK, now also including FI Benchmarking No progress, only sites with good or moderate status are available. A common approach for setting alternative benchmark has still not been decided. Try-outs FI-SE-EE ? LT-LV-PL? PL-DE? Not reported

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

10. Member State Full BQE method AbundanceDisturbance 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 Germany BALCOSIS CW open coast Yes Depth distribution (belt of at least 10% coverage) of Zostera marina (from 50 shoots/m 2 ) 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) Yes Estonia CW Yes 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) Yes Poland TW Yes % 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 CW NoDepth limit of 3 to 9 species Assessment of presence of 3 to 9 species, species disappeared = 0.2 EQR No Denmark CW No 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 Yes Finland CW No Lower depth limit growing zone of 1 species: Fucus vesiculosus Assessment of presence of 1 macroalgal species Fucus No Lithuania CW, TW No Maximum depth limit of 1 species: Furcellaria lumbricalis Assessment of presence of 1 macroalgal species Furcellaria No Lithuania TW (Lagoon) NoMaximum depth limit of potameids Assessment of presence of 1 potameids group No LatviaNo COASTAL WATERS – Baltic Sea GIG – Macroalgae and seagrasses

11. PROBLEMS Macroalgae and seagrasses Methods 7 CW methods, 2 TW methods, LV no method Compliance – a. Justification required parameters FI single parameter method correlated with EE fuller method, therefore acceptable SE submitted clarification, no test against other method, also not for LT (1 species depth limit) b. Method-pressure relationship Yes for DE (1 of 2 methods), Not for SE, FI (copy of EE?), PL (G/M), LT, LV Typology Solved – large part of SE-SE is not intercalibrated Dataset Only for 2 types: FI - EE and DE - DK Benchmarking No progress, only sites with good or moderate status are available. A common approach for setting alternative benchmark has still not been decided. Not reported IC Option No progress Results No progress - Problematic, almost no analysis capacity and no overall coordination

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

13. BC8 Only on DE data DEvs. DKData ELBO Inner CW (soft and hard bottom) Eelgrass depth limit (soft bottom) 12 DE WBs – 59 data values BALCOSIS Outer CW (soft and hard bottom) - Eelgrass depth limit (soft bottom) - Macroalgae metrics (hard bottom) - 8 DE WBs – 33 data values - No applicable DK reference for DE WBs ELBO EQRs vs. Eelgrass depth limit EQRs (“zero”-eelgrass depth values are included). (“zero”-eelgrass depth values are excluded)

14. BALCOSIS EQRs vs. Eelgrass depth limit EQRs (“zero”-eelgrass depth values are included) (“zero”-eelgrass depth values are excluded) FI – EE BC3 Gulf of Finland

15. Message to ECOSTAT Phytoplankton: no improvement of chl a in 2 nd phase – biovolume still feasible ? Macroalgae and seagrasses: –Only results for 1 type: EE – FI = 5-10% of Baltic intercalibrated Benthic invertebrate fauna: –Only results for 3 types = 25% of Baltic intercalibrated in 2 nd phase + old results for SE-FI: total of 50% of Baltic intercalibrated

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

17. Member State Full BQE method Taxonomic composition Abundance (or cover) Frequency and intensity of algal blooms Biomass Method tested against pressure UKYes 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 IrelandNo Not planned due to high natural variability Used in frequency parameter Frequency of elevated counts of small and large phytoplankton 90%ile & median chlorophyll a (worst class taken) Sweden, Norway, Denmark No (under development for NO & DK) No (under development for NO) 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 No Only 1 species in frequency parameter Frequency of elevated counts of Phaeocystis 90%ile chlorophyll a France, Spain, Portugal No Work in progress for FR Used in frequency parameter Frequency of elevated counts of small and large phytoplankton 90%ile chlorophyll a COASTAL WATERS - NEA GIG - Phytoplankton

