1. Working Group A ECOSTAT River GIG results Wouter van de Bund Vaida Olsauskyte Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability

2. Sep 06 Jun 07 Jun 07 (pilot) Jun 06 NO CB ALP MED EC Macro-invertebr.
Phytoben-thos
Macrophytes
Fish NO
Sep 06
Jun 07
Jun 07 (pilot) CB
ALP
Jun 06
Not relevant
MED EC

3. Overview results agreed July 2006 results finalised Sept 2006
Alpine GIG – macroinvertebrates
results finalised Sept 2006
All (other) GIGs - macroinvertebrates
results to be finalised 2007
Phytobenthos and macrophytes

4. Alpine – benthic macroinvertebrates
draft Decision Annex: Types and Countries
Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
River characterisation
Catchment area (of stretch)
Altitude and geomorphology
Alkalinity
Flow regime
R-A1
Small to medium, high altitude calcareous
km2
m (catchment), boulders/cobble
high (but not extremely high) alkalinity
R-A2
Small to medium, high altitude, siliceous
m (max. altitude of catchment 3000m, mean 1500m), boulders
Non-calcareous (granite, metamorphic). medium to low alkalinity
nival-glacial flow regime
Countries participating in the intercalibration
Type R-A1: Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Slovenia
Type R-A2: Austria, France, Italy, Spain

5. Alpine – benthic macroinvertebrates
draft Decision Annex: National Methods
Country
Assessment Method
Austria
Multimetric Indices for General Degradation, Saprobic Index
France
IBGN Indice Biologique Global Normalisé, (Norme AFNOR NF T , 1992).
Germany
Handbuch zur Untersuchung und Bewertung von Fließgewässern auf der Basis des Makrozoobenthos vor dem Hintergrund der EG-WRRL, April 2005
Slovenia
Multimetric index, Saprobic Index
Spain
IBMWP-Iberian BMWP, IASPT

6. Alpine – benthic macroinvertebrates
draft Decision Annex: Results
Type and country
Ecological Quality Ratios for the national classification systems
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Type R-A1
Austria
0,80
0,60
France
0,93
0,79
Germany
Slovenia
Type R-A2
France (Alps)
0,71
France (Pyrenees)
0,94
0,81
Spain
0,83
0,53

7. Alpine – benthic macroinvertebrates
Draft Technical Report:
Milestone 6 report as presented in July 2006 with minor editorial changes

8. Alpine – comparison results
Figure 1: Boundary values high/good and good/moderate at the ICMi scale +/- 95% confidence limits.
Values are taken from the regression between the EQR values of the national method and the EQR
values from the ICMi method. The band indicates an „acceptable range of variation" and consist of the
median of the boundary values of all member states +/- ¼ of the median status class width of
all member states.

9. Alpine – benthic macroinvertebrates
Discussion issues:
Italian boundaries not included (IBE method not officially accepted national method)
France announced a (minor) boundary change to take into account results of other GIGs
ECOSTAT acceptance of Alpine GIG results in draft Decision Annex and Technical report?

10. Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates
Status of the report:
Milestone report with comparison results and harmonisation requirements sent simultaneously to ECOSTAT and GIG
MS comments deadline 9 October

11. Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates
Methodology (presented in detail at July meeting)
Comparison of boundaries using ICMi
Both type-specific and generic approach were tested; GIG proposes to use the latter
Quality checks for MS datasets and classification methods
Acceptable range: average +/- 5% of accepted MS values

12. Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates
Figure 2.3: Flow diagram to demonstrate the CBGIG rivers comparison and harmonisation procedure.

13. Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates

14. Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebratesMS
EQR_MS HG
EQR_MS GM
EQR_ICMi HG
EQR_ ICMi GM
band
0.93
0.76
benchmark
0.95
0.79 AT
0.80
0.60
0.72
BE-W
0.97
0.74
0.73 DE
0.88
0.78 ES
0.82 FR
0.91 UK
0.86
0.92 IT
0.96 LU
0.94
0.71 IE
0.85
0.75 LT NL
0.68
0.77 PL
0.89 SE
1.00
0.70
0.87
BE-F
0.58 CZ DK EE
Key
Included the calculation of the harmonisation band
Not included in the calculation of the harmonisation band

15. Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates
BE-W DE ES FR UK IT LU IE LT NL PL SE
BE-F CZ DK EE
MS included in comparison
and calculation of
harmonisation band
MS included in comparison
only:
- No national method (LT, SE, CZ)
Problems with the provided data
Problems with reference conditions

16. Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates
Comparison results: HG Boundary

17. Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates
Comparison results: GM Boundary

18. Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates
The results of the comparison based on an all types combined approach using a single regression per MS indicate that for HG the following countries fall within the harmonisation band and are therefore not required to harmonize: AT, BE-W, DE, ES, FR, UK, IT, LU, IE, LT, NL, PL, CZ, EE.
The following countries lie outside the HG harmonisation band: SE, BE-F, DK.
The results of the comparison based on all types combined indicate that for GM the following countries fall within the harmonisation band and do not need to harmonize: AT, BE-W, DE, FR, UK, IT, NL, PL, CZ, DK, LU.
The following countries lie outside the GM harmonisation band: ES, IE, LT, SE, BE-F, EE.

19. Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates
Questions:
LT, NL, PL, SE, BE-F, CZ, DK, EE are not included in the harmonisation calculations
Report does not indicate the reasons
No national method
Data quality criteria not met
Problems with reference conditions and boundary setting
What are the consequences for those MS?
What will MS outside the agreed range do?

20. Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates
AT, BE-W, DE, UK, IT, LU – OK
ES, IE – outside GM boundary range
FR – outside HG boundary range
LT – no official method, outside GM range
NL – different RC approach (accepted by GIG), low correlation,
boundaries OK
PL, CZ – no official method, boundaries OK
SE – no official method, both boundaries outside range
BE-F – different RC approach (not accepted by GIG?), boundaries very low
DK – different RC approach, outside HG boundary range
EE – no official method, outside GM boundary range

21. Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates
Open issues identified by CB GIG:
No reference sites in some countries according to GIG criteria
Not all MS have official methods
Types with no existing reference sites (e.g. large rivers) not included – other approaches needed
Issue of reference conditions needs to be properly addressed in the future

22. Central/Baltic – benthic macroinvertebrates
Does ECOSTAT approve the results?
Which MS boundaries go into the Decision Annex?

23. Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates
Two separate reports:
Acidification  work in progress, no boundary setting yet
Organic/nutrients  boundary setting completed

24. Northern – benthic macroinvertebratesFI - X IE NO SE UK

25. Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates
Methodology comparable to CB GIG:
Comparison of boundaries using ICMi
Both type-by-type and combined all-type approach
Acceptable range: average +/- 5% of accepted MS boundaries (as ICMi)
Two different methods to calculate ICMi boundaries

26. Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates
Method 1:
The HG (GM) boundary for each MS within each type is calculated as the half-way point between the average ICMi value for the adjacent status classes of High (Good) and Good (Moderate).
Method 2:
For comparison with CBGIG a second boundary method is used that simply compares the boundaries taken directly from the regression lines.

27. Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates
All comparisons indicate that harmonisation is not required at the +/-5% tolerance level indicated above. All MSs are within the +/-5% band for individual NGIG river types and for all types combined.

28. Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates
Method 1 – all types - HG

29. Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates
Method 1 – all types - GM

30. Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates
Method 2– all types

31. Northern – benthic macroinvertebratesMS
National Boundary ICMi
ICMi, mean of all MSs
(range ± 5 %)
Method of comparison
H/G FI
0,95
0,92 (0,87 – 0,97)
Method 2 SE
0,93 UK
0,90 IE
0,92
0,95 (0,90 – 1,0)
Method 1 NO
0,96
G/M
0,74
0,78 (0,72 – 0,82)
0,75
0,81
0,79 (0,74 – 0,84)
0,80

32. Northern – benthic macroinvertebrates
Discussion issues
Is it necessary to maintain the diversity of approaches:
Method 1 and Method 2 for boundary calculation
Type-by-type and all types combined?
Accept proposed boundary values?

33. Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates
Type
River
characteristics
Cyprus
France
Greece
Italy
Portugal
Spain
R-M1
Small
mid-altitude Y
R-M2
Medium
lowland
R-M4
Medit mountains
R-M5
Temporary, small

34. Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates

35. Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates
Common criteria for reference conditions
Boundary setting following common procedure (‘REFCOND approach’):
The H/G boundary is set as the 25th percentile of the reference samples and the gradient from the H/G boundary to the lower value (zero) is divided into 4 equal width classes.
Different boundary setting approach proposed by Spain
“No further harmonisation needed with this approach”

36. Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates
R-M1: Boundaries
Boundaries
France
IBGN (1)
ICM (2)
Greece
Italy
Portugal
Spain
STAR
benchmark
GUADALMED
High-Good:
ICM7 quantitative
0.81
0.90
0.948
0.806
0.91
0.92
ICM9 qualitative
0.86
0.99
1.00
0.974
0.798
0.95
0.80
STAR index
0.83
0.93
0.894
0.966
0.843
0.94
0.89
Good/Moderate:
0.75
0.68
0.711
0.575
0.69
0.79
0.74
0.750
0.731
0.569
0.67
0.73
0.60
0.76
0.70
0.670
0.724
0.600
0.71
(1): The national classification (EQR IBGN) is transformed in each EQR ICM values. REFCOND Method used on IBGN values
(2): The REFCOND classification applied on each ICM is transformed in equivalent EQR IBGN values for each ICM

37. Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates
R-M2 Boundaries following the REFCOND method.
Boundaries
Italy
Portugal
Spain
GUADALMED benchmark
High - Good
ICM7 quantitative
0.892
0.793
0.92
ICM9 qualitative
0.944
0.695
0.97
0.80
STAR index
0.908
0.723
0.94
0.95
Good-Moderate
0.669
0.565
0.69
0.708
0.496
0.73
0.60
0.681
0.515
0.72

38. Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates
R-M4: Boundaries following the REFCOND method.
Boundaries
Cyprus
Greece
Italy
Spain
GUADALMED benchmark
High - Good
ICM7 quantitative
0.946
0.951
0.92
0.87
ICM9 qualitative
0.934
0.809
0.914
0.94
0.82
STAR index
0.972
0.975
0.938
0.88
Good-Moderate
0.709
0.713
0.69
0.65
0.700
0.606
0.685
0.70
0.62
0.729
0.731
0.703
0.66

39. Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates
. R-M5: Boundaries following the REFCOND method.
Boundaries
Italy
Portugal
Spain
GUADALMED benchmark
High-Good
ICM10 quantitative
0.953
0.852
0.86
0.89
ICM11 qualitative
0.976
0.831
0.82
0.95
STAR index
0.977
0.938
0.88
0.93
Good-Moderate
0.715
0.607
0.65
0.67
0.732
0.592
0.62
0.72
0.729
0.668
0.69
0.70

40. Mediterranean – benthic macroinvertebrates
Discussion issues
How should the results be interpreted? GIG report does not clearly report MS boundary values
Is the approach accepted by ECOSTAT
Is it possible to finalise this work with so few national methods?

41. E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates Participating countries
IC type
Participating countries
R-E1
CZ, SK, HU, RO
R-E2
RO, SK, HU
R-E3
BG, HU
R-E4
AT, HU, SK, RO
R-E6
AT, SK, HU, RO, BG

42. E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates
country
name
category
WFD compliant
Austria1
Slovak System for Ecological River Status Assessment
Multimetric Index
yes
Slovak Republic1
Austrian System for Ecological River Status Assessment
Czech Republic
Czech Saprobic Index following Zelinka & Marvan (1961)
Saprobic Index no
Hungary
Hungarian Average Score Per Taxon
Biotic Index
Romania
Romanian Saprobic Index following Pantle & Buck (1955)
Bulgaria
Bulgarian Biotic Index for River Quality Assessment (Q-Scheme)

43. E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates
Real reference sites lacking –> alternative approach using agreed criteria for H/G status sites
Boundary setting by applying GIG agreed criteria to MS data sets
Now completed for SK (RE1, RE2, RE4) and AT (RE4)

44. E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates

45. E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates

46. E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates

47. E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates
Work on RC6 (Danube river) still ongoing:
No agreed national methods  only comparison of existing, non-compliant methods
EC GIG plans to continue work after the current IC exercise focusing on
Danube river (JDS2)
Including methods from all MS when finalised
Involving all countries in the Danube river basin

48. E. Continental – benthic macroinvertebrates
Discussion issues:
Should the current results be included in the technical report/Decision annex?
Are further results expected by spring 2007?

49. CB GIG: Macrophytes Updates Milestone report Meeting October 2006
Separate macrophyte report following Technical Report template
Contents are the same as reported for July ECOSTAT
Meeting October 2006
Results expected June (?) 2007

50. Northern GIG: Mediterranean GIG: Alpine GIG: EC GIG: Macrophytes
Work in planning stage – no results reported yet
Mediterranean GIG:
No concrete plans to date
Alpine GIG:
Macrophytes not relevant
EC GIG:
Not addressed in this intercalibration

51. Discussion issues: Macrophytes
Will it be possible for the CB, Northern, and Med GIGs to complete macrophyte intercalibration spring 2007 (as previously announced)?
Is the CB approach applicable for Northern/Med GIGs?
 Further discussions: River expert meeting 4-5 December

52. CB GIG: Phytobenthos Work in progress Milestone report
Separate macrophyte report following Technical Report template
Agreement on approach, common metric
First results of comparison are included
Expected to be completed spring 2007

53. Phytobenthos
CB GIG Preliminary results – HG boundary

54. Phytobenthos
CB GIG Preliminary results – GM boundary

55. Northern GIG: Mediterranean GIG: Alpine GIG: EC GIG: Phytobenthos
No concrete plans reported
Mediterranean GIG:
Alpine GIG:
M6 report: start September 2006, follow CB approach
EC GIG:
Not addressed in this intercalibration

56. Discussion issues: Phytobenthos
Will it be possible for the CB, Alpine, Northern, and Med GIGs to complete phytobenthos intercalibration spring 2007 (as previously announced)?
Is the CB approach applicable for Alpine/Northern/Med GIGs?
 Further discussions: River expert meeting 4-5 December

57. Invitations will be sent out next week
All-GIG Rivers Expert Network meeting
JRC, Ispra, Italy
4-5 December 2006
Invitations will be sent out next week