1 / 29

E TC Water - Marine Team Development of indicator on benthic invertebrate fauna

E TC Water - Marine Team Development of indicator on benthic invertebrate fauna. Monika Peterlin, IWRS Jørgen Nørrevang Jensen, ICES EEA European Topic Centre on Water E ionet meeting 4-5 November 200 9 , Copenhagen. Outline of presentation. Background W ater F ramework D irective

clea
Download Presentation

E TC Water - Marine Team Development of indicator on benthic invertebrate fauna

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. ETC Water - Marine TeamDevelopment of indicator on benthic invertebrate fauna Monika Peterlin, IWRS Jørgen Nørrevang Jensen, ICES EEA European Topic Centre on Water Eionet meeting 4-5November 2009, Copenhagen

  2. Outline of presentation • Background • Water Framework Directive • Test data flow • Conclusions • Discussion

  3. BackgroundEEA State of the Environment Reporting • 5-year cycle of EEA reports on State of the Environment • Data Provided by Member States and International Organizations • Indicator based reporting: • Tracks efficiency of legislation • Reports on environmental status and trends Photo from Orth e tal., 2006, BioScience 987

  4. Some currently used indicators Indicators should have reasonable pan-European data coverage, often provided by specific policy requirements.Examples are: • Bathing water quality • Nutrient and chlorophyll-a concentrations • Aquaculture production • Fishing fleet capacity • Status of marine fish stocks and catches per region • Hazardous substances in marine organisms • Oil discharges from refineries and offshore installations • Accidental oil spills from marine shipping Example of EEA indicator on fishing outside safe biological limits Valuable addition to the set of indicators: Benthic Invertebrate Fauna

  5. Why biology now? • Current indicators mostly indicate pressures on water bodies • Biological indicators provide info on impacts, i.e. the response of environment to the pressures • WFD monitoring programs require development of biological indicators • WFD Intercalibration – includes hundreds of experts and researchers from all EU 27 countries

  6. Ecological status high good moderate poor bad Water Framework Directive approach Monitoring of surface water status • Chemical status • concentrations of chemicals meet environmental quality standards Chemical Status Standards met  • Ecological Status • quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems • based on biological quality indicators Standards not met  Intercalibration process

  7. Management plans • High • Good • Moderate • Bad • Very bad Why ? Restoration measures ECOLOGICAL STATUS Response to pressures Water Framework Directive approach Definition of ecological status Quality elements for the classification of ecological status Hydromorphological elements Chemical and physico - chemical elements Biological elements = bioindicators

  8. IC - boundary setting approach examples Important step – definition of reference values

  9. One of the Boundary Setting approaches for Benthic Invertebrates AMBI (AZTI Marine Biotic Index) biotic coefficient, relating the ecological groups present in a sample to an assessment of the benthic invertebrate community (Borja et al, 2003). www.azti.es

  10. Some of the national classification methods used for BIF assessment: • Belgium: Benthic Ecosystem Quality Index (BEQI) • Netherlands: BEQI • Bulgaria: Shannon – AMBI - M-AMBI • Romania: Shannon – AMBI - M-AMBI • France: Multimetric Factorial Analysis (M-AMBI) • Germany: Multimetric Factorial Analysis (M-AMBI) • Slovenia: M-AMBI (is including the AMBI) • Spain: M-AMBI (NEA), MEDOCC index(Med) • Ireland: Infaunal Quality Index (IQI) • United Kingdom:Infaunal Quality Index (IQI) (is including the AMBI) • Norway: NQI, related to the BQI • Sweden: BQI • Portugal: Portuguese Benthic Assessment Tool (P-BAT) • Cyprus: Bentix • Denmark: Danish Quality Index (DKI) • Estonia: ZKI-index • Latvia: DK, FI or SE index

  11. Presentation of IC results / comparability Current status Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) = Ref. conditions Ecological Quality Ratio according to Annex V, 1.4.1 (i) of WFD (CIS Guidance dopcument no. 13. Overall approach to the classification of ecological status and ecological potential, EC, 2003)