18. PROBLEMS Phytoplankton Methods 10 methods + NO, chl a and frequency blooms Compliance – a. Justification required parameters Brief at Member State level: SE, DK, DE, IE, FR, ES, NO Missing: BE, NL, PT b. Method-pressure relationship Yes, compilation work for technical report ongoing Typology Same as first phase (except for NEA8) Dataset OK Benchmarking Ongoing, gathering further data on nutrients, light climate and flushing rates for the waterbodies IC Option Option 2 – Common metric Chlorophyll a not working for some MSs Frequency blooms similar as common metric? Results A lot of progress – web meeting next Friday

19. Member State/Methodrp France0.6900.000 Germany0.9120.011 Netherlands0.5790.229 Norway0.3470.500 RoI0.4380.102 Sweden0.2560.339 UK0.5460.000 Chlorophyll a as common metric, without benchmarking !?

20. NEA GIG type 3/4 Wadden Sea

21. Difference in loads between Weser-Elbe in northern Wadden Sea and Rhine-Meuse-North Sea channel-Ems in Southern Wadden Sea This does not illustrate the differences within the Southern Wadden Sea to support the benchmark standardization performed

22. The Ems has lower loads than Weser and Elbe, even in combination with the Rhine influence. The Ems-Dollard Estuary is one of the lowest productive systems in annual primary production in the Wadden Sea (van Beusekom et al., 2001) so the thresholds should not lie higher than for the Weser and the Elbe. The Ems chlorophyll a relative exceedances are modeled to be in the same range as for Elbe and Weser. The Ems has good phytoplankton status in NL, moderate (polyhaline) and poor (euhaline) status in DE up to Jadebusen. Western and eastern Dutch Wadden Sea and the western German Wadden Sea (Norderney area) seem to be more related to each-other than reflected in the proposed boundaries for these areas. Observations

23. Wadden Sea QSR 2004 Wadden Sea QSR 1999

24. All these observations are reflected in the presented typology of the Wadden Sea which illustrates how the reference/boundary values very likely would have to relate to each-other

25. Conclusions : No evidence has been provided that the difference in phytoplankton biomass between the Dutch and German Southern Wadden Sea could be almost twofold. No evidence has been provided that the Ems-Dollard thresholds should lie higher than the thresholds for the Weser and the Elbe. Better scientific evidence should be provided for the current boundary proposals in the Southern Wadden Sea (Dutch Wadden Sea and Ems-Dollard Dutch and German polyhaline and euhaline waters (= western Lower Saxonian waters))

26. Not DK, SE, NO only in NEA 8/9/10 Biological Quality Element Full BQE method Abundance (cover) Disturbance sensitive taxa Diversity Method tested against pressure Intertidal Macroalgae 6 of 6 MS + NO 6 of 6 MS (UK, IE only for blooming species) 6 of 6 MS + NO (x) 5 of 6 MS (not DE) ES, PT? + blooming NO in NEA1/26 Blooming not in NO, ES UK, IE, NO, DE, FR Intertidal Seagrasses5 of 5 MS 5 MS: UK, IE, NL, DE, FR (x) UK, IE, DE, NL, FR Subtidal Macroalgae in NEA 8/9/10, not in NEA1/26 (only ES) 1 (DK) of 3 MS NO, SE depth limit 9 species, DK total cover DK (x) DK: No. of perennials DK NO, SE compliant ? NO, SE? Subtidal Seagrasses in NEA 8/9/10, not in NEA1/26 for DK, NO 0 of 3 MS ? DK DK, depth limit 1 species, NO, SE ? (x) DK NO, SE ?NO, SE Saltmarshes (DE, NL, UK, IE) 4 of 4 MS (x) UK DE, NL, IE Macroalgae - seagrasses: compliance checking normative definitions WFD coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure COASTAL WATERS NEA GIG Not BE, NL in NEA 1/26 Not NO, DK, BE, ES, PT in NEA 1/26 ES for RSL method

