# Commission Decision (EU) 2018/229 of 12 February 2018 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise and repealing Commission Decision 2013/480/EU (notified under document C(2018) 696) (Text with EEA relevance)

EU Decision 2018/229 · adopted 12 February 2018

Commission Decision (EU) 2018/229 of 12 February 2018 establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise and repealing Commission Decision 2013/480/EU (notified under document C(2018) 696) (Text with EEA relevance)

## Introductory text

Commission Decision (EU) 2018/229
of 12 February 2018
establishing, pursuant to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the values of the Member State monitoring system classifications as a result of the intercalibration exercise and repealing Commission Decision 2013/480/EU
(notified under document C(2018) 696)
(Text with EEA relevance)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,
Having regard to Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, and in particular Section 1.4.1(ix) of Annex V thereto,
Whereas:
(1)
Directive 2000/60/EC requires the Member States to protect enhance and restore all bodies of surface waters with the aim of achieving good ecological and chemical status. It furthermore requires Member States to protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and good chemical status.
(2)
In order to define one of the main environmental objectives of Directive 2000/60/EC, namely good ecological status, that Directive provides for a process to ensure the comparability between the biological monitoring results of Member States and their monitoring system classifications. Member States’ biological monitoring results and their monitoring system classifications are to be compared through an intercalibration network comprised of monitoring sites in each Member State and in each ecoregion of the Union. Directive 2000/60/EC requires the Member States to collect, as appropriate, the necessary information for the sites included in the intercalibration network, in order to enable the assessment of the consistency of the national monitoring system classifications with the normative definitions of Section 1.2 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC. In order to carry out the intercalibration exercise Member States are organised in Geographical Intercalibration Groups, consisting of Member States sharing particular surface water body types, as defined in Section 2 of the Annex to Commission Decision 2005/646/EC.
(3)
In accordance with Directive 2000/60/EC the intercalibration exercise is to be carried out at biological element level, comparing the classification results of the national monitoring system for each biological element and for each common surface water body type among Member States and ensuring the consistency of the results with the normative definitions set out in Section 1.2 of Annex V to that Directive.
(4)
The Commission has facilitated three phases of the intercalibration exercise through the Joint Research Centre. Under the Water Framework Directive Common Implementation Strategy four guidance documents (No 6, 14 (two versions) and 30) were prepared to facilitate the intercalibration process. They provide an overview of the key principles of the intercalibration process and the options for carrying out the exercise including timescales, and reporting requirements. They also provide a procedure to fit new or revised national classification methods to the harmonised definition of good ecological status.
(5)
By 2007 the Commission had received intercalibration results for a number of biological quality elements. They were included in Commission Decision 2008/915/EC, which sets out the values of the boundaries between classes that Member States were to use in their national monitoring system classifications. The results of the first phase of the intercalibration exercise were incomplete, in so far as not all biological quality elements were covered. It was necessary however to adopt the available results of the intercalibration exercise to inform the development of the first river basin programme of measures and the first river basin management plans in accordance with Articles 11 and 13 of Directive 2000/60/EC.
(6)
In order to close the gaps and improve the comparability of the intercalibration results in time for the second river basin management plans due in 2015, the Commission initiated a second phase of the intercalibration exercise. The results of this exercise were included in Commission Decision 2013/480/EU. The results revealed that in some cases intercalibration was only partially achieved. There were also Geographical Intercalibration Groups and biological quality elements for which there were no intercalibration results for inclusion in that Decision.
(7)
A third phase of the intercalibration exercise was therefore necessary in order to close these gaps and improve the comparability of the intercalibration results in time for the third river basin management plans due in 2021. The results of this third phase of the intercalibration exercise are included in the Annex to this Decision.
(8)
The Annex to this Decision sets out the results of the intercalibration exercise. For the results in Part 1 of the Annex all steps of the intercalibration process set out in the guidance documents have been fully completed. Part 2 of the Annex contains the national classification methods and their respective boundary values for which it has not been technically feasible to complete the comparability assessment due to a lack of common types, different pressures addressed or different assessment concepts. Since the results set out in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Annex are consistent with the normative definitions set out in Section 1.2 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC, the respective boundary values should be used in Member States monitoring systems classifications.
(9)
Where water bodies corresponding to the intercalibrated types are designated as artificial or heavily modified water bodies in accordance with Article 4(3) of Directive 2000/60/EC, Member States should be allowed to use the results presented in the Annex to this Decision to derive their good ecological potential, taking into account their physical modifications and their associated water use in accordance with the normative definitions in point 1.2.5 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC.
(10)
Member States should apply the results of the intercalibration exercise to their national classification systems in order to set the boundaries between high and good status and between good and moderate status for all their national types.
(11)
The information that is made available through the establishment of the monitoring programmes provided for in Article 8 of Directive 2000/60/EC and the review and update of the characteristics of river basin districts provided for in Article 5 of that Directive could bring new evidence that may lead to the adaptation to scientific and technical progress of the Member States’ monitoring and classification systems. Member States may also develop new national classification methods covering biological quality elements or sub biological quality elements and respective boundary values for which the consistency with the normative definitions set out in Section 1.2 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC should be assessed. These matters may lead to a review of the results of the intercalibration exercise to close gaps and improve the quality and comparability of the intercalibration results which in turn may warrant an update of the results contained in the Annex to this Decision.
(12)
Decision 2013/480/EU should therefore be repealed and replaced accordingly.
(13)
The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee referred to in Article 21(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

## 1 

1. For the purposes of Section 1.4.1(iii) of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC, the relevant person must use in its monitoring systems classification the values of the boundaries between classes that are set out in Part 1 of the Annex to this Decision.
2. Where a comparability assessment for a biological quality element has not been completed within a Geographical Intercalibration Group, the relevant person must, for the purpose of Section 1.4.1(iii) of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC, use in its monitoring systems classification the methods and the values of the boundaries between classes that are set out in Part 2 of the Annex to this Decision.
3. The relevant person may use the methods and the values of the boundaries between classes set out in the Annex to this Decision to establish the good ecological potential of water bodies designated as artificial or heavily modified water bodies in accordance with Article 4(3) of Directive 2000/60/EC.
(4.) In this Article—
(a) “relevant person” means—
(i) in relation to England and the Northumbria River Basin District, the Environment Agency (“the EA”) (subject to points (iii) and (v));
(ii) in relation to Wales, the Natural Resources Body for Wales (“NRW”) (subject to point (iii));
(iii) in relation to a river basin district which is partly in England and partly in Wales, the EA and NRW acting jointly;
(iv) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers (subject to point (v));
(v) in relation to the Solway Tweed River Basin District, the EA and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency acting jointly;
(vi) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs;
(b) references to Article 4(3) of, and Section 1.4.1(iii) of Annex 5 to, Directive 2000/60/EC are to be read as if any requirements imposed or discretion conferred by those provisions on a member State were imposed or conferred on the relevant person.

## 2 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

## 3 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

## Signature

Done at Brussels, 12 February 2018.
For the Commission
Karmenu Vella
Member of the Commission

## 

Part 1 of this annex includes the results of the intercalibration exercise for which all steps of the intercalibration process have been fully completed, including their respective boundary values.
Part 2 includes national methods and their boundary values which are consistent with the normative definition set out in Section 1.2 of Annex V to Directive 2000/60/EC but where it has not been technically feasible to complete the comparability assessment within a Geographical Intercalibration Group due to lack of common types, different pressures addressed or different assessment concepts.