  12. Calculation of normalised EQR values Comparability on Pan-EU level In order to allow comparison of biological data between countries, EEA/ETC has transformed the reported national EQR values to normalised EQR values. Calculated by countries Calculated by EEA/ETC H/G G/M M/P P/B Ref: DG Environment

  13. Biological indicators and Intercalibration Results of the 1st phase 2005/2007 Only applicble for TW waters under WFD – not developed yet

  14. BIF Test data exercise in 2009 Step-wise approach to test feasibility: • Requested data from countries (test data flow), June-Aug. • Quality check and data analysis of the received data, Sept. • Present results of data analysis to Ecostat, Oct. 2009 for comments • Present results of data analysis to Eionet in Oct./Nov. 2009 for comments

  15. Reporting sheet on Benthic Invertebrate fauna • Reporting sheet is expected to eventually be added to catalogue of WISE SoE reporting sheets. • For full report see: http://eea.eionet.europa.eu/Public/irc/eionet-circle/water/library?l=/wise_reporting_2009&vm=detailed&sb=Title • Requested information • National EQR values for benthic invertebrate fauna indexes; • National reference values and EQR class boundaries for natural CT water bodies; • Supporting background information • Name of the Index used and ref. to the method, • Methodological details to aid interpretation.

  16. Standardised format for data reporting (draft) Station info (reported only once and if changed) Station (site) biology data table Water body location and biology Method and class boundaries (reported only once)

  17. Test data reported in 2009: Benthic Invertebrate Fauna Thank you all for your cooperation!

  18. Treatment of data by EEA after reporting 1. Data were imported into ACCESS database; 2. Quality checking was done, mostly on geographical information and internal data sheet links; -The main problems encountered: • different formats of coordinates; • swopping of latitude/longitude; • templates were not completed 3. Data aggregation and presentation

  19. Test data flow 2009 ResultsMap of reported sitesCountries that have submitted data are shown in green. Number of countries reported (EU 27+NO)

  20. Preliminary results from test data flow 2009 The proportion of reported sites within each ecological status classper country

  21. Preliminary results from test data flow 2009 The proportion of reported water bodies within each ecological status classper (sub)regional sea Geographical coverage of regional seas

  22. Preliminary results from test data flow 2009 Detailed presentationofresultsClassification of reported water bodiesbased on BIF index

  23. Preliminary results from test data flow 2009 Detailed presentation of resultsTrends of the status, based on sites/time series data

  24. Basic problems for data interpretation on PanEU level • Countries have different level of data aggregation: sites vs.water bodies reporting, related to the substratum composition (softbottom, mixed, combination of soft bottom/hard bottom); • Low geographical coverage in some regions; • Problems with boundary setting (reference values definition) and comparability of results (pressure sensitivity). • Monitoring frequency

  25. 2nd phase of Intercalibration 2009 - 2011 • Major problems related to comparability will be solved • by the IC Ecostat group - national experts will work on: • Clarifications of the comparability of results (book of methods) • Revision of reference conditions and boundary setting • Clarifications about pressures sensitivity Franz Smith Andrew Tabor Islands in the Sea 2002, NOAA/OER

  26. Conclusions • Biological indicators from WFD process will be a valuable contribution to better understanding of human impacts on the environment; • Currently several problems still need to be solved on the MS level (2nd phase if IC) • More time is also needed to solve the issues related to representativity of stations and aggregation methods (ETC) • Several questions still need to be answered…..

  27. Questions for discussion • Can we expect more additional countries to participate in the BIF test data flow 2009? • How can potential inconsistency with reporting of ecological status of water bodies in comparison to national WFD River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) due to different aggregation techniques and monitoring frequency be solved? (6 year cycle, different monitoring stations each year) • Do you support future reporting of biological data for phytoplankton, macroalagae and angiosperms?

  28. Other questions?Comments?

  29. Foto: UNIC-SUB, L. Fonda Foto: UNIC-SUB, L. Fonda Foto: UNIC-SUB, L. Fonda Thank you for your attention !

More Related