1 / 24

EEB review of intercalibration: Interim Report

EEB review of intercalibration: Interim Report. Jeremy Biggs European Environmental Bureau (EEB). Aim of review. To help ensure that the Intercalibration is: • Understandable • Transparent • Ultimately successful. Thank you!.

jeannetterodriquez
Download Presentation

EEB review of intercalibration: Interim Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EEB review of intercalibration: Interim Report Jeremy Biggs European Environmental Bureau (EEB)

  2. Aim of review To help ensure that the Intercalibration is: • Understandable • Transparent • Ultimately successful.

  3. Thank you! • Thanks to all the people who have helped with the review by making information accessible • We welcome the high standard of openness and transparency achieved by many GIGs. • We are impressed by the high technical standard of the work, especially: - work on reference conditions - care taken to define boundaries

  4. Approach • Focused on rivers and lakes - Central Baltic lakes GIG - Central Baltic rivers GIG - Mediterranean rivers GIG - Mediterranean lakes GIG • Other GIGs have been considered in less detail

  5. Work undertaken Three main areas to mention today: • The availability and adequacy of data for typing water bodies • The procedures for establishment of reference conditions • The boundary setting process, particularly the extent to which the normative definitions are met

  6. Reporting The reporting timetable is: • Draft final report 7th August 2006 • Circulation to GIGs for comment: 3 weeks • Final report will be published at the beginning of October.

  7. Availability of data Typing data and pressure data REFCOND guidance notes that: • “A database including, at the least, values of the obligatory factors for relevant water bodies is a pre-requisite for differentiation of water body types;” • Pressure data needed to ensure that reference sites are chosen following REFCOND guidance

  8. Typing data • Typing data include: - location information - variables used to decide the waterbody type: (altitude, alkalinity, catchment size, depth (lakes), width (rivers). • Availability of typing data is important - ensures waterbodies are placed in the correct type (don’t compare small acid lake with large alkaline lake: very different biology). • Examples for review - Central Baltic lakes GIG - Central Baltic rivers GIG

  9. Typing data: Central Baltic rivers >85% data posted 1-85% data posted 0% of data posted No data required Member States participating in each river type River type

  10. Typing data: Central Baltic lakes >85% data posted 1-85% data posted 0% of data posted Member States participating in each river type River type

  11. Pressure data: quantitative information • Needed for REFCOND-based reference site selection process - Rivers: more difficult to collect data, so MSs have completed questionnaire - Lakes: proportion available on CIRCA

  12. Lakes with ≥90% REFCOND natural landuse • Access to pressure data allows reference sites to be screened more effectively For example: Do reference lakes have ≥90% natural landuse? Answer: Yes Lake GIG Percentage of reference sites with natural landuse (≥ 90% CORINE) Central Baltic 60% Alpine 80% Atlantic 80% 100% Does it matter? Possibly

  13. Relationships between natural landuse and Total Phosphorus in reference lake sites • Access to pressure data allows reference sites to be screened more easily Alpine lakes GIG Atlantic lakes GIG Spearman’s r = -0.78; P<0.05 Total Phosphorus concentration Total Phosphorus concentration Spearman’s r = 0.41; P<0.05 Landcover -----> Agriculture Landcover -----> Natural Proportion of non-intensive CORINE landcover (Forest + Peat + Natural) in reference site catchments (%) Proportion of Agriculture + Intensive CORINE landcover in reference site catchments (%)

  14. Central Baltic - Total Phosphorus and landuse in reference lake sites CB3 • ‘Agriculture’ is very low intensity, or lakes isolated CB1 Total Phosphorus concentration Proportion of agriculture and urban landuse in catchment

  15. Public availability of data Lakes

  16. Public availability of data Rivers

  17. Normative definitions • How much does High status deviate from reference condition? • How well do proposed boundaries of Good status fit with the normative definition of slight change?

  18. Definition of High status High status should show no or very small deviation from undisturbed type specific condition. More precisely, for macroinvertebrates: • No difference in ratio of disturbance sensitive to insensitive taxa • No sign of alteration of invertebrate diversity from undisturbed level • Taxonomic composition and abundance corresponds totally or nearly totally to undisturbed conditions. Summary: taxonomic composition and abundance may differ slightly but sensitive taxa and diversity must not.

  19. Definition of High status • Compared actual results with WFD/REFCOND definitions Member State metric EQR Ref High Ref High High significantly below Reference No significant difference between Reference and High, but data look skewed

  20. High status: a slight deviation from reference? EQRs of ICMi metrics: ASPT, EPT and Number of families ASPT EPT N_Families EQR of ICMi metric P<0.05 P<0.01 P<0.05 Ref High Ref High Ref High High = No change in proportion of sensitive taxa, number of taxa usually in range of reference sites

  21. Conclusion on definition of High status • Somesuggestion that sites identified as High status are not fully compliant with the normative definition. • Shows benefits of open process – if things need modification, better to do it now rather than later

  22. Good status Good status is a slight deviation from reference conditions. Lakes - chlorophyll and macrophytes: • High/good and good/moderate boundaries can be based on biotic causal relationships and step-changes • Can be specified in terms of effect of chlorophyll a on light penetration, growth of submerged water plants Rivers - macroinvertebrates: • Less obvious what to base boundaries on: no step changes • Countries often use 25%-iles as a statistical convenience • However….need to conform to the legal definition i.e. that Good status is a slight deviation from reference conditions (not a statistical definition)

  23. The key question • The key question for defining Good status is: “what is slight”? • No definition of slight – guidance is comparatively non-specific, problematic where there are no step changes • Most people (scientists and non-scientists) say slight is ‘about 10%’ change. To provide an objective basis, degree of numerical change associated with use of ‘slight’ in the scientific literature • Median value of ‘slight’ change is rather similar: 12.5% Conclusion Change from reference of up to 25% is quite a lot more than is consistent with the term ‘slight’ as defined by common use and the scientific literature.

  24. Conclusion: many good achievements, some details to be completed Openness and quality of the process • Data and information are widely available. • Access provided to data will give a high degree of transparency. • People very willing to discuss technical issues • Work is of a high technical standard Organisation of intercalibration • GIGs have progressed remarkably • Shows that GIG concept is a good model for this kind of work • Management of such a diverse range of people and organisations is a very considerable achievement.

More Related