### Division: -- PART 1 --

## Water category Rivers Geographical Intercalibration Group Alpine rivers

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
River characterisation
Catchment (km2)
Altitude (m a.s.l.) and geomorphology
Alkalinity
Flow regime
R-A1
Pre-Alpine, small to medium, high altitude calcareous
10 — 1 000
800 — 2 500 m (catchment), boulders/cobble
High (but not extremely high) alkalinity
R-A2
Small to medium, high altitude, siliceous
10 — 1 000
500 — 1 000 m (max altitude of catchment 3 000 m, mean 1 500 m), boulders
Non-calcareous (granite, metamorphic) medium to low alkalinity
Nival-glacial flow regime
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Type R-A1: Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Slovenia
Type R-A2: Austria, France, Italy, Spain

## ALPINE RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrate fauna

Country and Type
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Type R-A1
Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements — part benthic invertebrates [Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente — Teil Makrozoobenthos (Detaillierte MZB-Methode)]
0,8
0,6
France
Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,93
0,79
Germany
PERLODES — Bewertungsverfahren von Fließgewässern auf Basis des Makrozoobenthos
0,8
0,6
Italy
MacrOper, based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index (STAR_ICMi)
0,97
0,73
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja vodotokov na podlagi bentoških nevretenčarjev
0,8
0,6
Type R-A2
Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements — part benthic invertebrates [Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente — Teil Makrozoobenthos (Detaillierte MZB-Methode)]
0,8
0,6
France (Alps)
Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,93
0,71
France (Pyrenees)
Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350 and arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,94
0,81
Italy
MacrOper, based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index (STAR_ICMi)
0,95
0,71
Spain
Iberian BMWP (IBMWP)
0,83
0,53

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## ALPINE RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-Biological Quality Element Phytobenthos

Type and country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Type R-A1
Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements — part phytobenthos [Leitfaden zur Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente, Teil A3 — Fließgewässer/Phytobenthos]
0,88
0,56
France
IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,94
0,78
Germany
Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Fließgewässern zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (PHYLIB), Modul Diatomeen
0,735
0,54
Italy
Intercalibration Common Metric Index (ICMi) (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009)
0,87
0,7
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja vodotokov na podlagi fitobentosa in makrofitov, fitobentos
0,8
0,6
Type R-A2
Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements — part phytobenthos [Leitfaden zur Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente, Teil A3 — Fließgewässer/Phytobenthos]
0,88
0,56
France
IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,94
0,78
Spain
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,94
0,74
Italy
Intercalibration Common Metric Index (ICMi) (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009)
0,85
0,64

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## Water category Rivers Geographical Intercalibration Group Central-Baltic rivers

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
River characterisation
Catchment (km2)
Altitude and geomorphology
Alkalinity (meq/l)
R-C1
Small lowland siliceous sand
10 — 100
Lowland, dominated by sandy substrate (small particle size), 3 — 8 m width (bankfull size)
> 0,4
R-C2
Small lowland siliceous — rock
10 — 100
Lowland, rock material
3 — 8m width (bankfull size)
< 0,4
R-C3
Small mid-altitude siliceous
10 — 100
Mid-altitude, rock (granite) — gravel substrate, 2 — 10 m width (bankfull size)
< 0,4
R-C4
Medium lowland mixed
100 — 1 000
Lowland, sandy to gravel substrate, 8 — 25 m width (bankfull size)
> 0,4
R-C5
Large lowland mixed
1 000 — 10 000
Lowland, barbel zone, variation in velocity, max. altitude in catchment: 800 m a.s.l., > 25 m width (bankfull size)
> 0,4
R-C6
Small, lowland, calcareous
10 — 300
Lowland, gravel substrate (limestone), width 3 — 10 m (bankfull size)
> 2
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Type R-C1: Belgium (Flanders), Belgium (Wallonia), Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom
Type R-C2: Spain, France, Ireland, Sweden, United Kingdom
Type R-C3: Austria, Belgium (Wallonia), Czech Republic, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, France, Luxembourg, United Kingdom
Type R-C4: Belgium (Flanders), Belgium (Wallonia), Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom
Type R-C5: Belgium (Wallonia), Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Spain, Ireland. Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom
Type R-C6: Belgium (Wallonia), Denmark, Estonia, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Sweden, United Kingdom

## CENTRAL-BALTIC RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrate fauna

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements — part benthic invertebrates
0,8
0,6
Belgium (Flanders)
Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index Flanders (MMIF)
0,9
0,7
Belgium (Wallonia)
Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN) (Norme AFNOR NF T 90 350, 1992) and Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 13 septembre 2012 relatif à l’identification, à la caractérisation et à la fixation des seuils d’état écologique applicables aux masses d’eau de surface et modifiant le Livre II du Code de l’Environnement, contenant le Code de l’Eau. Moniteur belge 12.10.2012
0,94
(type R-C1)
0,97
(types R-C3, R-C5, R-C6)
0,75
(type R-C1)
0,74
(types R-C3, R-C5, R-C6)
Czech Republic
Czech system for ecological status assessment of rivers using benthic macroinvertebrates
0,8
0,6
Denmark
Danish Stream Fauna Index (DSFI)
1,0
0,71
Estonia
Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment — river macroinvertebrates
0,9
0,7
Germany
PERLODES — Bewertungsverfahren von Fließgewässern auf Basis des Makrozoobenthos
0,8
0,6
France
Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF T90-350 et arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,94
0,8
Ireland
Quality Rating System (Q-value)
0,85
0,75
Italy
MacrOper, based on STAR_ICM index calculation
0,96
0,72
Latvia
Latvian Macroinvertebrate Index (LMI)
0,92
0,72
Lithuania
Lithuanian River Macroinvertebrate Index (LRMI)
0,8
0,6
Luxembourg
Classification luxembourgeoise DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF-T-90-350, AFNOR XP T 90-333 and XP T 90-388
0,96
0,72
Netherlands
KRW-maatlat
0,8
0,6
Poland
RIVECOmacro — MMI_PL
0,91(type R-C1)
0,72 (type R-C1)
Spain
METI
0,93
0,7
Sweden
DJ-index (Dahl & Johnson 2004)
0,8
0,6
United Kingdom
River Invertebrate Classification Tool (RICT)- WHPT
0,97
0,86

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## CENTRAL-BALTIC RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-Biological Quality Element Macrophytes

For the United Kingdom these results also apply to the common intercalibration types belonging to the Northern Geographical Intercalibration Group
Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Type
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Austria
AIM for Rivers (Austrian Index Macrophytes for rivers)
RC-3
0,875
0,625
Belgium (Flanders)
MAFWAT — Flemish macrophyte assessment system
R-C1
0,8
0,6
Belgium (Wallonia)
IBMR-WL — Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers (Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 13 septembre 2012 relatif à l’identification, à la caractérisation et à la fixation des seuils d’état écologique applicables aux masses d’eau de surface et modifiant le Livre II du Code de l’Environnement, contenant le Code de l’Eau. Moniteur belge 12.10.2012)
R-C3
0,925
0,607
Czech Republic
Assessment method of surface running water bodies in the Czech Republic using biological quality element macrophytes
R-C3 (national type 1)
0,83
0,67
R-C3 (national type 4)
0,82
0,64
R-C4
0,86
0,62
Denmark
DSPI — Danish Stream Plant Index
R-C1, R-C4
0,7
0,5
Germany
Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Fließgewässern zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (PHYLIB), Modul Makrophyten
R-C1
0,745
0,495
R-C3
0,8
0,55
R-C4
0,575
0,395
Germany
NRW-Verfahren zur Bewertung von Fließgewässern mit Makrophyten
R-C1, R-C3, R-C4
0,995
0,695
France
IBMR — Indice Biologique Macrophytique en Rivière French standard NF T90-395 (2003-10-01)
R-C3
0,93
0,79
R-C4
0,905
0,79
Ireland
MTR — IE — Mean Trophic Ranking
R-C4
0,74
0,62
Italy
IBMR — IT — Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers
R-C1
0,9
0,8
R-C4
0,9
0,8
Lithuania
Lithuanian River Macrophyte Index
R-C4
0,61
0,41
Latvia
Latvian assessment method using macrophytes
R-C4
0,75
0,55
Luxembourg
IBMR — LU — Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers
R-C3, R-C4, R-C5 and R-C6
0,89
0,79
Netherlands
Revised assessment method for rivers in The Netherlands using macrophytes
R-C1 and R-C
0,8
0,6
Poland
MIR — Macrophyte Index for Rivers
R-C1
0,9
0,65
R-C3
0,91
0,684
R-C4
0,9
0,65
United Kingdom
River LEAFPACS 2
R-C1, R-C3 and R-C4
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## CENTRAL-BALTIC RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-Biological Quality Element Phytobenthos

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Type
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements — part Phytobenthos [Leitfaden zur Erhebung der biologischen Qualitätselemente, Teil A3 -Fließgewässer/Phytobenthos]
All types, altitude < 500 m
0,7
0,42
All types, altitude > 500 m
0,71
0,43
Belgium (Flanders)
Proportions of Impact-Sensitive and Impact-Associated Diatoms (PISIAD)
All types
0,8
0,6
Belgium (Wallonia)
IPS (Coste, in CEMAGREF, 1982; Lenoir & Coste, 1996 and Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 13 septembre 2012 relatif à l’identification, à la caractérisation et à la fixation des seuils d’état écologique applicables aux masses d’eau de surface et modifiant le Livre II du Code de l’Environnement, contenant le Code de l’Eau. Moniteur belge 12.10.2012)
All types
0,98
0,73
Czech Republic
Czech assessment method for rivers using phytobenthos
R-C3, R-C4, R-C5
0,8
0,63
Estonia
Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS)
All types
0,85
0,7
France
IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
All types
0,94
0,78
Germany
Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Fließgewässern zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (PHYLIB), Modul Diatomeen
R-C1
0,67
0,43
R-C3
0,67
0,43
R-C4
0,61
0,43
R-C5
0,73
0,55
Ireland
Revised form of Trophic Diatom Index (TDI)
All types
0,93
0,78
Italy
Intercalibration Common Metric Index (ICMi) (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009)
All types
0,89
0,7
Ireland
Revised form of Trophic Diatom Index (TDI)
All types
0,93
0,78
Lithuania
Lithuanian Phytobenthos Index
R-C1, R-C4, R-C5, R-C6
0,73
0,55
Luxembourg
Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS)
R-C3, R-C4 (low alkalinity)
0,98
0,78
R-C4 (high alkalinity), R-C5 and R-C6
0,99
0,78
Netherlands
KRW Maatlat
All types
0,8
0,6
Poland
Indeks Okrzemkowy IO dla rzek (Diatom Index for rivers)
All types
0,8
0,58
Spain
Diatom multimetric (MDIAT)
R-C2, R-C3, R-C4
0,93
0,7
Sweden
Swedish assessment methods, Swedish EPA regulations (NFS 2008:1) based on Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS)
All types
0,89
0,74
United Kingdom
Diatom Assessment for River Ecological Status (DARLEQ2)
All types
1,0
0,75

