1. Test data exchange to support development of a biological indicators in rivers and lakes Anne Lyche Solheim and Jannicke Moe, NIVA EEA European Topic Centre on Water EIONET meeting 20-21 October 2009, Copenhagen

2. Outline of presentation Objective and process Overview of replies (countries, water bodies, stations) Data compilation and analyses Results Conclusions and way forward

3. Objective: Why biology now? Current indicators only indicate pressures on water bodies Biological indicators provide info on impacts of the pressures Added value relative to what is already reported to Commission: –Provide status for each Biological Quality Element –Enable trend analyses (long-term) on numerical scale through normalisation of EQRs Example of improvement: –change from EQR=0,45 to EQR=0,55 show approaches towards good status objective (EQR>0.6), although WB is still within the same class (moderate status) Example of degradation: –change from EQR=0,75 to EQR=0,65 show increasing risk of failing good status (EQR>0.6), although WB is still within the same class (good status)

4. Calculation of normalised EQR values In order to allow comparison of biological data between countries, EEA/ETC has transformed the reported national EQR values to normalised EQR values. Ref: DG Environment Calculated by countries Calculated by EEA/ETC H/GG/MM/PP/B

5. Process for test data exercise: Step-wise approach to test feasibility Requested data from countries (test data flow), June-Aug. Quality check and data analysis of the received data, Sept. Presented results of data analysis to Ecostat, Oct. 2009 for comments Present results of data analysis to Eionet in Oct. 2009 for comments If agreement can be achieved on the way forward, establish a WISE-SoE data flow for aquatic biology in 2010 or 2011.

6. Freshwater test data exercise: What data is requested for rivers and lakes? Benthic macroinvertebrates in rivers Phytoplankton in lakes Macrophytes in lakes

7. Parameter specifications Reporting sheets specifying parameters and methods of aggregation are included in the WISE SoE guidance –For full report see: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet- circle/water/library?l=/wise_reporting_2009&vm=detailed&sb=Titlehttp://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet- circle/water/library?l=/wise_reporting_2009&vm=detailed&sb=Title Requested information for representative stations in selected water bodies –National EQR values for each BQE for 2007 and 2008, if available; –National reference values and EQR class boundaries for each BQE; –Other data for phytoplankton and macrophytes, according to reporting sheets (chlorophyll, % Cyanobacteria, lower growing depth, % Isoetids or Charaphytes) Supporting background information –Name of the metric used –Station info to allow links to pressure data and map production –Type of water body (national type and most similar IC type) –Some methodological details to aid interpretation If station information is already reported to EEA, then it is not necessary to report this information again –We need correct National Station ID in order to access this information from EEA

8. Standardised format for data reporting: Template: xls-file with 3 separate tables Biology data table Method and class boundaries (reported only once and if changed) Station and water body info (reported only once and if changed)

9. Overview of data reported 32 500 biological values from 8300 stations in 16 countries !!! Spain Cyprus Ireland Norway Romania Estonia France Lithuania UK Finland Belgium Netherlands Denmark Sweden Austria Slovakia

10. Overview of data reported: Benthic invertebrates in rivers Ca. 5000 water bodies in 16 countries

11. Overview of data reported: Phytoplankton in lakes Ca. 1000 water bodies in 13 countries

12. Overview of data reported: Macrophytes in lakes Ca. 500 water bodies in 8 countries

13. Data compilation Biology table National Station ID Metric Biology Value (EQR) etc. Station table National Station ID Waterbody ID Waterbody type Longitude, Latitude etc. Type-specific class boundaries table Metric biology Waterbody type Reference condition H/G boundary G/M boundary etc. New EEA database: biological data from test reporting Calculation of normalised EQR Station table National Station ID Waterbody info RBD info etc. EEA WISE-SoE databases Pressure table National Station ID Land-use info etc. Nutrients table National Station ID NO3, Total P, PO4 etc. Show Ecological status for each BQE

