1. Methods Compliance Checking Which methods can be included in the final intercalibration results?

2. Introduction (1) Methods check is an essential first step of the intercalibration process GIGs need to know which methods can be intercalibrated now (exclusion of methods will directly influence the results) All GIGs have checked national methods against agreed criteria listed in the Guidance IC guidance asks GIGs to come to a common view, but they are reluctant to take decisions (especially excluding specific national methods) Some emerging common problems ask for a common solution

3. Introduction (2) Decisions on what is acceptable to be intercalibrated and what is not is not purely scientific/technical – need for more clarity on the expectations from the Commission IC process guidance states that problems not solved within the GIGs are brought to ECOSTAT Aim to get a common ECOSTAT view on how to proceed, taking into account Commission expectations

4. Discussion Document Room document distributed prepared by the IC steering group at JRC Summary of common issues Detailed overview by water category and BQE Recommendations in the document are proposals by the IC steering group Issues in the document will be presented and discussed with the aim to get a common ECOSTAT view wherever possible

5. General issue 1: not all aspects of a BQE are covered Examples of missing aspects: age structure (fish), diversity, bloom metrics, bacterial tufts, abundance (macrophytes) Proposed conclusion Missing aspects are acceptable, if there is a convincing scientific explanation that is agreed within the GIG If this is not provided, the method should not be included in the intercalibration results More detailed discussion/conclusions for each specific case: is the explanation convincing? Is there agreement within the GIG? There is a need for clarity if further development is expected in the MS, based on a scientific evaluation of the added value of the missing aspects

6. General issue 2: use of chlorophyll as single metric for phytoplankton In IC round 1, chlorophyll concentrations were provisionally accepted as single metric for phytoplankton; some MS propose this again Most IC groups now intercalibrate methods with a more complete cover of the BQE There is ample scientific evidence of the added value of the other metrics Proposed conclusion It is not acceptable to use chlorophyll as a single metric for the phytoplankton BQE (unless a strong justification is given that other metrics are not applicable in the specific case)

7. General issue 3: methods for which no response to pressure is demonstrated There are methods proposed for intercalibration where no (or a very weak) pressure/impact relationship was demonstrated It is proposed not to accept national methods for intercalibration, unless it is made plausible that they respond to pressure, and to insist that the IC groups provide this information It is proposed to accept cases where response to pressure was demonstrated for a common metric rather then for national methods, provided that correlations between national and common methods are sufficiently high and that the common metric is applied to a data set representative of the respective MS

8. General issue 4: national methods that are still not finalized IC process guidance: compliance check done by April 2010, revised/updated October 2010 March 2011: still many methods that are not finalized even now It is not possible to complete IC if national methods are not fixed! It is proposed to carry out the intercalibration with the methods that are on the table now, and not to accept any further changes unless there is a clear agreement within the GIG that this possible without causing unacceptable delays

9. Rivers- Fish fauna WFD - composition, abundance, disturbance sensitive species, age structure; All MS – composition, abundance, disturbance sensitive species; Age structure: not included or substituted by size structure metrics Broad consensus: difficult to use age structure due to lack of knowledge how pressures affect it Recommendation: to include fish-based methods also not considering age structure Question: are MS expected to include age structure in the future?

10. Lake - Fish fauna All MS – composition and abundance; Age structure: not included / substituted Broad consensus: age structure is of minor suitability in the fish-based assessment systems Recommendation: to include fish-based methods also if age structure is not included (or included only indirectly) Only few MS have developed relationships The conclusion - that highly correlated pressure-impact relationships can not be expected for fish in lakes A suitable measure of assessment quality: a reaction of the total assessment result to the combined intensity of all pressures, using expert’s judgment

11. GIG Taxo- nomic composi- tion Abundance Distur- bance sensitive taxa Method tested against pressure NEA 9 methods 9 9 (usually relative) 8 4 fully + 1 partially MED Sea 3 methods 3 3 (relative) 3 1 TRANSITIONAL WATERS Fish It is suggested that methods that only include relative abundance could be included in IC. It is suggested that methods that only include relative abundance could be included in IC. The non or partly validated methods could be included in the IC only if they relate well with a validated common metric The non or partly validated methods could be included in the IC only if they relate well with a validated common metric