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## Water category Rivers Geographical Intercalibration Group Eastern Continental rivers

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
River characterisation
Ecoregion
Catchment (km2)
Altitude (m a.s.l.)
Geology
Substrate
R-E1a
Carpathians: small to medium, mid-altitude
10
10 — 1 000
500 — 800
Mixed
R-E1b
Carpathians: small to medium, mid-altitude
10
10 — 1 000
200 — 500
Mixed
R-E2
Plains: medium-sized, lowland
11 and 12
100 — 1 000
< 200
Mixed
Sand and silt
R-E3
Plains: large, lowland
11 and 12
> 1 000
< 200
Mixed
Sand, silt and gravel
R-E4
Plains: medium-sized, mid-altitude
11 and 12
100 — 1 000
200 — 500
Mixed
Sand and gravel
R-EX4
Large, mid-altitude
10, 11 and 12
> 1 000
200 — 500
Mixed
Gravel and boulder
R-EX5
Plains: small lowland
11 and 12
10 — 100
< 200
Mixed
Sand and silt
R-EX6
Plains: small, mid-altitude
11 and 12
10 — 100
200 — 500
Mixed
Gravel
R-EX7
Balkan: small, calcareous, mid-altitude
5
10 — 100
200 — 500
Calcareous
Gravel
R-EX8
Balkan: small to medium-sized, calcareous karst spring
5
10 — 1 000
Calcareous
Gravel, sand and silt
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
R-E1a: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia
R-E1b: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia
R-E2: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia
R-E3: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia
R-E4: Austria, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia
R-EX4: Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia
R-EX5: Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia
R-EX6: Hungary, Romania, Slovenia
R-EX7: Slovenia
R-EX8: Slovenia

## EASTERN CONTINENTAL RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrate fauna

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Type
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements — part benthic invertebrates
R-E4
0,8
0,6
Bulgaria
IBI (BG) (Irish Biotic Index (BG))
R-E1a, R-E1b
0,86
0,67
R-E2, R-E3
0,8
0,6
Czech Republic
Czech system for ecological status assessment of rivers using benthic macroinvertebrates
R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E2, R-E3
0,8
0,6
Hungary
Hungarian Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index
R-E1b, R-E3, R-E4, R-EX5, R-EX6
0,8
0,6
Romania
Assessment method for ecological status of water bodies based on macroinvertebrates
R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E3, R-EX4
0,74
0,58
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja vodotokov na podlagi bentoških nevretenčarjev
R-E4, R-EX5, R-EX6
0,8
0,6
Slovakia
Slovak assessment of benthic invertebrates in rivers
R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E2, R-E3, R-E4, R-EX4
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## EASTERN CONTINENTAL RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-Biological Quality Element Macrophytes

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Type
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Austria
AIM for Rivers (Austrian Index Macrophytes for rivers)
R-E4
0,875
0,625
Bulgaria
Reference Index
R-E2, R-E3
0,57
0,37
R-E4
0,51
0,27
Czech Republic
Assessment method of surface running water bodies in the Czech Republic using biological quality element macrophytes
R-E2, R-E3
0,75
0,5
Czech Republic
Assessment method of surface running water bodies in the Czech Republic using biological quality element macrophytes
R-E4
0,77
0,56
Hungary
Reference Index
R-E2, R-E3
0,7
0,37
Romania
Romanian Macrophyte-based assessment system for rivers (Macrophyte River Index (MARI))
R-E2, R-E3, R-E4
R-E2 and R-E3: 0,875, R-E4: 0,783
all types: 0,625
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja vodotokov na podlagi fitobentosa in makrofitov, makrofiti
R-E2, R-E3, R-E4
0,8
0,6
Slovakia
Macrophyte Biological Index for Rivers (IBMR-SK)
R-E2, R-E3, R-E4
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## EASTERN CONTINENTAL RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-Biological Quality Element Phytobenthos

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Type
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Austria
Assessment of the biological quality elements — part phytobenthos
R-E4
0,7
0,42
Bulgaria
Ecological status assessment of rivers in Bulgaria based on IPS diatom index
R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E3
0,87 (national type R2, R4)
0,85 (national type R7, R8)
0,66 (national type R2, R4)
0,64 (national type R7, R8)
Czech Republic
Assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos
R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E2, R-E3, R-EX4
0,8
0,6
Hungary
Ecological status assessment for rivers based on diatoms
R-E2, R-E3, R-EX5
0,8
0,6
Romania
National (Romanian) Assessment Method for Rivers Ecological Status based on Phytobenthos (Diatoms) RO-AMRP
R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E3
0,8
0,6
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja vodotokov na podlagi fitobentosa in makrofitov, fitobentos
R-E4, R-EX5, R-EX6, R-EX7, R-EX8
0,8
0,6
Slovakia
Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos
R-E1a, R-E1b, R-E2, R-E3, R-E4, R-EX4
0,9
0,7

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## Water category Rivers Geographical Intercalibration Group Mediterranean rivers

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
River characterisation
Catchment (km2)
Geology
Flow regime
R-M1
Small Mediterranean streams
< 100
Mixed (except silicious)
Highly seasonal
R-M2
Medium Mediterranean streams
100 — 1 000
Mixed (except silicious)
Highly seasonal
R-M4
Mediterranean mountain streams
Non-silicious
Highly seasonal
R-M5
Temporary streams
Temporary
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
R-M1: Bulgaria, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain
R-M2: Bulgaria, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain
R-M4: Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Spain
R-M5: Cyprus, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain

## MEDITERRANEAN RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrate fauna

Type and Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
R-M1
France
Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF T90-350 et arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,94
0,7
Greece
Hellenic Evaluation System-2 (HESY-2)
0,943
0,75
Italy
MacrOper (based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index ICMi)
0,97
0,72
Portugal
Rivers Biological Quality Assessment Method-Benthic Invertebrates (IPtIN, IPtIS)
0,87 (type 1)
0,678 (type 1)
0,85 (type 3)
0,686 (type 3)
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja vodotokov na podlagi bentoških nevretenčarjev
0,8
0,6
Spain
Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party (IBMWP)
0,845
0,698
Spain
Iberian Mediterranean Multimetric Index—using quantitative data (IMMi-T)
0,811
0,707
R-M2
Bulgaria
IBI (BG) (Irish Biotic Index (BG))
0,8
0,6
France
Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF T90-350 et arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,94
0,7
Greece
Hellenic Evaluation System-2 (HESY-2)
0,944
0,708
Italy
MacrOper (based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index ICMi)
0,94
0,7
Portugal
Rivers Biological Quality Assessment Method-Benthic Invertebrates (IPtIN, IPtIS)
0,83 (type 2)
0,693 (type 2)
0,88 (type 4)
0,676 (type 4)
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja vodotokov na podlagi bentoških nevretenčarjev
0,8
0,6
Spain
Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party (IBMWP)
0,845
0,698
Spain
Iberian Mediterranean Multimetric Index—using quantitative data (IMMi-T)
0,811
0,707
R-M4
Cyprus
STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index (STAR_ICMi)
0,972
0,729
France
Classification française DCE Indice Biologique Global Normalisé (IBGN). AFNOR NF T90-350 et arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,94
0,7
Greece
Hellenic Evaluation System-2 (HESY-2)
0,85
0,637
Italy
MacrOper (based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index ICMi)
0,94
0,7
Spain
Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party (IBMWP)
0,84
0,7
Spain
Iberian Mediterranean Multimetric Index—using quantitative data (IMMi-T)
0,85
0,694
R-M5
Cyprus
STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index (STAR_ICMi)
0,982
0,737
Greece
Hellenic Evaluation System-2 (HESY-2)
0,963
0,673
Italy
MacrOper (based on STAR Intercalibration Common Metric Index ICMi)
0,97
0,73
Portugal
Rivers Biological Quality Assessment Method-Benthic Invertebrates (IPtIN, IPtIS)
0,973 (type 5)
0,705 (type 5)
0,961 (type 6)
0,708 (type 6)
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja vodotokov na podlagi bentoških nevretenčarjev
0,8
0,6
Spain
Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party (IBMWP)
0,83
0,63
Spain
Iberian Mediterranean Multimetric Index—using quantitative data (IMMi-T)
0,83
0,62

