Why are we reviewing reference conditions in intercalibration?

1. Reference Conditions Cross-GIG Group Report on consistency in reference criteria applicationIC steering group

2. Why are we reviewing reference conditions in intercalibration? • The RC review work is an essential part of intercalibration • The need for consistency checking and recommendations for improving reference concepts was mandated by ECOSTAT • The new draft IC guidance requires consistent reference setting across all GIG QE groups.

3. Summary of the RC WG work • Checking consistency of reference condition setting in Phase 1 Intercalibration; evaluation of threshold values used for selecting reference sites in IC Phase 1 [2009-10, completed] • Future development of concepts/approaches [2010-11]

4. Summary of the RC WG work: Checking consistency of Reference Condition setting in Phase 1 • Report “Revision of the consistency in Reference Criteria application in the phase 1 of the European Intercalibration exercise” • Prepared by RC group • Covering all water categories • Report was distributed to ECOSTAT as final draft • To be published as JRC technical report spring 2010

5. Checking consistency of reference condition setting in Phase 1 • Do the GIGs have agreed reference criteria? • How did MS assess compliance with these criteria? • Based on existing GIG information (all categories) • Do the pressure data associated with current reference sites demonstrate consistency with agreed criteria? • Based on additional information requested from Member States (Lakes and Rivers)

6. Outline of this presentation • Consistency analysis Rivers (WvdB) • Consistency analysis Lakes (SP) • Consistency analysis Coastal/Transitional (WB)

7. Rivers

8. RIVERS - approaches

9. River fish– RC approach • Common database with pressure and biological data • Defined criteria applied to common databases - ‘undisturbed sites’ • MS defined ‘reference sites’ using national criteria • IC reference sites should be both ‘undisturbed sites’ and national ‘reference sites’

10. River macrophytes IC • High variability in ‘reference sites’ • Common notion of natural reference communities (expert judgment) • needs to be validated • RC derived from benchmark data set covering degradation gradient

11. River phytobenthos– recommendations on RC • Reference sites selection criteria need to be validated and published • Testing IC typology priority • Common format for collecting key environmental data needed

12. River invertebrates IC – application of RC criteria • Common approach across GIGs (except EC): MS check sites against 42 REFCOND criteria • Differences in application: • Choice of criteria (not all were used) • Detail in answers • Yes/No (AL, NO) • Measured vs. field inspection vs. expert judgment vs. other criteria

13. Rivers invertebrate IC - differences in application of criteria between GIGs

14. Rivers invertebrate IC - comparability of pressure information • Point sources, diffuse sources: mostly ‘measured’, but much missing info

15. Rivers invertebrate IC - comparability of pressure information • Morphological alterations: information mainly at reach scale, missing at basin scale

16. Application of agreed reference/rejection thresholds • Do reference sites meet agreed numerical criteria • Was not checked in ‘round 1’ • Data request to MS April 2009 • Data collected from 13 MS – analysis based on incomplete information

17. Present situation on data request to Member States

18. Present situation on data request to Member States: Reference sites request UK, Spain: delivered data, but are not on the map

19. REF SITES Present situation on request to Member States for data from reference sites Problem #1: Data completeness • Drivers/Pressures 50% 30%

20. Artificial land use: many ‘reference sites’ exceed the rejection threshold!

21. Intensive agriculture land use: most ‘reference sites’ below reference thresholds

22. Present situation on request to Member States for data from reference sites Problem #2: Water chemistry: More spot values than mean values SPOT > MEAN > MEDIAN > 90% > 70%

23. Mean nitrate values: large differences between MS; missing data

24. Spot measure nitrate values: more data – but difficult to use because thresholds are defined as mean values…

25. River invertebrates – checking of suitability of the criteria • Looking for no-impact-thresholds using pressure and biological data • Currently not enough data to come to firm conclusions • RC group intends to continue working on this – further data expected

26. Lakes  Sandra

27. LAKES • How Reference conditions were set ?Approaches, criteria,,,, • How criteria were applied ? Checking and comparisonofpressure data

28. LAKES Common concept of reference lakes Screening based on common datasets Pressure criteria for screening Impact criteria for confirming Broadly following REFCOND But – different approaches / criteria

29. Summary on approaches • Northern and Mediterranean GIGs – criteria not harmonized within the GIG • In many cases not possible to quantify stressor criteria (e.g., land use in Finland) • not all REFCOND criteria used • not considered important for eutrophication • lack of data/information in the central databases • Both pressure data and in-lake nutrient data were used for selection of reference lakes • GIGs used different criteria/ approaches - no guarantee for comparable reference conditions across Europe;

30. Consistency analysis - LAKES • Collection of pressure data • Reference lakes from IC phase 1 • 427 lakes, 19 MS • Land use data 385 lakes • Population data 272 lakes

31. Natural land use

32. Population density

33. TP values • What is more important: landuse or TP values ? • ,, probably TP !

34. Nordic Low/similar TP 4-8 mg TP/l Alpine Low/similar TP 4-8 mg TP/l TP values - comparison

35. Central-Baltic – variable TP between MS TP values - comparison

36. Different strategies – different outcomes • Nordic reference lakes • low artificial land cover (95th percentile 0.46%) and intense agriculture (95th percentile 0.13%) • high share of natural and semi natural land cover (median value 94.1%), mostly corresponding to reference criteria; • Low and coherent TP values