12. Rivers- Benthic Invertebrates WFD - composition, abundance, sensitive taxa, diversity All MS – composition, abundance, and sensitivity indices; Round 1: WFD compliant commom metric was used. GIGs justified acceptance of MS methods not fulfilling all criteria (in many cases absence of diversity) by a high correlation with the common metric Round 1: pressure/impact relationships provided for the common metric, not for all MS methods. Justified by high correlation Round 2: The same justification is given for some new/updated methods Recommendation: to accept the procedures outlined above also for Round 2, provided that it is clearly documented in the report

13. Lakes – Benthic invertebrates WFD - composition, abundance, sensitive taxa and level of diversity All MS – composition and sensitivity indices; Diversity – not included in 6 systems Abundance - included as rel.ab., not included – in 2 systems Data analyses show that diversity or abundance metrics would not improve the methods response to pressure or discrimination of status; Recommendation: to include benthic invertebrate methods also if diversity / abundance is not covered Inclusion of such methods should be supported by the data analyses

14. GIG Full BQE method Taxo- nomic composi- tion Abundance Distur- bance sensitive taxa Diver- sity Biomass Taxa indicative of pollution Method tested against pressure Baltic Sea GIG 6 of 8 MS 1 (DE) of 8 MS Absolute (DE) or weighted (4 MS) or relative (DK), 7 of 8 MS 7 of 8 MS EE 7 of 8 MS 6 of 7 MS NEA GIG 10 MS + NO BE Absolute or relative 10 MS + NO 9 MS + NO 10 MS + NO BE10 MS + NO Most methods – check needed Mediter- ranean Sea GIG 2 of 7 MS 0 of 7 MS Relative 6 of 7 MS 2 of 7 MS (x)6 of 7 MS Coverage of moderate? Black Sea GIG 2 MS0 of 2 MS Relative 2 MS (x)2 MSNo COASTAL WATERS Benthic invertebrate fauna: compliance checking normative definitions WFD coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure PL lacking EE ? EE not MT lacking LT not

15. Coastal – Benthic invertebrate fauna WFD - diversity, abundance, sensitive taxa, composition and taxa indicative of pollution; 21 of 27 methods cover required parameters; Broad consensus: abundance is assessed as relative abundance for the majority of the methods, especially in MED GIG, NEA GIG and Black Sea 1 case in Baltic with biomass instead of abundance In MED GIG 5 of 7 methods exclude diversity Recommendation: - to include EE method - to include only methods that are validated (has to include moderate class as well) - only Greece has provided requested graphs, to exclude other methods without better info

16. GIG Taxo-nomic composi- tion Abundance Distur- bance sensitive taxa Taxa indicative of pollution Diversiity Method tested against pressure NEA GIG 12 methods 12 (mostly as groups of different sensitivity) 12 (mostly relative)12 117 (1 in CW) MED GIG 8 methods 7 (mostly as groups of different sensitivity) 8 (relative)7677 TRANSITIONAL WATERS Benthic invertebrate fauna Most methods seem compliant in a sensu lato approach and there is no agreement on the GIG level for not including metrics on some parameters. Most methods seem compliant in a sensu lato approach and there is no agreement on the GIG level for not including metrics on some parameters. Andalusia that only assesses the relative abundance of two taxa (BO2A) argues that diversity is needless as it either shows no correlation with some pressure indicators (N & OM) or shows a weak correlation (weaker than the BO2A) with other pressure indicators (P). Andalusia that only assesses the relative abundance of two taxa (BO2A) argues that diversity is needless as it either shows no correlation with some pressure indicators (N & OM) or shows a weak correlation (weaker than the BO2A) with other pressure indicators (P). Greece that has a validated method based on size spectra but not including taxonomic composition and abundance is willing to use the more compliant m-AMBI but claims that is tested with Greek data and there is no relationship with pressures. Greece that has a validated method based on size spectra but not including taxonomic composition and abundance is willing to use the more compliant m-AMBI but claims that is tested with Greek data and there is no relationship with pressures.