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## MEDITERRANEAN RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-Biological Quality Element Macrophytes

Type and Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
R-M1, M2, M4
Bulgaria (R-M1 and R-M2)
RI (BG) (Reference Index (BG))
0,64
0,35
Cyprus
IBMR — Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers
0,795
0,596
France
IBMR — Indice Biologique Macrophytique en Rivière French standard NF T90-395 (2003-10-01)
0,93
0,745
Greece
IBMR — Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers
0,75
0,56
Italy
IBMR — Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers
0,9
0,8
Portugal
IBMR — Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers
0,92
0,69
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja vodotokov na podlagi fitobentosa in makrofitov, makrofiti
0,8
0,6
Spain
IBMR — Biological Macrophyte Index for Rivers
0,95
0,74

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## MEDITERRANEAN RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-Biological Quality Element Phytobenthos

Type and Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
R-M1
Bulgaria
IPS (Indice de polluo-sensibilité)
0,82
0,63
France
IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,94
0,78
Greece
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982) Intercalibrated (EQR IPS)
0,956
0,717
Italy
Intercalibration Common Metric Index (ICMi) (Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009)
0,8
0,61
Portugal
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,97 (type 1)
0,73 (type 1)
0,91 (type 3)
0,68 (type 3)
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja vodotokov na podlagi fitobentosa in makrofitov, fitobentos
0,8
0,6
Spain
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,937
0,727
R-M2
Bulgaria
IPDS (Indice de polluo-sensibilité)
0,82
0,63
France
IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,94
0,78
Greece
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982) Intercalibrated (EQR IPS)
0,953
0,732
Italy
Intercalibration Common Metric Index (ICMi)
(Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009)
0,8
0,61
Portugal
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982))
0,91 (type 2)
0,68 (type 2)
0,97 (type 4)
0,73 (type 4)
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja vodotokov na podlagi fitobentosa in makrofitov, fitobentos
0,8
0,6
Spain
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,938
0,727
R-M4
Cyprus
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,91
0,683
France
IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF-T-90-354, December 2007. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,94
0,78
Greece
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982) Intercalibrated (EQR IPS)
0,932
0,716
Italy
Intercalibration Common Metric Index (ICMi)
(Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009)
0,8
0,61
Spain
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,935
0,727
R-M5
Cyprus
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,958
0,718
Italy
Intercalibration Common Metric Index (ICMi)
(Mancini & Sollazzo, 2009)
0,88
0,65
Portugal
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,8 (Type 5)
0,651 (Type 5)
0,94 (Type 6)
0,7 (Type 6)
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja vodotokov na podlagi fitobentosa in makrofitov, fitobentos
0,8
0,6
Spain
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,935
0,7

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## Water category Rivers Geographical Intercalibration Group Northern rivers

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
River characterisation
Catchment areaof stretch (km2)
Altitude and geomorphology
Alkalinity(meq/l)
Organic material(mg Pt/l)
R-N1
Small lowland siliceous moderate alkalinity
10 — 100
< 200 m a.s.l. or below the highest coastline
0,2 — 1
< 30
(< 150 in Ireland)
R-N3
Small/medium lowland organic low alkalinity
10 — 1 000
< 0,2
> 30
R-N4
Medium lowland siliceous moderate alkalinity
100 — 1 000
0,2 — 1
< 30
R-N5
Small mid-altitude siliceous low alkalinity
10 — 100
Between lowland and highland
< 0,2
< 30
R-N9
Small/medium mid-altitude siliceous low alkalinity organic (humic)
10 — 1 000
Between lowland and highland
< 0,2
> 30
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
R-N1: Finland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom
R-N3: Finland, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom
R-N4: Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom
R-N5: Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom
R-N9: Finland, Norway, Sweden

## NORTHERN RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrate fauna (methods sensitive for organic enrichment and general degradation)

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Finland
Revised Finnish river invertebrate fauna assessment method
0,8
0,6
Ireland
Quality Rating System (Q-value)
0,85
0,75
Norway
ASPT
0,99
0,87
Sweden
DJ-index (Dahl & Johnson 2004)
0,8
0,6
United Kingdom
River Invertebrate Classification Tool (RICT)- WHPT
0,97
0,86

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

### Division: Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrate fauna (methods sensitive for acidification)

## 

The following results apply to clear, low alkalinity river types
Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Norway
AcidIndex2 (Modified Raddum index2) (river acidification)
0,675
0,515
United Kingdom — Scotland
WFD-AWIC
0,91
0,83
United Kingdom — England and Wales
WFD-AWIC
0,98
0,89

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## 

The following results apply to humic, low alkalinity river types
Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Sweden
MISA: Multimetric Invertebrate Stream Acidification index
0,55
0,4
United Kingdom
WFD-AWIC
0,93
0,83

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## NORTHERN RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-Biological Quality Element Macrophytes

Type and Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
R-N3 and R-N9
Finland
Trophic index TIc
0,889
0,61
Sweden
Trophic index TIc
0,889
0,61
Norway
Trophic index TIc
0,889
0,61

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## NORTHERN RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-Biological Quality Element Phytobenthos

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Finland
Finnish river phytobenthos method
0,8
0,6
Sweden
Indice de Polluosensibilité Spécifique (IPS)
0,89
0,74
Ireland
Revised form of Trophic Diatom Index (TDI)
0,93
0,78
United Kingdom
DARLEQ 2
1,0
0,75
Norway
Periphyton Index of Trophic Status (PIT)
0,99
(Ca ≤ 1 mg/l)
0,83
0,95
(Ca > 1 mg/l)

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## Water category Rivers Geographical Intercalibration Groups All Biological Quality Element Fish fauna

Overview of regional groups that have been established for the river fish intercalibration:
Lowland-Midland group — Belgium (Flanders), Belgium (Wallonia), France, Germany, Netherlands, Lithuania, Luxembourg, United Kingdom (England and Wales), Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Denmark, Hungary
Nordic group — Finland, Ireland, Sweden, United Kingdom (Scotland and Northern Ireland), Norway
Alpine-type Mountains group — Austria, France, Germany, Slovenia, Italy
Mediterranean South Atlantic group — Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria
Danubian group — Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## Lowland-Midland group

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Belgium Flanders
Upstream and Lowland IBI
0,85
0,65
Belgium Wallonia
IBIP (Arrêté du Gouvernement wallon du 13 septembre 2012 relatif à l’identification, à la caractérisation et à la fixation des seuils d’état écologique applicables aux masses d’eau de surface et modifiant le Livre II du Code de l’Environnement, contenant le Code de l’Eau. Moniteur belge 12.10.2012)
0,958
0,792
France
FBI (Fish-Based Index): Indice Poissons Rivière (IPR). AFNOR NF-T-90-344.
1,131
0,835
Germany
FIBS — fischbasiertes Bewertungssystem für Fließgewässer zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland
1,086
0,592
Latvia
Latvian Fish Index
0,88
0,66
Lithuania
Lithuanian River Fish Index
0,94
0,72
Luxembourg
Classification française DCE Indice Poissons Rivière (IPR). AFNOR NF-T-90-344
1,131
0,835
Netherlands
NLFISR
0,8
0,6
Poland
EFI+PL index
0,8
0,6

## Nordic group

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Finland
Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) — type L2
0,665
0,499
Finland
Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) — type L3
0,658
0,493
Finland
Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) — type M1
0,709
0,532
Finland
Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) — type M2
0,734
0,55
Finland
Finnish Fish Index (FiFi) — type M3
0,723
0,542
Ireland
Fish Classification Scheme 2 Ireland (FCS2)
0,845
0,54
Sweden
Swedish method VIX
0,739
0,467
United Kingdom — Northern Ireland
IR_FCS2
0,845
0,54
United Kingdom — Scotland
FCS2 Scotland
0,85
0,6

## Mediterranean group

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Greece
Hellenic Fish Index (HeFI)
0,8
0,6
Portugal
F-IBIP — Fish-based Index of Biotic Integrity for Portuguese Wadeable Streams
0,85
0,675
Spain
IBIMED — type T2
0,816
0,705
Spain
IBIMED — type T3
0,929
0,733
Spain
IBIMED — type T4
0,864
0,758
Spain
IBIMED — type T5
0,866
0,65
Spain
IBIMED — type T6
0,916
0,764

