Baltic Sea GIG. Description of types that have been intercalibrated Type Salinity psu ExposureDepthIce daysOther Characteristics CW B00.5- 3Shelteredshallow.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
HELCOM Seal management in the Baltic. HELCOM Contracting parties: Denmark EC Estonia Finland Germany Latvia Lithuania Poland Russia Sweden.
Advertisements

Planning and Management in the Baltic Sea Region with Land Information from EO – BALANS – Birgitta Olsson,
Baltic Sea Research Institute Warnemünde iow iow Ecological consequences of different nutrient abatement strategies for.
Sari Pikkala, ÅA Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark: Women (%) elected in the last 4 municipal elections Other countries in Baltic Sea Region (data.
Intercalibration of assessment systems for the WFD: Aims, achievements and further challenges Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute.
Longitude/Latitude Prime Meridian/Equator Oceans Tropics Continents
Eastern Europe: Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia,
Pilot Project: BSR Co-operation of the Road of War and Peace History Tourism Route Aapo Jumppanen The University of Helsinki Ruralia Institute.
Legal aspects of the marine environment protection and oil transportation: example of the Baltic Sea.
EEA 2012 State of water assessments Ecological and chemical status and pressures Peter Kristensen Project manager – Integrated Water Assessments, EEA Based.
Baltic Operational Oceanographic System (BOOS) Erik Buch Centre for Ocean and Ice.
Directive 95/50/EC TDG Checks Application of Annexes Erkki Laakso EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG ENERGY & TRANSPORT TDG Checks Riga June 2006.
EUROPE.
Journey to European Countries Virtual Field Trip.
“ The Baltic Sea ecosystem – threats and challenges ” Al’ona Shulika Kyiv Taras Shevchenko National University Department of Hydrology and Hydroecology.
Map - Region 3 Europe.
Fridtjof Nansen Institute O zaštiti osobito osjetljivih europskih mora i potrebi regionalne suradnje u Jadranskome moru Dr. Davor Vidas Director,
Finland’s neighbouring countries. - The Republic of Finland is one of the Nordic countries. - The Nordic countries, sometimes also the Nordic region,
Finished IC No finished IC Typology. BT1 (PL-LT): PL and LT currently do not pass compliance check - Both countries state, their system is still under.
Lakes Intercalibration Results - July 2006 Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Working Group A ECOSTAT Intercalibration Progress Coast GIGs JRC, Ispra, Italy, March 2005 Dave Jowett, Environment Agency (England and Wales), Coast.
20 YEARS OF COOPERATION IN THE BALTIC SEA REGION: Participation of Saint-Petersburg in the development and implementation of programs and projects Saint-Petersburg.
Characteristic and management. 1. In Scandinavian Countries :  Cool Continental Climate  Temperate Continental Climate 2. In Central– Western Countries.
The Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS)
NE ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP (NEA GIG)
ECOSTAT, Bristol Hotel, Brussels,
REFCOND EU Water Framework Directive project funded by the European Commission DG Environment Included in the EU Water Directors “Common Strategy on.
Intercalibration Results 2006
NordPlus Junior project : “Beauties of the Baltic Sea”.
WG 2A Ecological Status First results of the metadata collection for the draft intercalibration register: RIVERS.
Label on the Map Countries: Cities: Portugal 24) Rome Spain 25) Paris
WORLDWIDE ENC DATABASE WORKING GROUP (WENDWG)
Marine Strategy Framework Directive:
CW-TW Intercalibration results
CW-TW Intercalibration work progress
ECOSTAT WG 2A, JRC - Ispra (I), 7-8 July 2004
Results of the Coastal and Transitional Waters Metadata Analysis
Progress on Intercalibration COAST GIGs
Intercalibration Report on State - of - play and way forward Presented by Anna-Stiina Heiskanen Joint Research Centre The Institute for Environment.
WG 2A Ecological Status First results of the metadata collection for the draft intercalibration register 2nd meeting WG2A, 15-17/10/03.
Aerial surveillance 2013 Data reported by: Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Lithuania (no reported spills) Poland Sweden No aerial surveillance conducted.
MSFD Scoreboard Status at 23 November 2012 Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus
4-3 (4-3CORR1) HELCOM MORS Environmental data compilation 2018
Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Transposition and Implementation
Lakes - Central GIG progress report July 2004
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Intercalibration process - state of play Wouter van de Bund & Anna-Stiina Heiskanen Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment.
Pirkko Kauppila (FI), Andres Jaanus (EE) & Jakob Walve (SE)
Claire Vincent Environment and Heritage Service United Kingdom
Eastern Europe.
Working Group A ECOSTAT Summary Milestone Reports: River GIGs Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Claire Vincent Environment and Heritage Service United Kingdom
Ecostat meeting - Ispra March 2006
Cross Acceptance State of play Jan 2014 RISC.
Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit
Ecological classification using eelgrass Zostera marina as an example Jesper Andersen, National Environmental Research Institute, Denmark Thanks:
Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Status of reporting Art. 8/9/10
Update on reporting status
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
River Fish Intercalibration group ( )
Intercalibration Decision and Technical Report
Rivers X-GIG phytobenthos intercalibration
Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Status of reporting
Baltic GIG Progress report
ASSIGNING WATER BODY TYPES IN THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION Wouter van de Bund EC Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and sustainability,
River Fish Intercalibration group D. Pont,Cemagref, France)
First issue: same classification system - different boundaries (1)
Typology and Intercalibration Typology System
Baltic Sea GIG Status April 2009
Baltic Sea GIG Status Ecostat 23 April 2013
Why are we reviewing reference conditions in intercalibration?
Presentation transcript:

Baltic Sea GIG

Description of types that have been intercalibrated Type Salinity psu ExposureDepthIce daysOther Characteristics CW B Shelteredshallow  150 Sites in Botnian Bay (Northern Quark) CW B23-6Shelteredshallow> 150Sites in Bothnian Sea CW B33-6Shelteredshallow90-150Sites in the area extending from the southern Bothinian Sea to the Archipelago Sea and the western Gulf of Finland CW B126-22Shelteredshallow-Sites in the Gulf of Riga, the Southern Swedish coast and the Southeastern Baltic Sea coast along Denmark and Germany CW B136-22Exposedshallow-Sites along the coast of the Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the Polish coast and the Danish island “Bornholm” CW B ShelteredShallow-Lagoons TW B ExposedshallowTransitional water. Sites along the coast of Lithuania and Poland

Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated Type DEDKEEFILiLVPLSE CW B0XX CW B2XX CW B3XX CW B12XXXX CW B13XXXXX CW B14XX TW B 13XX

CountryAssessment Method All countriesChlorofyll a µg/l (Summer mean, May/June – September) Type and countryEcological Quality Ratios for the national classification systems Parameter values/ranges Chlorophyll a µg/l High-Good boundaryGood-Moderate boundary High-Good boundaryGood-Moderate boundary CW B0 Finland and Sweden (1.5 – 1.8)2.3 ( ) CW B2 Finland and Sweden ( ) CW B3 Eastern part CW B3 Western part ( ) (2.9 – 4.0) 1.9 CW B 12 Eastern Baltic Sea 5-8 psu Estonia CW B 12 Western Baltic Sea psu Denmark, Germany and Sweden ,2 1.3 (1.1 – 1.5) CW B 13 Denmark, Estonia and Latvia* CW B 14 Denmark TW B 13 Poland and Lithuania LV has adopted the assessment made by Estonia. The sites in Estonia and in Latvia are very similar (expert judgement). LV has not developed their own assessment system and has no data from the intercalibration site.

Type and countryEcological Quality Ratios for the national classification systems Parameter values/ranges High-Good boundary Good-Moderate boundary High/-Good boundary Good-Moderate boundary CW B0 Finland Sweden CW B2 Finland Sweden CW B3 middle Finland Sweden CW B3 outer Finland Sweden CW B 12 Denmark Sweden Germany Biological Quality ElementBenthic fauna The EQR – scales are different, but the level of protection is shown to be the same for FI and SE, DK and SE, SE and DE.

Type and country Ecological Quality Ratios for the national classification systems Parameter values/ranges Depth limit (m) Eelgrass Zostera marina High-Good boundary Good- Moderate boundary High/-Good boundary Good- Moderate boundary CW B 12 Denmark and Germany Open coast CW B 12 Denmark, and Germany Bays (8.0 – 9.4) (6.6 – 7.1) 5 (4.7 – 5) Depth limit Zostera marina

5 (4-5)7 (5-8) CW B3 All countries 56 (6-7) CW B2 All countries 45 (5-6) CW B0 All countries Good-Moderate boundary High/-Good boundary Good-Moderate boundary High-Good boundary Ecological Quality Ratios for the national classification systems BoundaryType and country MacroalgaeBiological Quality Element The EQR – scales are different, but the level of protection is shown to be the same for FI and SE, DK and SE, SE and DE