27. Not BE, NL, DK, DE only Helgoland Not DK, SE, NO (only in NEA 8/9/10 subtidal) Biological Quality Element Full BQE method Abundance (cover)Disturbance sensitive taxaDiversity Method tested against pressure Intertidal Macroalgae (UK, IE, NO, FR, ES, PT) Yes ES (CFR): Characteristic Macroalgae Cover FR cover (UK, IE only coverage for blooming species, PT for opportunists) NO ES, PT Populations richness + relative coverage of opportunists to total vegetated surface FR characteristic and opportunistic species UK + IE + NO % green species, red species, opportunists + ratio of perennial to annual or ephemeral forms (x) Species number (not DE) ES (CFR, RICQI methods) PT? UK, IE, NO, ES (RSL), FR Intertidal Seagrasses UK, IE, NL, DE, FR (not in BE) Yes (Loss of ) extent of combined seagrass beds in waterbody. Percentage cover density of beds. Number of seagrass taxa (Loss of) in waterbody seagrass bed (x) UK, IE, NL, DE, FR Saltmarshes (DE, NL, UK, IE)YesExtent of beds and zones Taxa list from quadrats DE + relative coverage from relevees (x) UK DE, NL, IE Coastal waters NEA GIG Intertidal macroalgae and angiosperms (seagrasses and saltmarshes) Not FR ??? Macroalgae - seagrasses: compliance checking normative definitions WFD coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure

28. PROBLEMS Macroalgae and seagrasses Methods About 15 CW methods + NO Compliance – a. Justification required parameters NO has added metric on abundance SE similar approach as in Baltic (with NO) b. Method-pressure relationship Yes for ES (2 of 3 methods) and blooming macroalgae, DK subtidal Lack of validation for all other methods A homogeneous system to evaluate pressures at site level have been agreed by MSs (april 2011) and comparisons have been started. Typology Revised, see next slide Dataset OK Benchmarking A homogeneous system to evaluate pressures at site level have been agreed by MSs IC Option Option 3 + Option 2 Common metric + Option 1 1 biotype successful (1 ES, PT, FR) Results Significant progress - web meeting to be held?

29. Common IC typeType characteristicsMS sharing IC common type CW-NEA 1/26Established 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 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 3/4DE, NL CW-NEA 5DE (only) CW-NEA 7NO, UK (not enough data for IC) CW-NEA 8bSE, DK CW-NEA 8a,9,10 SE, NO Not clear which comparisons are going on apart from Biotype A2

30. Member State Full BQE method Taxonomic composition Abundance (or cover) Frequency and intensity of algal blooms Biomass Method tested against pressure FranceNo Work in progress Chlorophyll a Against Land Use Simplified Index Spain, Italy, Slovenia, Greece, Cyprus, Croatia NoChlorophyll a Against Land Use Simplified Index MaltaNo COASTAL WATERS - Mediterranean Sea GIG Phytoplankton: compliance checking normative definitions WFD coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure

31. PROBLEMS Phytoplankton Methods 7 of 8 MSs, chlorophyll a Compliance – a. Justification required parameters From ES extensive justification, position of other MSs not so clear b. Method-pressure relationship Yes, against LUSI for ES, FR IT, HR, SI: Type 1: lm(formula = ChA ~ f_dil + aD_O + TP + DIN) Type 2: lm(formula = ChA ~ f_dil + TP) Typology 3 main types in Mediterranean (2 with subtypes) Dataset OK, excluding GR and CY Benchmarking Not documented for ES-FR IT, HR, SI: 3 types related to each-other in relation to freshwater influence IC Option 2 x Option 1 parallel to each-other Results Different boundaries for 3 types

32. All data of MED GIG (IT – SI – HR – FR – ES) 0,1 1 10 05 15202530 ChA (µg/L) F_dil (%) a CroatiaFranceItalySloveniaSpain Type IIIType IType II

33. Reference conditions setting by IT- HR with all data of MED GIG (IT – SI – HR – FR – ES) Natural differences according to freshwater gradient