## Alpine group

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Austria
FIA
0,875
0,625
France
FBI (Fish-Based Index): Indice Poissons Rivière (IPR). AFNOR NF-T90-344
1,131
0,876
Germany
FIBS — fischbasiertes Bewertungssystem für Fließgewässer zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland
1,086
0,592
Italy
NISECI index (New Index of Ecological Status of Fish Communities)
0,8
0,52
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja vodotokov na podlagi rib
0,8
0,6

## Danubian group

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Bulgaria
TsBRI (Type Specific Bulgarian Fish Index)
0,86
0,65
Czech Republic
Czech multimetric method CZI
0,78
0,585
Romania
EFI+ European Fish index (cyprinid wading type)
0,939
0,7
Romania
EFI+ European Fish index (salmonid type)
0,911
0,755
Slovakia
Fish Index of Slovakia FIS
0,71
0,57

## Water Category Rivers Geographical Intercalibration Groups All — Very Large Rivers

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
River characterisation
Catchment area of stretch (km2)
Alkalinity (meq/l)
R-L1
Very large low alkalinity rivers
> 10 000
< 0,5
R-L2
Very large medium to high alkalinity rivers
> 10 000
> 0,5
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
R-L1: Finland, Norway, Sweden
R-L2: Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden

## VERY LARGE RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrate fauna

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Austria
Assessment of the Biological Quality Elements — part benthic invertebrates (for large alpine rivers)
0,8
0,6
Austria
Slovak assessment of benthic invertebrates in large rivers (for large lowland rivers)
0,8
0,6
Belgium (Flanders)
Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index Flanders (MMIF)
0,9
0,7
Bulgaria
mRBA — Modified Rapid Biological Assessment
0,8
0,6
Croatia
Ecological status assessment system based on benthic invertebrates in very large rivers
0,8
0,6
Czech Republic
Czech system for ecological status assessment of large non-wadeable rivers using benthic macroinvertebrates
0,8
0,6
Germany
Germany PTI — Potamon-Typie-Index
0,8
0,6
Estonia
Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment _ large river macroinvertebrates
0,9
0,7
Spain
IBMWP — Iberian Biological Monitoring Working Party
0,79
0,48
Finland
Revised Finnish river invertebrate fauna assessment method
0,8
0,6
Hungary
Hungary HMMI_II — Hungarian Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index for large and very large rivers
0,8
0,6
Italy
ISA (Indice per la classificazione sulla base dei Substrati Artificiali) — mediterranean rivers
0,94
0,7
Italy
ISA (Indice per la classificazione sulla base dei Substrati Artificiali) — non-mediterranean rivers
0,96
0,72
Lithuania
Lithuanian River Macroinvertebrate Index
0,8
0,6
Latvia
LRMI — Latvian large River Macroinvertebrate Index
0,88
0,63
Netherlands
WFD metrics for natural water types
0,8
0,6
Norway
Norway ASPT — Average Score Per Taxon
0,99
0,87
Poland
RIVECOmacro — MMI_PL
0,91
0,71
Romania
ECO-BENT — Assessment method for ecological status of water bodies based on macroinvertebrates
0,79
0,53
Sweden
Average Score Per Taxon (ASPT) and DJ-index
0,8
0,6
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja vodotokov na podlagi bentoških nevretenčarjev
0,8
0,6
Slovakia
Slovak assessment of benthic invertebrates in large rivers
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## VERY LARGE RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Austria
German PhytoFluss-Index 4.0
0,8
0,6
Belgium (Flanders)
German PhytoFluss-Index 2.0
0,8
0,6
Bulgaria
German PhytoFluss-Index 4.0
0,8
0,6
Croatia
HRPI — Hungarian River Phytoplankton Index
0,8
0,6
Czech Republic
CZ — Assessment method for ecological status of rivers based on phytoplankton
0,8
0,6
Germany
German PhytoFluss-Index
0,8
0,6
Estonia
EST_PHYPLA_R — Estonian Large River Phytoplankton Index
0,85
0,65
Hungary
HRPI — Hungarian River Phytoplankton Index
0,8
0,6
Lithuania
German PhytoFluss-Index for lowland rivers of type 15.2
0,8
0,6
Latvia
Latvian Large River Phytoplankton Index
0,8
0,6
Poland
IFPL metric — Method for large rivers assessment using phytoplankton
1,08
0,92
Romania
ECO-FITO — Assessment Method for Ecological Status of the Water Bodies based on Phytoplankton
0,92
0,76
Slovakia
Phytoplankton-SK — Slovak assessment of phytoplankton in large rivers
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## VERY LARGE RIVERS GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-Biological Quality Element Phytobenthos

Country and Type
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
R-L1
Finland
Finnish river phytobenthos method
0,8
0,6
Sweden
Benthic algae in running water — diatom analysis
0,89
0,74
R-L2
Austria
Assessment of the Biological Quality Elements — part phytobenthos
0,85
0,57
Bulgaria
IPS (Indice de Polluo-Sensibilité)
0,76
0,58
Czech Republic
Assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos
0,8
0,6
Estonia
Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment — river phytobenthos
0,83
0,64
France
IBD 2007 (Coste et al, Ecol. Ind. 2009). AFNOR NF T90-354, April 2016. Arrêté ministériel du 25 janvier 2010 modifié relatif aux méthodes et critères d’évaluation de l’état écologique {…} des eaux de surface
0,92
0,76
Spain
IPS (Coste in Cemagref, 1982)
0,68
0,48
Germany
Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Fließgewässern zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (PHYLIB), Modul Diatomeen
0,725
0,55
Croatia
Ecological status assessment system for phytobenthos in rivers based on diatoms
0,8
0,61
Hungary
Ecological status assessment for rivers based on diatoms
0,762
0,6
Italy
Intercalibration Common Metric Index (ICMi) (Mancini &Sollazzo 2009)
0,89 (national type C)
0,7 (national type C)
0,82 (national type M3)
0,62 (national type M3)
Netherlands
WFD-metrics for natural water types
0,8
0,6
Portugal
IPS — Specific Pollution Sensitivity Index
0,9 (national type R_GRS/Guadiana river)
0,67 (national type R_GRS/Guadiana river)
Slovakia
Ecological status assessment system for rivers using phytobenthos
0,9
0,7
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja vodotokov na podlagi fitobentosa in makrofitov, fitobentos
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## Water category Lakes Geographical Intercalibration Group Alpine lakes

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
Lake characterisation
Altitude (m above sea level)
Mean depth (m)
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Lake size (km2)
L-AL3
Lowland or mid-altitude, deep, moderate to high alkalinity (alpine influence), large
50 — 800
> 15
> 1
> 0,5
L-AL4
Mid-altitude, shallow, moderate to high alkalinity (alpine influence), large
200 — 800
3 — 15
> 1
> 0,5
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Types L-AL3: Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia
Types L-AL4: Austria, France, Germany, Italy

## ALPINE LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Austria
Evaluation of the biological quality elements, Part B2 — phytoplankton
0,8
0,6
France
Phytoplankton Index for Lakes (IPLAC): Indice Phytoplancton Lacustre
0,8
0,6
Germany
PSI (Phyto-Seen-Index) — Bewertungsverfahren für Seen mittels Phytoplankton zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland
0,8
0,6
Italy
Italian Phytoplankton Assessment Method (IPAM)
0,8
0,6
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja jezer na podlagi fitoplanktona
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## ALPINE LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-Biological Quality Element Macrophytes

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
IC type
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Austria
AIM for Lakes (Austrian Index Macrophytes for lakes)
L-AL3+
L-AL4
0,8
0,6
France
French Macrophyte Index for Lakes (IBML): Indice Biologique Macrophytique en Lacs
L-AL3+
L-AL4
0,92
0,72
Germany
Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (PHYLIB), Modul Makrophyten
L-AL3+
L-AL4
0,76
0,51
Germany
Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (PHYLIB), Modul Makrophyten und Phytobenthos
LAL4
0,74
0,47
Italy
MacroIMMI (Macrophytic index for the evaluation of the ecological quality of the Italian lakes)
L-AL3+
L-AL4
0,8
0,6
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja jezer na podlagi fitobentosa in makrofitov, makrofiti
L-AL3
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## ALPINE LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrate fauna

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja jezer na podlagi bentoških nevretenčarjev
0,8
0,6
Germany
AESHNA — Bewertungsverfahren für das eulitorale Makrozoobenthos in Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## ALPINE LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Fish fauna