17. Most methods cover taxonomic composition sensu lato, sometimes in a much reduced way. It is recommended to include them. The argument of not including diversity seems plausible and it is suggested that methods that do not include diversity could be included in IC if they do not cause feasibility problems for the comparison with the rest of the methods. Non validated methods and the one that is validated only in coastal waters could be included in the IC only if they relate well with a validated common metric

18. Lake – Phytoplankton WFD – taxonomic composition and abundance, biomass, frequency and intensity of algal blooms All MS – biomass measures and composition indices Composition – not only in 1 system (last news – changing) Bloom metrics – 6 MS, others – not included or included indirectly GIGs- different opinions, ALP – no blooms, CB, EC – covering blooms, NOR, MED – considering bloom metrics Recommendations: If only biomass metrics are included - it is proposed not to accept this without a strong scientific justification; If bloom metrics are not included : It is recommended that MS re-consider inclusion of a bloom metrics and/or provide sound arguments to support an opposite opinion

19. GIG Full BQE method Taxo- nomic composi- tion Abundance Diver- sity Frequency and intensity of algal blooms Biomass Method tested against pressure Baltic Sea GIG No for all MS + DE E part Yes for DE W part 1 (DE) of 8 MS 0 of 8 MS(x) 0 of 8 MS 8 MS chl a, Total biomass 6 or 7 MS (DK not, FI pending) Yes for chl a but not type specific! Yes for DE method NEA GIG Yes for UK No for 9 of 10 MS + NO 1 (UK) of 10 MS + NO 5 of 10 MS for blooms + 3 MS for 1 species, 2 MS (SE, DK) +NO not at all (x) 5 of 10 MS + 3 MS for 1 species, 2 MS (SE, DK) + NO not 10 MS + NO; SE + biovolume NO + cell carbon Against risk assessment Mediter- ranean Sea GIG No for all 7 MS 0 of 7 MS 1 (FR) of 7 MS for blooms (x)1 of 7 MS 6 of 7 MS + HR Yes for chl a + blooms FR (not finalized) Black Sea GIG Yes for BU No for RO 1 (BU) of 2 MS 1 (BU) of 2 MS Yes for BU 0 of 2 MS 2 of 2 MS Chl a + total biomass No COASTAL WATERS Phytoplankton: compliance checking normative definitions WFD coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure MT lacking

20. Coastal - Phytoplankton WFD - composition, abundance, frequency and intensity of algal blooms and biomass; All MS – biomass through chlorophyll a; Majority (8 of 10) in NEA GIG assesses blooms 3 examples methods of 3 different GIGs including composition MED GIG only chlorophyll a (except FR) – no added value of blooms (stated by ES) Baltic GIG only chlorophyll a + almost all total biomass Justifications do not reflect a consensus Recommendation: - to include only methods that have been validated - to improve scientific documentation for exclusion of abundance and bloom parameters

21. Summer chla versus winter-spring TN mean concentrations for 37 different sites. Solid line shows the estimated relationship averaged over all sites, and dotted lines show relationship with the lowest factor (Dybsø Fjord) and the highest factor (Ringkøbing Fjord before change of sluice practice). DK: Relationship between total phytoplankton biovolume and TN based on data since 1998 from 22 Danish sites Chlorophyll a Biovolume Similar scientific results are used to support the argumentation to include one parameter on the one hand but exclude another potential parameter on the other hand.

22. DK: Biovolume of euglenophytes versus TN at 22 different sites Figure DE 2: Relation between specific phytoplankton indices and TN concentration. Summer means May- September (n = 209) MSs should ask themselves if they can really define the G/M boundary with sufficient reliability before excluding any other parameter Explained by MS as too much scatter in the full salinity zone, but focused on one salinity zone (as for another MS) may give better relationship

23. GIG Taxonomic composition Abundance Frequency and intensity of algal blooms Biomass Method tested against pressure Baltic Sea GIG 2 methods 000 22 NEA GIG 9 methods 3 369 5 (mostly against risk assessment) MED GIG 4 methods 321 43 TRANSITIONAL WATERS - Phytoplankton Since compliance differs between MS and although the arguments provided by some MS seem plausible the little documentation provided makes the inclusion of several methods in IC questionable. It is recommended not to include non compliant methods unless further documentation is provided. It is recommended to include non validated or validated with risk index methods in IC only if they relate well with a validated common metric.