14. Data compilation: obstacles ProblemConsequence Class boundaries or ref. cond. and status class missing Cannot use results to show status class nor to calculate normalised EQR Class boundaries or ref. cond. missing or given for original metric (not for EQR) Cannot calculate normalised EQR Non-matching links between tables - Biological metric - Waterbody type - NationalStationID Cannot calculate normalised EQR NationalStationID is not unique for each station Wrong links between stations and biology values, non-sense results NationalStationID is different from previously reported to EEA Cannot link biological data with information in WISE-SoE Waterbody info is missingCannot aggregate results to WB level Various errors in data, f.ex. longitude/latitude mixed up or wrong unit Must make corrections or ask data providers for more information Class boundaries given for national waterbody types (instead of IC types) Results not comparable to other countries Non-intercallibrated metrics reportedResults not comparable to other countries

15. Data analyses Calculate normalised EQR for each BQE and each station Biological data per BQE compiled and linked to WISE databases Station-level map: Status class for each BQE Can also use WB level (WB id missing for 10% of stations) Country-level map: Proportion of stations per status class plotted as pie charts for each BQE Average normalised EQR for each country for all high/good stations and for < good stations Country-level bar plot: Plot average normalised EQR for each BQE for high/good stations and for < good stations

16. Macroinvertebrates in rivers: Ecological status per station Some stations have unknown status class: Missing status class, EQR values and/or class boundaries (DK, ES) Some results may not be comparable: HMWB (NL) Acidification metrics (SE, UK-SC) Other non-intercalibrated metrics

17. Majority of stations shows high or good status Is this real or are stations not representative? Macroinvertebrates in rivers: Ecological status summarised per country

18. * Metrics and boundaries in agreement with IC results (ref. JRC-EEWAI) Macroinvertebrates in rivers: Normalised EQR per country

19. Phytoplankton in lakes: Ecological status per station Some stations have unknown status class: Missing EQR values and/or class boundaries (DK) Some results may not be comparable: HMWB (NL) Non-intercalibrated metric

20. Phytoplankton in lakes: Ecological status summarised per country Majority of stations shows high or good status Is this real or are stations not representative?

21. * Metrics and boundaries in agreement with IC results (ref. JRC-EEWAI) Phytoplankton in lakes: Normalised EQR per country

22. Macrophytes in lakes: Ecological status per station Some stations have unknown status class: Missing EQR values and/or class boundaries (ES, LT, SE) Some results may not be comparable: HMWB (NL) Non-intercalibrated metric

23. Macrophytes in lakes: Ecological status summarised per country Majority of stations shows high or good status Is this real or are stations not representative?

24. * Metrics and boundaries in agreement with IC results (ref. JRC-EEWAI) Macrophytes in lakes: Normalised EQR per country

25. Conclusions: Promising results Comprehensive submission of data: 32500 values from 8300 stations and 16 countries Data enables assessment of impacts of human pressures (emissions) and water quality as shown by chemical indicators on different ecosystem components, incl. Biodiversity Clear potential for future trend analysis showing impact of WFD programme of measures Synergies with the Intercalibration work by revealing problems of translating IC results into national systems Ecostat support further development of biodata reporting

26. Conclusions : Caution needed More time needed to solve the issues related to: –Geographic coverage (missing countries: DE, PL, IT) –Comparability of metrics, boundaries and types of water bodies –Representativity of stations and aggregation methods, links to stations used for chemical indicator reporting and to WFD surveillance monitoring programmes –Coherence with WFD reporting of status in RBMPs? Testing needed –Feedback to countries on data quality: QA needed Test data should not be published due to these shortcomings Need for additional biological indicator: Phytobenthos in rivers to show impact of eutrophication of rivers

27. Way forward in 10 points 1.Feedback from ETC to countries on quality of test data 2.Comparison of test data results with WFD RBMPs results for the same WBs 3.Need to decide on stations or WB reporting and on frequency, annual or less 4.Updated guidance on representativity of stations or WBs needed 5.Develop reporting sheet for phytobenthos in rivers 6.Revise template for data reporting to clarify request for reference values, class boundaries, water types, metrics 7.Encourage more countries to participate in next data request (DE, PL, IT + several smaller countries) 8.Continued collaboration with Ecostat/JRC/GIGs to ensure comparability of metrics and correct interpretation of data 9.Organise a new test data request using revised template in autumn 2010 10.Start regular priority data flow in 2011

28. Thank you for your attention and support !