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Austria
ALFI (Austrian lake fish index): A multimetric index to assess the ecological status of alpine lakes based on fish fauna
0,8
0,6
Germany
DeLFI_SITE — Deutsches probennahmestandort-spezifisches Bewertungsverfahren für Fische in Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie
0,85
0,69
Italy
Lake Fish Index (LFI)
0,82
0,64

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## Water category Lakes Geographical Intercalibration Group Central/Baltic lakes

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
Lake characterisation
Altitude (m above sea level)
Mean depth (m)
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Residence time (years)
L-CB1
Lowland, shallow, calcareous
< 200
3 — 15
> 1
1 — 10
L-CB2
Lowland, very shallow, calcareous
< 200
< 3
> 1
0,1 — 1
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated
Types L-CB1: Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom
Types L-CB2: Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom

## CENTRAL-BALTIC LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Belgium (Flanders)
Flemish phytoplankton assessment method for lakes
0,8
0,6
Denmark
Danish Lake Phytoplankton Index
0,8
0,6
Estonia
Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment — lake phytoplankton
0,8
0,6
Germany
PSI (Phyto-Seen-Index) — Bewertungsverfahren für Seen mittels Phytoplankton zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland — German Phyto-Lake-Index (Phyto-See-Index)
0,8
0,6
Ireland
IE Lake Phytoplankton Index
0,8
0,6
Latvia
Latvian Lake Phytoplankton Index
0,81
0,61
Lithuania
German Phytoplankton Index (PSI)
0,81
0,61
Netherlands
WFD — metrics for natural water types
0,8
0,6
Poland
Phytoplankton method for Polish Lakes (PMPL)
0,8
0,6
UK
Phytoplankton Lake Assessment Tool with Uncertainty Module (PLUTO)
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## CENTRAL-BALTIC LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-Biological Quality Element Macrophytes

Will be used in England, Wales and Scotland
Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
IC type
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Belgium (Flanders)
Flemish macrophyte assessment system
All types
0,8
0,6
Denmark
Danish Lake Macrophytes Index
All types
0,8
0,6
Estonia
Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment — lake macrophytes
LCB1
0,78
0,52
LCB2
0,76
0,5
Germany
Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (PHYLIB), Modul Makrophyten
All types
0,8
0,6
Latvia
Latvian macrophyte assessment method
All types
0,8
0,6
Lithuania
Lithuanian Lake Macrophyte Index
All types
0,75
0,5
Netherlands
WFD-metrics for natural water types
All types
0,8
0,6
Poland
Macrophyte based indication method for lakes — Ecological Status Macrophyte Index ESMI (multimetric)
All types
0,68
0,41
UK
Lake LEAFPACS 2
All types
0,8
0,66

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## CENTRAL-BALTIC LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrate fauna

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate
Belgium (Flanders)
Multimetric Macroinvertebrate Index Flanders (MMIF)
0,9
0,7
Estonia
Estonian surface water ecological quality assessment — lake macroinvertebrates
0,86
0,7
Germany
AESHNA — Bewertungsverfahren für das eulitorale Makrozoobenthos in Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland
0,8
0,6
Latvia
Latvian Lake Macroinvertebrate Multimetric Index (LLMMI)
0,85
0,52
Lithuania
Lithuanian Lake Macroinvertebrate Index
0,74
0,5
Netherlands
WFDi — Metric for Natural Watertypes
0,8
0,6
UK
Chironomid Pupal Exuvial Technique (CPET)
0,77
0,64

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## CENTRAL-BALTIC LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Fish fauna

Description of common intercalibration types
Type
Lake characterisation
Altitude (m above sea level)
Mean depth (m)
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Residence time (years)
L-CB1
Lowland, shallow, calcareous
< 200
3 — 15
> 1
1 — 10
L-CB2
Lowland, very shallow, calcareous
< 200
< 3
> 1
0,1 — 1
L-CB3
Lowland, shallow, small, siliceous (moderate alkalinity)
< 200
3 — 15
0,2 — 1
1 — 10
L-CB4
Heavily modified water bodies
200 — 700
3 — 30
> 0,2
0,1 — 5
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated
Types L-CB1: Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom
Types L-CB2: Belgium, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Latvia, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom
Types L-CB3: Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France, Latvia, Poland
Types L-CB4: Czech Republic
Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate
Czech Republic
CZ-FBI
0,87
0,619
Denmark
Danish Lake Fish Index
0,75
0,54
EE
LAFIEE
0,8
0,61
Germany
DeLFI_SITE — Deutsches probennahmestandort-spezifisches Bewertungsverfahren für Fische in Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie
0,95
0,8
France
ELFI (European Lake Fish Index): Indice Ichtyofaune Lacustre (IIL)
0,73
0,49
Latvia
Latvian Lake Fish Index
0,76
0,57
Lithuania
Lithuanian Lake Fish Index
0,865
0,605
Netherlands
VISMAATLAT
0,8
0,6
Poland
LFI+
0,866
0,595
Poland
LFI EN
0,804
0,557

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## Water category Lakes Geographical Intercalibration Group Eastern Continental lakes

Description of common intercalibration types
Type
Lake characterisation
Altitude (m above sea level)
Mean depth (m)
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Conductivity (μS/cm)
L-EC1
Lowland very shallow hard-water
< 200
< 6
1 — 4
300 — 1 000
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated
Types L-EC1: Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania

## EASTERN CONTINENTAL LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Bulgaria
HLPI-Hungarian lake phytoplankton index
0,8
0,6
Hungary
HLPI-Hungarian lake phytoplankton index
0,8
0,6
Romania
HLPI-Hungarian lake phytoplankton index
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## EASTERN CONTINENTAL LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-Biological Quality Element Macrophytes

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-goodboundary
Good-moderateboundary
Bulgaria
RI-BG — Adapted Reference Index
0,83
0,58
Hungary
HU-RI — Adapted Reference Index
0,89
0,67
Romania
MIRO — Macrophyte Index for Romanian Lakes (Adapted Reference Index)
0,86
0,66

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## EASTERN CONTINENTAL LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrate fauna

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Bulgaria
HMMI_lakes (Hungarian Macrozoobenton Multimetric Index for Lakes
0,85
0,65
Hungary
HMMI_lakes (Hungarian Macrozoobenton Multimetric Index for Lakes
0,85
0,65
Romania
ECO-NL-BENT Romanian ecological status assessment system for natural lakes using benthic invertebrates
0,93
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated

## EASTERN LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP Biological Quality Element Fish fauna

INTERCALIBRATION RESULTS NOT COMPLETED

## Water category Lakes Geographical Intercalibration Group Mediterranean lakes

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
Lake characterization
Altitude(m)
Annual mean precipitation (mm) and T ( oC)
Mean depth (m)
Area (km2)
Catchment (km2)
Alkalinity (meq/l)
L-M5/7
Reservoirs, deep, large, siliceous, ‘wet’ areas
< 1 000
> 800 and/or < 15
> 15
0,5 — 50
< 20 000
< 1
L-M8
Reservoirs, deep, large, calcareous
< 1 000
—
> 15
0,5 — 50
< 20 000
> 1
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated
Types L-M5/7: France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain
Types L-M8: Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Spain

## MEDITERRANEAN LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

High-Good boundary is not defined for reservoirs (both LM5/7 and LM8 types are reservoirs)
Country and Type
National classificationmethods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-goodboundary
Good-moderateboundary
LM 5/7
France
Phytoplankton Index for Lakes (IPLAC): Indice Phytoplancton Lacustre
n.d.
0,6
Greece
New Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs (NMASRP)
n.d.
0,6
Italy
New Italian Method (NITMET)
n.d.
0,6
Portugal
Reservoirs Biological Quality Assessment Method — Phytoplankton (New Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton: NMASRP).
n.d.
0,6
Spain
Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton (MASRP).
n.d.
0,58
L-M8
Cyprus
New Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton (NMASRP).
n.d.
0,6
France
Phytoplankton Index for Lakes (IPLAC): Indice Phytoplancton Lacustre
n.d.
0,6
Greece
New Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs (NMASRP)
n.d.
0,6
Italy
New Italian Method (NITMET)
n.d.
0,6
Spain
Mediterranean Assessment System for Reservoirs Phytoplankton (MASRP).
n.d.
0,6