34. Member State ClassificationEcological Quality Ratios Chlorophyll a values MethodH/GG/MH/GG/M Croatia, Italy and Slovenia - Type I Biomass - Chlorophyll a (based on annual geometric mean in µg/l of Chlorophyll-a) 0.500.2512 France and Spain – Type II-A Biomass - Chlorophyll a (based on 90th percentile in µg/l of Chlorophyll-a) 0.800.532.43.58 Croatia, Italy and Slovenia - Type II-A Biomass - Chlorophyll a (based on annual geometric mean in µg/l of Chlorophyll-a) 0.500.20 0.40 (90%) 0.20 1.2 (90%) 0.60 France and Spain – Type III-W Biomass - Chlorophyll a (based on 90th percentile in µg/l of Chlorophyll-a) 0.800.501.11.8 Croatia, Italy and Slovenia - Type III-W Biomass - Chlorophyll a (based on annual geometric mean in µg/l of Chlorophyll-a) 0.450.20 0.18 (90%) 0.09 0.40 (90%) 0.20 France and Spain – Type Island Biomass - Chlorophyll a (based on 90th percentile in µg/l of Chlorophyll-a) 0.800.50?1.2

35. 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 Spain BOPA No (to be justified) 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 No, unimodal relationship No Specific opportunistic species Greece, Cyprus BENTIX No (to be justified) 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 No, unimodal relationship No Specific opportunistic species Italy, Slovenia M-AMBI 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, linear model No Specific opportunistic species France AMBI No (to be justified) 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 No, unimodal relationship No Specific opportunistic species Malta Croatia COASTAL WATERS – Mediterranean Sea GIG – Benthic invertebrate fauna

36. PROBLEMS Benthic invertebrate fauna Methods 5 methods Justification required parameters Including Shannon-Wiener Diversity: IT & SI No diversity: GR – CY – ES – FR Method-pressure relationship Yes, IT with model of multiple linear regression GR, CY, ES, FR, SI with LUSI or organic matter Typology No types in Mediterranean Dataset OK Benchmarking No benchmark standardization needed (IT and SI data excluded from analysis: not OK ) IC Option Option 3a Results M-AMBI is not comparable with other methods Old version of calculation sheets used BOPA H/G and AMBI G/M had to be adjusted (too relaxed)

37. GR BENTIX – no diversity CY BENTIX – no diversity ES MEDOCC – no diversity ES BOPA – no diversity FR AMBI – no relationship SI MAMBI - diversity IT MAMBI - diversity

38. 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)

39. 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 No but quite complete C strategy species - colonists, as a proportion of total abundan- ce of Dinofla- gellates; N of microflagel- lates+Eugle- nophyceae+ Cyanophyceae /total N Total abundance (cells/l) Index Menhinick, Index Sheldon No Total biomass, chlorophyll ”a”, Values are seasonal in order to reflect the great seasonal variability of phytoplankton development. Average metric scores Romania No but quite complete Same as Bulgaria Total abundance (cells/l) Same as Bulgaria No Biomass (mg/m3), chlorophyll ”a” Values also seasonal Average metric scores COASTAL WATERS - Black Sea GIG Phytoplankton: compliance checking normative definitions WFD coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure Not validated against pressure – justification is being prepared

40. 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 taxaDiversity Combination rule of metrics BulgariaYes Fresh weight biomass EI: 2 sensitivity classes (or 5 according to new EI?) 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 “one out – all out” principle RomaniaNo Fresh weight biomass? ?NoNot provided Not validated in the Black Sea Pressure data are being gathered RO wants to adopt the same as BU

41. Member State Full BQE method Taxonomic composition Abundance a Disturbance sensitive taxa Diversity Bio- mass Taxa indicative of pollution Combina- tion rule of metrics BulgariaYes 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 RomaniaYes 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 COASTAL WATERS - Black Sea GIG Benthic invertebrate fauna: compliance checking normative definitions WFD coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure Not validated in the Black Sea No replication in RO