River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 3 reports

1. River Intercalibration Phase 2: Milestone 3 reports Presented by Wouter van de BundJoint Research CentreInstitute for Environment and Sustainability

2. Rivers - milestone 3 reports

3. River - milestone 3 reports • NO GIG Milestone 3 reports Macrophytes, Macroinvertebrates missing • Some information directly from GIG leads taken into account • Request to complete reports ASAP

4. Milestone 3 reports - overview and comparison with M2 • 1 - Responsibilities/Participation • 2-3 - Overview of national methods - Compliance checking • 4 - Methods feasibility check • 5 - Collection of IC data set • 6 - Reference Conditions • 7 - IC procedure and Common metrics • 8 - Boundary setting, comparison and harmonisation

5. Participation - M3

6. Participation • No big problems with participation • CB GIG phytobenthos, macroinvertebrates -- checking old results and adding new methods, groups may need to meet again

7. National Methods - M2

8. National Methods - M3

9. National methods • Invertebrates: national methods available; some new/updated methods compared to round 1 • Phytobenthos: OK • Macropytes: limited availability in MED and EC but sufficient to complete intercalibration • Fish: Some MS still lacking methods • Large rivers: mostly same methods as small rivers; only phytobenthos and probably invertebrates can be intercalibrated now • Many GIGs ‘yellow’, but sufficient methods to complete IC

10. Compliance Check - M2

11. Compliance Check - M3

12. Compliance checking • Completed or ongoing for all BQEs • Compliance level generally good: most MS have BQE level assessment methods (no problems with parameter level methods) • Information in milestone reports not very detailed - especially on national boundary setting • Re-checking of ‘round 1’ methods initiated - not all information available • Level of detail varies between GIG groups - common analysis of info from WISER questionnaire for final report could improve this

13. Feasibility Check - Typology (M2)

14. Feasibility Check - Typology (M3)

15. Feasibility check - typology • Much progress since Milestone 2 • Typology generally not an obstacle for intercalibration • Some more work needed in some groups

16. Feasibility Check - Pressures (M2)

17. Feasibility Check - Pressures (M3)

18. Feasibility check - pressures • Mostly completed and not considered a problem for intercalibration • Large rivers - focus on phytobenthos, invertebrates; methods do not focus on hydromorphological pressures

19. Feasibility Check - Assessment Concept (M2)

20. Feasibility Check - Assessment Concept (M3)

21. Feasibility check - Assessment concept • Analysis completed in most GIGs • Macrophytes CB GIG: Dutch and Flemish methods focus on growth forms, others do not --> obstacle for intercalibration • Large rivers: invertebrates: species data in most MS, family data in ES --> obstacle for intercalibration

22. Collection of IC data set (M2)

23. Collection of IC data set (M3)

24. Collection of IC data set • Data collection progress generally good • Large rivers: no pressure gradient within, only between countries • Large rivers: data set still rather small, could improve if some MS would contribute

25. Reference Conditions/Benchmarking (M2)

26. Reference Conditions/Benchmarking (M3)

27. Reference Conditions / Benchmarking • Completed only in Fish some invertebrate GIGs • Considerable progress since M2, but RC/benchmarking remains a very difficult issue -- mostly ‘yellow’ • GIGs need to conclude on this to be able to finish intercalibration! A pragmatic solution is better than no solution - but needs to be explained.

28. FISH CROSS-GIG: DATA FROM ALL MS, EXCEPT.. POLAND ITALY BG CYPRUS MALTA

29. Intercalibration Options (M3)

30. Intercalibration options • River Phytobenthos/Invertebrate groups need to use Option 2 (differences in sampling/processing) • Macrophytes, Fish: option 3 with common metrics possible (as recommended in Guidance) • Large Rivers: specific adaptations may be needed due to the nature of the data set (MS data mostly limited to a specific part of the gradient)

31. Intercalibration Common Metrics (M2)

32. Intercalibration Common Metrics (M3)

33. Intercalibration Common Metrics • Fish, Phytobenthos - common metric development successfully completed • Macroinvertebrates - common metrics developed in Phase 1, are further tested and refined in some cases; situation acidifiation group unclear • Macrophytes - work on real common metrics ongoing; can use pseudo-common metrics in any case

34. Description of boundary setting (M3)

35. Description of boundary setting • Boundary setting at national level, not at GIG level • Reporting in many cases not very detailed (see complance checking) • For final report a summary/analysis of the national approaches is needed

36. Boundary comparison and harmonisation (Guidance Annex V) • Draft Annex V procedures tested with Fish, Macrophyte data sets • Draft Annex V criteria slightly different from those applied in Round 1 (+/- 1/4 class width vs. +/- 0.05 on EQR scale) • testing with CB, ALP invertebrate show that results are OK (all MS still within harmonisation band) • Need agreed Annex V to complete the work!

37. Expected Results - mostly ‘green’ (if RC/benchmarking problem is solved)

38. Expected Results - Large Rivers

39. River intercalibration - main problems • Good progress - results expected from most BQEs • Checking Round 1 results has started - NO GIG needs to catch up • Lack of consistency in RC setting still a problem • Large rivers: focus on 2 BQEs only • Methods sensitive for HYMO pressures not sufficiently addressed