37. Different strategies – different outcomes • Alpine reference lakes • highly variable land use pattern, frequently exceeding reference thresholds • Alpine median value of natural landcover 80 %, while ref threshold 80-90%; • Low and coherent TP values • TP used for selection of reference lakes based on paleodata, modelling, historical data

38. Different strategies – different outcomes • Central Baltic reference lakes • highly variable land use pattern, frequently exceeding reference thresholds • median value of natural land cover only 70%,while ref threshold 90% • VariableTP values within type between MS

39. Reference criteria ? • What is the right tool to select reference lakes – pressure data or TP ?

40. Chl-a – % natural land in reference lakes The only sign difference between 50-60 and 60-70% The only sign difference between 50-60 and 60-70% No relationship in range 60-100% natural land use No significant difference between groups

41. 1. Land use 2. Nutrient ‘production‘ in the catchment area Natural run-off Diffuse point sources (agriculture) Point sources (industry, inhabitants, …) Retention Reduction Export 3. Nutrient load into the lake Loading model (Vollenweider …) 4. Nutrient concentration in the lake Good data availability Use as proxy forland use 5. Phytoplankton abundance / taxonomic composition

42. Summary – Reference Lakes • Common concept but slightly different approaches • Gaps of information and harmonisation • Need to develope common framework • Lack of reference lakes in many regions of Europe • Not always a clear link between pressure criteria (e.g. land use) and in-lake nutrient levels • Nutrient levels can be used as a proxy of eutrophication pressure • Still this approach has to be used with a caution, including a well-grounded setting of reference TP levels

43. COASTAL/TRANSITIONAL  Wendy

44. COAST – approachesgeneral overview

45. Summary on reference conditions in the GIGs Phytoplankton • Baltic Sea GIG: Eutrophication is the only pressure assessed for all BQEs • No current reference sites but historical measurements of secchi depth available (expert judgment and modeling) • Chlorophyll a biomass: • 2 approaches: reference concentration based on relationship between Secchi depth - TN – chl a (DK, FI, EE) or relationship between hind-casted nitrogen inputs - TN - chl a (DE), SE and PO compared both approaches • Secchi depth DK: 1925 – 1934 • FI: 1903 - 1959 • PO: summer 6 m • SE: 10 m for Baltic propper, adjusted for coastal areas • TN reference DE: 10 μM • SE: 15.3 μM

46. Summary on reference conditions in the GIGs Phytoplankton • NEA GIG: Chlorophyll a biomass • Type 1/26a: Reference sites in Ireland, UK, France (1992-2006) and Spain • Type 1/26b North Sea: boundary G/M and H/G has been defined by expert judgment, modeling, literature • UK: expert judgment H/G boundary 10 μg/l based on offshore measurements • NL: measurements 70ies – relation freshwater runoff estimates – UK and DE • BE: average diatom pre-bloom biomass and Phaeocystis biomass • FR: based on offshore measurements 1992 - 2006 • Type 1/26e: reference sites / current measurements for ES and PT • Mediterranean Sea GIG • Chlorophyll a biomass: expert judgment on measurements at reference (high status) sites of monitoring programmes (for 3 of 4 types) • Black Sea GIG • BU: Phytoplankton biomass: historical biovolume data of relatively pristine period (1954-1970) and 1983-2005 (10th and 25th percentile), related to measurements of chl a (1990-2006) • RO: Phytoplankton biomass: historical biovolume data of relatively pristine period (1960-1970) and 1986-1997

47. Conclusions Phytoplankton • Often lacking for compliance/consistency check: • Mentioning time periods of measurements/description of dataset used for derivation of reference conditions • Description on choice of reference sites where applied (some info from WFD Art.5 pressure analysis !?) • Explanation on levels of difference between Ref, H/G and G/M boundary in relation to provisions of OSPAR – HELCOM • Illustration of relationships with physico-chemical parameters like nutrients (was well described in Baltic, 1-1 relationship is not possible) • Relationship between hind-casted estimates of nitrogen inputs – TN – chlorophyll a should be a wider applied approach (link with reference nutrient concentrations in rivers possible ?)

48. Comparison OSPAR COMPP = the Comprehensive Procedure and the Water Framework Directive Assessment levels are based on a justified area-specific % deviation from background levels not exceeding 50%.

49. Summary on reference conditions in the GIGs Macroalgae • NEA-GIG • 1st phase: not all the metrics that make up MS’ schemes can be intercalibrated, not possible to produce EQRs for the whole quality element. Boundaries have been agreed for the selected metrics • No current reference sites • Assessed for pressure morphological alteration • Type 1/26a: biological reference = expert judgement on maximum possible values of species richness and percentage of green / red / opportunistic – sensitive algae + characteristic species (ES) • Intertidal rocky shore algae (only ES also subtidal) • Type NEA 8,9,10: reference depth limit for 9 selected macroalgae species based on historical data (not allowing good statistical treatment) with expert judgment and modelling • Subtidal rocky shore algae

50. Macroalgae • Mediterranean Sea GIG • EEI (Greece, Cyprus, Slovenia) and CARLIT (Spain, France, Italy) includes relative abundance/cover and disturbance sensitive metrics. No description included, only references. • EEI: ESGI and ESGII percentages = disturbance sensitive metric • CARLIT: spatial evaluation of communities (disturbance sensitive or not) • Macroalgae community described from reference sites (marine reserves) intercalibrating EEI and CARLIT • Littoral and upper sublittoral rocky shore algae • BENTHOS ICCM in Option 2 • Most difficult composition part was done very well • Relationship with pressure illustrated for Greece and Spain (water quality, nutriens N and P, urban gradient)