24. Rivers- Macrophytes WFD requires taxonomic composition and abundance No major problems with MS methods to cover the WFD requirements Pressure/impact relationships not provided in the milestone reports Recommend only to accept methods if macrophyte groups document the sensitivity to pressure in their reports

25. Rivers- Phytobenthos WFD requires metrics for taxonomic composition and abundance, undesirable disturbances, bacterial tufts All MS methods are very similar, focus on composition and abundance of diatoms Undesirable disturbances and bacterial tufts not included Occur only at moderate status or worse Recommend to accept the justifications of the IC groups

26. Lake – Macrophytes All MS – macrophyte composition metrics Macrophyte abundance – no consensus between MS/ GIGs: Abundance included (13: colonization depth 9, cover 7) No abundance included (ca 7: presence data or %) Response relationships ca half– not tested or not reported Dominant opinion - also of BQE leaders /GIG leaders - for inclusion of abundance Macrophyte abundance – key factor in shallow lakes To concede that relative abundance is a de facto measure of abundance would be to undermine core principles of the WFD,,,,,,, relative abundance only tells you how biomass is apportioned between the taxa that are present, not how much biomass is present and so on

27. Lake – Macrophytes Recommendations Methods should report pressure-response relationships (not enough to say that we have tested) If methods do not include abundance – strong arguments linked to the data Methods in development – include abundance metrics

28. Lakes – Phytobenthos

29. Composition of phytobenthic taxa, average phytobenthic abundance. Ca 7 MS – composition of phytobenthic taxa Ca 7 MS – considered phytobenthic abundance Recommendations from the IC Guidance – and the outcome : Those MS are asked to demonstrate that the impacts of the existing pressures are being sufficiently detected by macrophyte component So far done only by Austria if a MS hasn't phytobenthos metric, in most cases it will not have the data ! The outcome: general arguments (“there is no added value to include phytobenthos because almost all lakes do have macrophyte vegetation”) - is it a satisfactory answer ?

30. Lakes – Phytobenthos Recommendations: If MS don’t use phytobenthos – to provide arguments based on the data If not possible by single MS: To demonstrate across a GIG: GIG should be enough data / literature to make a reasoned argument; the decision to include phytobenthos metrics - up to the MS For those systems “in development” : It is recommended that MS re-consider inclusion of phytobenthos metrics in future

31. COASTAL WATERS Macroalgae - seagrasses: compliance checking normative definitions WFD coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure GIG Full BQE method Abundance (Cover) Disturbance sensitive taxa Diver- sity Method tested against pressure Baltic Sea GIG 4 of 8 MS 5 (DK, DE, SE, PL, EE) of 8 MS 4 (DK, DE, PL, EE) of 8 MS (x) DE: BALCOSIS, EE DK macroalgae cover, eelgrass FI, LT: 1 species depth limit FI, LT: 1 species, SE: # species depth limit DE: ELBO not yet FI, LT, PL, SE Mediter- ranean Sea GIG 6 of 7 MS Macroalgal relative cover GR, SI, CY Total cover: ES, FR, IT + HR Seagrasses ES, FR, IT, CY + HR 6 of 7 MS Macroalgae rocky GR, SI, CY, ES, FR, IT + HR Seagrasses ES, FR, IT, CY + HR (x) Macroalgae GR, ES, IT, FR, SI Seagrasses ES, FR Macroalgae CY, HR? Seagrasses IT, CY, HR? Seagrasses GR Black Sea GIG Yes for BU No for RO BU ? (x) No RO ? LV lacking MT lacking

32. Biological Quality Element Full BQE method Abundance (cover) Disturbance sensitive taxa Diversity Method tested against pressure Intertidal Macroalgae 6 of 6 MS NO not? 6 of 6 MS (UK, IE only for blooming species) 6 of 6 MS + NO (x) 6 of 7 MS (not DE) ES NO in NEA1/26 Blooming not in NO, ES UK, IE, DE, FR, PT Intertidal Seagrasses 5 of 5 MS NO not? 5 MS: UK, IE, NL, DE, FR (x) UK, IE, DE, NL, FR NO Subtidal Macroalgae in NEA 8/9/10, not in NEA1/26 1 (DK) of 3 MS NO, SE depth limit 9 species, DK total cover DK (x) DK: No. of perennials DK NO, SE ? Subtidal Seagrasses in NEA 8/9/10, not in NEA1/26 0 of 3 MS ? DK DK, NO, SE depth limit 1 species? (x) DK NO, SE?NO, SE Saltmarshes (DE, NL, UK, IE) 4 of 4 MS (x)No Macroalgae - seagrasses: compliance checking normative definitions WFD coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure COASTAL WATERS NEA GIG Not DK, SE, NO in NEA 8/9/10 Not BE, NL, DK in NEA 1/26 Not DK, SE, NO in NEA 8/9/10 Not ES, PT in NEA 1/26

