DRAFT

Intercalibration of methods to evaluate river EQ using fishNiels Jepsen, JRC & Didier Pont, Cemagref

Content of the Report

Background and purpose

General results and conclusions

Common Approach at the European level using ICMs

Comparison between national methods and ICM-EQR

Annex I: Description of the Common Database

Annex II: Report from the Alpine Group

Annex III: Report from the Atlantic Group

Annex IV: Report from the Carpathian Group

Annex V: Report from the Lowland Group

Annex VI: Report from the Mediterranean Group

Annex VII: Report from the Midland Group

Annex VIII: Report from the Nordic Group

Working groups since October

More than 20 MS have been participating

Currently 13 different methods, 6 are official

Several under development/approval

No official ICM, but EFI+ may be used

Why the delay?

High / Good Boundary Good / Moderate Boundary

CountryNational

EQRICM-EQR

NationalEQR

ICM-EQR

BWLUX-IBIP 1.079 1.109 0.868 0.975

CZ-FI 1.328 0.987 0.996 0.784

FR-FBI 1.064 0.978 0.933 0.865

LT-LFI 1.123 0.991 0.860 0.775

NL-FI 1.258 1.332 0.943 1.059

SE-VIX 1.236 1.081 0.770 0.870

High/Good and Good/Moderate ecological classes boundaries from the different national methods and their correspondence with the ICM-EQR.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

AT17

BF1

BW24

FN4

FR222

IR7

LT7

LUX2

PL6

RO3

SE5

SK5

SL5

SP-C25

SP-N47

I C

M

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

AT17

BF1

BW24

FN4

FR222

IR7

LT7

LUX2

PL6

RO3

SE5

SK5

SL5

SP-C25

SP-N47

I C

M

Comparability of reference sites ?

 Austria -

FIA Austria - EFIGermany -

FIBS Germany - EFIFrance -

FBI France - EFISlovenia -

EFI

High-Good 0,88 1,19 0,85 1,03 1,04 1,39 1,49

Good-Moderate 0,63 0,80 0,47 0,69 0,94 0,94 1,00

Boundary-setting from the Alpine Group

correlation of FIA with other methods

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

AT FIBS DE FIBS SLO FIBS AT EFI DE EFI SLO EFI AT FBI SLO FBI

origin of data and methods

co

rrela

tio

n R

²

321

Hydrological_degree

0,6

0,4

0,2

95

% C

IVIX_index_value

FIFI_score

321

Morphological_degree

0,6

0,4

0,2

95

% C

I

VIX_index_value

FIFI_score

1. The pilot exercise did not produce common boundaries between any national methods, but the first results demonstrated main problems and weaknesses of the methods.

2. One of the main problems was the lack of well-defined criteria used for selecting reference sites. It is necessary that each MS decide how they will select reference sites. If there are no such sites to be found, they must decide how to overcome this problem.

3. Available ICM are correlated with 7 of the 12 methods.

4. In general there is agreement on the sampling methods and the vast majority of sampling is done using electrofishing according to the CEN-standards.

5. Several national methods are still under development and will be ready within short time.

6. A well-developed and tested ICM would be an important asset for the intercalibration of the quite different national methods. EFI did not perform well!

Main results

• Methods are available and national boundaries can be established and intercalibrated

• More data is needed

• Clear common/comparable criteria for reference conditions

• A better response to certain pressures is expected/needed

• Still limited to relatively small rivers, mainly due to lack of reference sites and appropriate methods in large rivers

Main tasks:

• Final list of (common?) reference criteria

• Reference sites selection (~ 30-50 per country/region). Comparison between countries.

• All data (including Regional groups) centralised in one common database.

• Comparison between National Methods within Regional groups.

• Pre-classification of pressures: recommended but not an obligation.

• Evaluation and Testing of a new set of common metrics.

• Harmonising H/G and G/M class boundaries between MS.

Time-Table

October 2007: Official confirmation of the mandate by ECOSTAT/JRC. Reformation of regional groups, inclusion of countries with new national methods. Drafting of workplans for the groups. (MEETING).

January 2008: Final list of Reference sites. Comparison of Reference sites between countries. Definition of the methodology, agreement on a common approach. (MEETING).

July 2008: Reporting of Regional Groups. New ICM’s. 1-2 meetings:

June 2009: Final Report: boundaries setting

The river fish IC group asks for

2 more years and

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$