1. WG 2A Ecological Status
First results of the metadata collection for the draft intercalibration register: RIVERS

2. River IC sites (14/10) No river IC sites from: Estonia Finland Denmark
Country Number of sites
HG GM Total AT BE CY CZ DE ES FR GB IE LT LV NL NO PL PT SE SI
No river IC sites from:
Estonia
Finland
Denmark
Luxemburg
Hungary
Slovakia
Greece
Italy
Malta

3. Rivers by common IC group (14/10)

4. Rivers by common IC type (14/10)

5. Heavily modified Rivers
NL, B

6. Selection criteria Rivers

7. Northern - sites submitted 22/8

8. Northern - sites expected

9. Northern - pressures

10. Northern GIG Types Pressures Initial proposal: 8 types
enough possibilities for intercalibration
two additional types proposed
Pressures
Organic/Nutrient loading, Acidification
Pressures can be treated separately
No sites for Stream modification

11. Northern GIG Quality elements
Macroinvertebrates: sampling methods similar and comparable between countries; differences in taxonomic resolution
Phytobenthos: methods in development, scope for comparison
Fish: sampling methods not available yet

12. Recommendations Northern experts
Good possibilities for intercalibration
Need for additional data depends on the proposed intercalibration process - still unclear

13. Baltic GIG
COMBINE WITH CENTRAL

14. Central GIG

15. Central GIG Baltic GIG merged with Central
Baltic types fit into Central types, but…
alkalinity usually much higher
need to review reported alkalinity values to decide which types need to be split (in order to compare like with like)

16. Central - sites submitted 22/8

17. Central - sites expected

18. Central - data availability

19. Recommendations Central experts
Six Central types give enough possibilities for intercalibration, but need to be reviewed with regard to alkalinity
H/G boundary sites problematic for some types
data expected not only for macroinvertebrates, but for all quality elements (not from all countries), but..
DATA WILL RARELY BE COMPARABLE ENOUGH FOR INTERCALIBRATION -- RECOMMEND STANDARDISED METHOD!!

20. Alpine - sites submitted 22/8

21. Alpine - sites expected

22. Alpine - data availability

23. Recommendations Alpine experts
Two Alpine types give enough possibilities for intercalibration
Possibilities to compare Alpine with Pyrennees sites must be clarified
Pressures: organic/nutrient pressure and modification for both types
Data expected not only for macroinvertebrates, but for all quality elements (not from all countries), but..
DATA WILL RARELY BE COMPARABLE ENOUGH FOR INTERCALIBRATION -- RECOMMEND STANDARDISED METHOD!!

24. Mediterranean - sites submitted 22/8

25. Mediterranean - sites expected

26. Mediterranean river types
Mediterranean types give enough possibilities for intercalibration
Information needed from Italy, Greece, Malta
Short meetings between Med. Countries planned for information exchange/site visits (Nov. 2003, Portugal)

27. Mediterranean rivers - pressures
Organic/nutrient pressure and hydromorphological pressures need to be considered TOGETHER - supporting data will be used to support the classification

28. Mediterranean rivers - quality elements and data availability
Invertebrate data available from all countries
Problems foreseen with comparability of data:
taxonomic resolution
sampling strategy (how, where and when)
Need to agree on some degree of standardisation
Other quality elements: not available in all countries
phytobenthos: intercalibration only possible with additional data collection, i.e. in a selected type
fish, macrophytes - not enough data

29. Mediterranean rivers - general recommendations
the selection of Common Intercalibration (Biological) Metrics to be applied on national datasets is suggested. If possible, such metric should be different from the standard National methods
Most Med. countries have selected sites representing class boundaries, but comparability has not yet been discussed
Common view on class boundaries can only be developed with comparable data

30. Summary conclusions river experts (1)
Common intercalibration types good basis for intercalibration in all GIGs
Baltic GIG needs to be combined with Central GIG
General agreement on pressures and quality elements
For most countries, Intercalibration sites represent preliminary national view on class boundaries

31. Summary conclusions river experts (2)
Analysis on comparability of national views on class boundaries requires comparable biological data
Methodological differences will make it very difficult to apply national assessment methods using existing data from other countries