Intercalibration of Biological Assessment Methods Remaining Open Issues and Proposed Way

Intercalibration of biological assessment methods – remaining open issues and proposed way forward

Discussion document for ECOSTAT meeting 20-21October 2016, Fort Kijkduin, the Netherlands

Authors: Sandra Poikane, Wouter van de Bund, Fuensanta Salas (JRC)

The remaining gaps in the intercalibration of ecological assessment methods need to be filled by 2016. This document provides an overview of the remaining open issues. The way forward for filling these gaps are given.

The document has two parts: (1) GIG –level Intercalibration; (2) MS-level Intercalibration (when the GIG has finalised the work, MS have to intercalibrate their methods themselves).

This is the version updated based on the last-minute updates from the MS and the GIGs.

18 October, 2016

1. GIG-level work

Most of the GIGs have finalised their work and results have been published in a recent European Commission Decision on the Intercalibration (EC 2013). However, there are still many gaps which need to be closed (see below the current situation - September 2016).

For River GIGs:

-Results provided in the Northern river macrophytes and Very large rivers benthic invertebrates;

-Work is ongoing in the Very large rivers phytoplankton and fish groups;

-Situation unclear with the Very large river macrophyte group.

RIVERS and VERY LARGE RIVERS

Very large riverPhytobenthos:

• Results provided in the “intercalibration of new or revised ecological assessment methods according to finalised intercalibration results of the XGIG (type R-L2)” : BE-FL, BG, CR, ES, FR, IT, PT, RO;
• Results already in the EC Decision for : AT, CZ, DE, EE, FI, HU, NL, SE, SI, SK;
• Not participating: GR, LV, LT, NO, PL ?

For Lake IGs:

-Results provided in the CB Fish, Northern Fish (only 2 countries SE and NO) and Eastern Continental phytoplankton groups, positive evaluation from the IC review panel;

-Work is ongoing in the Eastern Continental macrophyte and Benthic fauna groups.

LAKES

For Coastal and Transitional GiGs:

• Results provided in 19 IC groups;
• Work is ongoing in the NEA TW phytoplankton, NEA CWTW saltmarshes and BC6 phytoplankton groups;
• PL has not participated in the BC5 IC groups;
• FR has not participated in the TW IC fish group. In the case of NEA TW has provided data for the common data base, it has not developed a method.
• ES has not participated in the TW IC groups (coastal common types)

• PT has not participated in the NEA IC CWTW opportunist macroalgae group.

COASTAL WATERS

TRANSITIONAL WATERS

2. MS-level Intercalibration

Most of the ecological assessment methods have been intercalibrated and included in the Intercalibration Decision (EC 2013). Still, there is a considerable number of methods not intercalibrated (or included in the IC Decision Annex 2, asking for repeated Intercalibration process).

These gaps have to be filled by 2016. In order to achieve this, the IC reports (from the GIGs or Member States) have to be:

• Submitted to the Intercalibration steering group by 1st July 2016 latest (preferably 1st January 2016 or as soon as possible);
• Reviewed by the IC review panel (in cases if no problems, reviews can be omitted);
• Presented at ECOSTAT meetings and agreed by ECOSTAT working group.

Several remaining IC gaps were discussed. These gaps include:

• Gap 1: Many methods are included in current GIG work. The GIG has to submit the finalised IC report by 1 July 2016 at the latest.

• Gap 2: Methods not included in current GIG work. In this case, the MS has to IC their method according to the IC manual (Guidance No. 30). This should be reported by July 2016.

• Gap 3: Methods where the IC exercise is not possible. MS has to provide a description of the method and evaluate WFD compliance and clarify why IC is not possible. This report should be submitted to JRC by July 2016.

• Gap 4: In the case where a method has not been developed, justification explaining why the development of a method was not feasible needs to be provided. These justifications have to be discussed and agreed by the GIG and should be submitted by July 2016.

Explanation of the overview tables:

Lakes

• There are several groups where the Intercalibration work is ongoing and the results are expected in 2016: Eastern Continental Lakes Macrophytes and Benthic fauna (BG, HU, RO);
• 17 reports have been submitted – mostly from FR, GR, IT, LV, LT;
• Several are accepted : LT lake phytobenthos method; as well as LV phytoplankton and DK fish method;
• For all others reviews / revisions according to reviews are ongoing;
• There are still several gaps: Croatia, Denmark, Spain.

Table 1. Overview of the lake ecological assessment methods

* BE-FL fish lake method participated in the CB GIG Intercalibration but it was not possible to intercalibrate due to lack of relationship with pressure index; working to find the solution

Rivers

Lakes

•There are no groups where the Intercalibration work is ongoing (Northern macrophyte work has been finalised and is under review)

• 22 reports have bene submitted – BG, CZ, GR, IT, LV, LT, NL, PL

-8 are accepted,for all others reviews / revisions according to reviews are ongoing;

•There are still several gaps: Croatia, Denmark, Spain, Romania.

Table 2. Overview of the river ecological assessment methods

Coastal waters

• There are groups where the IC is ongoing (NEA CW saltmarshes);
• All MS: Intercalibration of BQE phytoplankton is only focused on the Harmonization of Chl-a boundaries (experts have provided justification for it);
• 27 IC reports have been provided; 2 are under review
• 5methods could be intercalibrated individually in the future.

Table 4. Overview of the coastal ecological assessment methods

Transitional Waters

• There are groups where the IC is ongoing (NEA TW saltmarshes, NEA TW benthic invertebrates, NEA TW phytoplankton) ;
• 14 IC reports have been provided; 7 are under review
• 3 methods could be intercalibrated individually in the future

Table 5. Overview of the Transitional waters ecological assessment methods