### Division: Water category Lakes Geographical Intercalibration Group Northern lakes

## NORTHERN LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
Lake characterisation
Altitude (m above sea level)
Mean depth (m)
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Colour(mg Pt/l)
L-N1
Lowland, shallow, moderate alkalinity, clear
< 200
3 — 15
0,2 — 1
< 30
L-N2a
Lowland, shallow, low alkalinity, clear
< 200
3 — 15
< 0,2
< 30
L-N2b
Lowland, deep, low alkalinity, clear
< 200
> 15
< 0,2
< 30
L-N3a
Lowland, shallow, low alkalinity, meso-humic
< 200
3 — 15
< 0,2
30 — 90
L-N5
Mid-altitude, shallow, low alkalinity, clear
200 — 800
3 — 15
< 0,2
< 30
L-N6a
Mid-altitude, shallow, low alkalinity, meso-humic
200 — 800
3 — 15
< 0,2
30 — 90
L-N8a
Lowland, shallow, moderate alkalinity, meso-humic
< 200
3 — 15
0,2 — 1
30 — 90
Types L-N1, L-N2a, L-N3a, LN-8a: Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.
Types L-N2b: Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom
Types L-N5, L-N6a: Norway, Sweden
Country
National classificationmethods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-goodboundary
Good-moderateboundary
Finland
Finnish phytoplankton assessment method for lakes
0,8
0,6
Ireland
IE Lake Phytoplankton Index
0,8
0,6
Norway
Lake phytoplankton ecological status classification method
0,8
0,6
Sweden
Ecological assessment methods for lakes. quality factor phytoplankton
0,8
0,6
UK
Phytoplankton Lake Assessment Tool with Uncertainty Module (PLUTO)
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## NORTHERN LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-Biological Quality Element Macrophytes

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
Lake characterisation
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Color(mg Pt/l)
L-N-M 101
Low alkalinity, clear
0,05 — 0,2
< 30
L-N-M 102
Low alkalinity, humic
0,05 — 0,2
> 30
L-N-M 201
Moderate alkalinity, clear
0,2 — 1,0
< 30
L-N-M 202
Moderate alkalinity, humic
0,2 — 1,0
> 30
L-N-M 301a
High alkalinity, clear, atlantic subtype
> 1,0
< 30
L-N-M 302a
High alkalinity, humic, atlantic subtype
> 1,0
> 30
Types 101, 102, 201 and 202: Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom.
Type 301a: Ireland, United Kingdom.
Type 302a: Ireland, United Kingdom
Will be used in England, Wales and Scotland
Will be used also in the UK (North Ireland)
Country
National classificationmethods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate
Finland
Finnish macrophyte classification system (Finnmac)
0,8 (all types)
0,6 (all types)
Ireland
Free Macrophyte Index
0,9 (all types)
0,68 (all types)
Norway
National macrophyte index (Trophic Index — TIc)
Type 101: 0,98
Type 102: 0,96
Type 201: 0,95
Type 202: 0,99
Type 101: 0,87
Type 102: 0,87
Type 201: 0,75
Type 202: 0,77
Sweden
Trophic Macrophyte Index (TMI)
Type 101: 0,93
Type 102: 0,93
Type 201: 0,89
Type 202: 0,91
Type 101: 0,8
Type 102: 0,83
Type 201: 0,78
Type 202: 0,78
UK
Lake LEAFPACS 2
0,8 (all types)
0,66 (all types)
UK
Free Macrophyte Index
0,9 (all types)
0,68 (all types)

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## NORTHERN LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrates Fauna

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
Lake characterisation
Ecoregion
Altitude(m absl)
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Colour (mg Pt/l)
Lake littoral acidification
L-N-BF1
Lowland/mid-altitude, low alkalinity, clear
n.d.
< 800
0,05 — 0,2
< 30
Lake profundal eutrophication
L-N-BF2
Ecoregion 22, low alkalinity, clear and humic
22
Area > 1 km2, max depth > 6 m
< 0,2
n.d.
Types L-N-BF1: Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom, Ireland, Finland
Types L-N-BF2: Finland, Sweden
Country
National classificationmethods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good
Good-moderate
Lake littoral acidification
Norway
MultiClear: Multimetric Invertebrate Index for Clear Lakes
0,95
0,74
Sweden
MILA: Multimetric Invertebrate Lake Acidification index
0,85
0,6
UK
LAMM (Lake Acidification Macroinvertebrate Metric)
0,86
0,7
Lake profundal eutrophication
Finland
Revised Finnish lake invertebrate fauna assessment method (PICM)
0,8
0,6
Sweden
BQI (Benthic Quality Index)
0,84
0,67

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## NORTHERN LAKES GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Fish fauna

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
Lake characterisation
Lake area km2
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Colour (mg Pt/l)
L-N-F1
Dimictic clear water lakes
< 40
< 0,2
< 30
L-N-F2
Dimictic humic lakes
< 5
< 0,2
30 — 90
Types L-N-F1: Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom
Types L-N-F2: Ireland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom
Country
National classificationmethods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Eutrophication
Finland
EQR4
0,8
0,6
Ireland
FIL2
0,76
0,53
UK (Northern Ireland)
FIL2
0,76
0,53
Norway
EindexW3
0,75
0,56
Sweden
EindexW3
0,75
0,56
Acidification
Norway
AindexW5
0,74
0,55
Sweden
AindexW5
0,74
0,55

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## Water category Lakes Geographical Intercalibration Group Cross-GIG Phytobenthos

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
Lake characterisation
Alkalinity (meq/l)
Ecoregions
HA
High alkalinity lakes
> 1
Alpine, Central-Baltic, Eastern Continental, Mediterranean
MA
Moderate alkalinity lakes
0,2 — 1
Alpine, Central-Baltic, Eastern Continental, Mediterranean, Northern
LA
Low alkalinity lakes
< 0,2
Northern
Types HA: Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden, Slovenia, United Kingdom
Types MA: Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Romania, Sweden, United Kingdom
Types LA: Finland, Ireland, Sweden, United Kingdom
Country a and Type
National classificationmethods intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
HA type
Belgium (Flanders)
Proportions of Impact-Sensitive and Impact-Associated Diatoms (PISIAD)
0,8
0,6
Germany
Verfahrensanleitung für die ökologische Bewertung von Seen zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie: Makrophyten und Phytobenthos (PHYLIB), Modul Phytobenthos
0,8
0,55
Hungary
MIL — Multimetric Index for Lakes
0,8
0,69
Ireland
Lake Trophic Diatom Index (IE)
0,9
0,63
Italy
Italian national method for the evaluation of the ecological quality of lake waterbodies using benthic diatoms (EPI-L)
0,75
0,5
Lithuania
Lithuanian Lake Phytobenthos Index
0,63
0,47
Poland
PL IOJ (Multimetryczny Indeks Okrzemkowy dla Jezior = Multimetric Diatom Index for Lakes)
0,91
0,76
Sweden
IPS
0,89
0,74
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja jezer na podlagi fitobentosa in makrofitov, fitobentos
0,8
0,6
UK
DARLEQ 2
0,92
0,7
MA type
Belgium (Flanders)
Proportions of Impact-Sensitive and Impact-Associated Diatoms (PISIAD)
0,8
0,6
Finland
Finnish lake phytobenthos method
0,8
0,6
Ireland
Lake Trophic Diatom Index (IE)
0,9
0,63
Italy
Italian national method for the evaluation of the ecological quality of lake waterbodies using benthic diatoms (EPI-L)
0,75
0,5
Romania
National (Romanian) Assessment Method for Natural Lakes Ecological Status based on Phytobenthos (Diatoms) RO-AMLP
0,8
0,6
Sweden
IPS
0,89
0,74
UK
DARLEQ 2
0,93
0,66
LA type
Ireland
Lake Trophic Diatom Index (IE)
0,9
0,66
UK
DARLEQ 2
0,92
0,7

## Water category Coastal waters Geographical Intercalibration Group Baltic Sea

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
Surface salinity (psu)
Bottom salinity(psu)
Exposure
Ice days
Other Characteristics
BC1
0,5 — 6 Oligohaline
1 — 6
Exposed
90 — 150
Sites in the Quark and the Bothnian Sea, extending to the Archipelago Sea (for phytoplankton the latter is excluded and integrated in type BC9). Influence of humic substances
BC2
6 — 22 Mesohaline
2 — 6
Very Sheltered
Lagoons
BC3
3 — 6 Oligohaline
3 — 6
Sheltered
90 — 150
Finnish and Estonian coasts of Gulf of Finland
BC4
5 — 8 Lower mesohaline
5 — 8
Sheltered
< 90
Sites of Estonia and Latvia in the Gulf of Riga
BC5
6 — 8 Lower mesohaline
6 — 12
Exposed
< 90
Sites in the southeastern Baltic Sea along the coast of Latvia, Lithuania and Poland
BC6
8 — 12 Mid mesohaline
8 — 12
Sheltered
< 90
Sites along the Western Baltic Sea at the southern Swedish coast and the southeastern Danish coast
BC7
6 — 8 Mid mesohaline
8 — 11
Exposed
< 90
Western Polish coast and eastern German coast
BC8
13 — 18 Upper mesohaline
18 — 23
Sheltered
< 90
Danish and German coasts in the Western Baltic Sea
BC9
3 — 6 Lower mesohaline
3 — 6
Moderately exposed to exposed
90 — 150
Sites in the western Gulf of Finland, Archipelago Sea and Asko archipelago (only for phytoplankton)
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Type BC1: Finland Sweden
Type BC2: Germany
Type BC3: Estonia, Finland
Type BC4: Estonia, Latvia
Type BC5: Latvia, Lithuania
Type BC6: Sweden, Denmark
Type BC7: Germany, Poland
Type BC8: Germany, Denmark
Type BC9: Finland, Sweden, Estonia (type only relevant for phytoplankton)