33. Coastal – Macroalgae - seagrasses WFD - abundance or cover and disturbance sensitive taxa; Combined assessment in Baltic and Black Sea - 4 of 7 methods compliant in Baltic (of which 1 not validated) - methods in Black Sea not validated – only relative cover – sufficient assessment seagrasses? Seagrass and saltmarsh assessment: parameters covered in MED GIG and NEA GIG – in latter not validated Macroalgal assessment: only relative cover for 1 method in MED GIG – 2 subtidal methods only depth limit of species – only 4 of 11 methods validated

34. Coastal – Macroalgae - seagrasses Recommendation: - to include only methods that have been validated - to include methods with relative abundance only if they correlate well with a common metric (including all required parameters)

35. Clear illustrations of method validation graphs Baltic Sea GIG MED GIG (Although poor is lacking and better put depen- dent variable on X-axis for Baltic example)

36. GIG Taxonomic composition Abundance Method tested against pressure NEA 4/4 4 methods 0 4 but only for opportunistic green macroalgae No TRANSITIONAL WATERS Macroalgae The lack of taxonomic composition, validation and written documentation makes all methods questionable. It is suggested to include them in IC only if they provide written documentation justifying WFD compliance and sensitivity to pressures (even related to a validated common metric).

37. GIG Taxonomic composition AbundanceMethod tested against pressure NEA 4/4 13 methods (6 for saltmarshes & 7 for seagrasses) 13 2 TRANSITIONAL WATERS Angiosperms: coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure Taxonomic composition is most frequently assessed as vegetation zones or by attributing a sensitivity score to each species. Taxonomic composition is most frequently assessed as vegetation zones or by attributing a sensitivity score to each species. Abundance of selected species is most frequently assessed and not total abundance. Abundance of selected species is most frequently assessed and not total abundance. Applying a sensu stricto approach it can be considered that all methods are compliant. Applying a sensu stricto approach it can be considered that all methods are compliant. It suggested that only validated methods (even indirectly with a validated common metric) should be included in IC. It suggested that only validated methods (even indirectly with a validated common metric) should be included in IC.

38. GIG Taxonomic composition AbundanceMethod tested against pressure MED 3 methods 33 (in 2 relative) 2 TRANSITIONAL WATERS Macrolagae & Angiosperms: coverage of required parameters & validation against pressure Macroalgae & Angiosperms are separate BQEs in TW: Taxonomic composition and abundance should be assessed separately for macroalgae and Angiosperms. The one out all out principle should apply. Agreement in the MED GIG to assess together macroalgae and Angiosperms. In Mediterranean coastal lagoons Angiosperms do not grow under degraded condition. In degraded conditions macroalgae dominate. The shift from Angiosperms to macroalgae with increasing eutrophication is documented in several publications. Thus a separate assessment of Angiosperms could not cover the whole quality gradient.

39. Although there is no clear justification demonstrating that there is no difference if the one-out-all-out principle is applied or not the scientific evidence for combining macroalgae and Angiosperms in coastal lagoons seems strong. Although there is no clear justification demonstrating that there is no difference if the one-out-all-out principle is applied or not the scientific evidence for combining macroalgae and Angiosperms in coastal lagoons seems strong. Provided the combination of macroalgae and seagrasses would be accepted, there is still a problem with the lack of assessment of total coverage in 2 methods. Provided the combination of macroalgae and seagrasses would be accepted, there is still a problem with the lack of assessment of total coverage in 2 methods. There is evidence that most methods detect pressures and they follow common and scientifically established assessment concepts and is thus suggested to include them in IC. There is evidence that most methods detect pressures and they follow common and scientifically established assessment concepts and is thus suggested to include them in IC. For the non validated one it is suggested to try to validate it with a common metric in order to be considered in IC. For the non validated one it is suggested to try to validate it with a common metric in order to be considered in IC.