### Division: BALTIC SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

## 

Country and Type
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
BC7
Germany
German coastal phytoplankton method
0,8
0,6
Poland
Polish coastal phytoplankton method
0,8
0,6
BC8
Denmark
Danish coastal phytoplankton method
0,8
0,6
Germany
German coastal phytoplankton method
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## 

Results for parameter indicative of biomass (Chlorophyll-a)
Country and Type
Ecological Quality Ratios
Values (μg/l)
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
BC1
Finland (Quark outer)
0,76
0,59
1,7
2,2
Finland (Bothnian Sea outer)
0,78
0,6
1,6
2,1
Sweden (Quark outer)
0,75
0,58
1,6
2,1
Sweden (Bothnian Sea outer)
0,8
0,6
1,5
2,0
BC4
Estonia
0,83
0,67
2,4
3,0
Latvia
0,82
0,67
2,2
2,7
BC5
Latvia
0,65
0,39
1,85
3,1
Lithuania
0,88
0,6
2,5
4,9
BC6
Denmark
0,78
0,62
1,36
1,72
Sweden
0,79
0,64
1,44
1,78
BC9
Estonia
0,82
0,67
2,2
2,7
Finland
0,79
0,65
1,9
2,3
Sweden
0,8
0,67
1,5
1,8

## BALTIC SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macroalgae and Angiosperms

Country and Type
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
BC3
Estonia
EPI — Estonian coastal water phytobenthos Index (macroalgae and angiosperms)
0,98
0,86
Finland
Fucus depth limit (macroalgae)
0,92
0,79
BC4
Estonia
EPI — Estonian Phytobenthos Index (macroalgae and angiosperms)
0,91
0,7
Latvia
PEQI — Phytobenthos Ecological Quality Index
0,9
0,75
BC5
Latvia
MDFLD — Maximum depth of the red alga Furcellaria lumbricalis distribution (macroalgae)
0,9
0,75
Lithuania
MDFLD — Lithuanian maximum depth of the red alga Furcellaria lumbricalis distribution (macroalgae)
0,84
0,68

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## BALTIC SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrate fauna

Country and Type
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
BC1
Finland
BBI — Finnish Brackish water Benthic Index
0,96
0,56
Sweden
BQI — Swedish multimetric biological quality index (soft sediment infauna)
0,77
0,31
BC3
Estonia
ZKI — Estonian coastal water macrozoobenthos community index
0,39
0,24
Finland
BBI — Finnish Brackish water Benthic Index
0,94
0,56
BC5
Latvia
BQI — Benthic quality index
0,87
0,61
Lithuania
BQI — Lithuanian benthic quality index
0,94
0,81
BC6
Denmark
Danish Quality Index version 2 (DKI ver2)
0,84
0,68
Sweden
BQI — Swedish multimetric biological quality index (soft sediment infauna)
0,76
0,27
BC7
Germany
MarBIT- Marine Biotic Index Tool
—
0,6
Poland
B — Macrozoobenthos BQE assessment by multimetric index
—
0,58
BC8
Denmark
Danish Quality Index version 2 (DKI ver2)
0,86
0,72
Germany
MarBIT — Marine Biotic Index Tool
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## Water category Coastal waters Geographical Intercalibration Group North East Atlantic

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
Characterisation
Salinity (psu)Tidal range (m)Depth (m)
Current Velocity (knots) Exposure
MixingResidence Time
Type for opportunistic blooming macroalgae, seagrasses, saltmarshes and benthic invertebrate fauna
NEA 1/26
Open oceanic or enclosed seas, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallow
< 30
Mesotidal 1-5
< 30
Medium 1 — 3
Exposed or sheltered
Fully mixed
Days (to weeks in the Wadden Sea)
Subtypes for intertidal macroalgae
NEA 1/26 A2
Open oceanic, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallow, Temperate waters (mainly, > 13 oC) and high irradiance (mainly, PAR > 29 Mol/m2 day)
> 30
Mesotidal 1 — 5
< 30
Medium 1 — 3
Exposed or sheltered
Fully mixed Days
NEA 1/26 B21
Open oceanic or enclosed seas, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallow Cool waters (mainly, < 13 oC) and medium irradiance (mainly, PAR < 29 Mol/m2 day)
> 30 Mainly mesotidal 1 — 5 < 30
Medium 1 — 3 Exposed or sheltered
Fully mixed Days
Subtypes for phytoplankton
NEA 1/26a
Open oceanic, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallow
> 30 Mesotidal 1 — 5 < 30
Medium 1 -3 Exposed or sheltered
Fully mixed Days
NEA 1/26b
Enclosed seas, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallow
> 30 Mesotidal 1 — 5 < 30
Medium 1 — 3 Exposed or sheltered
Fully mixed Days
NEA 1/26c
Enclosed seas, enclosed or sheltered, partly stratified
> 30 Microtidal/Mesotidal < 1 — 5 < 30
Medium 1 — 3 Exposed or sheltered
Partly stratified Days to weeks
NEA 1/26d
Scandinavian coast, exposed or sheltered, shallow
> 30 Microtidal < 1 < 30
Low < 1 Exposed or moderately exposed
Partly stratified Days to weeks
NEA 1/26e
Areas of upwelling, exposed or sheltered, euhaline, shallow
> 30 Mesotidal < 1 < 30
Medium 1 — 3 Exposed or sheltered
Fully mixed Days
Types for phytoplankton, macroalgae, seagrasses, saltmarshes, benthic invertebrate fauna
NEA 5
Helgoland (German Bight), rocky, exposed and partly stratified
> 30
Mesotidal
< 30
Medium 1 — 3 Exposed
Partly stratified Days
NEA 3/4
Polyhaline, Exposed or moderately exposed (Wadden Sea type)
Polyhaline 18 — 30 Mesotidal 1 — 5 < 30
Medium 1 — 3 Exposed or moderately exposed
Fully mixed Days
NEA 7
Deep fjordic and sea loch systems
> 30 Mesotidal 1 -5 > 30
Low < 1 Sheltered
Fully mixed Days
NEA 8a
Skagerrak Inner Arc Type, polyhaline, microtidal, moderately exposed, shallow
Polyhaline 25 — 30 Microtidal < 1 > 30
Low < 1 Moderately exposed
Fully mixed Days to weeks
NEA 8b
Skagerrak Inner Arc Type, polyhaline, microtidal, moderately sheltered, shallow
Polyhaline 10 — 30 Microtidal < 1 < 30
Low < 1 Sheltered to moderately exposed
Partly stratified Days to weeks
NEA 9
Fjord with a shallow sill at the mouth with a very deep maximum depth in the central basin with poor deepwater exchange
Polyhaline 25 — 30 Microtidal < 1 > 30
Low < 1 Sheltered
Partly stratified Weeks
NEA 10
Skagerrak Outer Arc Type, polyhaline, microtidal, exposed, deep
Polyhaline 25 — 30 Microtidal < 1 > 30
Low < 1 Exposed
Partly stratified Days
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Type NEA1/26 opportunistic blooming macroalgae, seagrasses, saltmarshes, benthic invertebrate fauna: Belgium, France, Germany, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom
Type NEA1/26 A2: intertidal macroalgae: France, Spain, Portugal
Type NEA1/26 B21: intertidal macroalgae: France, Ireland, Norway, United Kingdom
Type NEA1/26a phytoplankton: Spain, France, Ireland, Norway, United Kingdom
Type NEA1/26b phytoplankton: Belgium, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom
Type NEA1/26c phytoplankton: Germany, Denmark
Type NEA1/26d phytoplankton: Denmark
Type NEA1/26e phytoplankton: Portugal, Spain
Type NEA 5: Germany
Type NEA3/4: Germany, Netherlands
Type NEA7: Norway, United Kingdom
Type NEA8a: Norway, Sweden
Type NEA8b: Denmark, Sweden
Type NEA9: Norway, Sweden
Type NEA10: Norway, Sweden

## NORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton Phytoplankton: parameter indicative of biomass parameter (Chlorophyll a)

Parameter values are expressed in μg/l as the 90 %ile value calculated over the defined growing season in a six year period.
Country and Type
Ecological Quality Ratios
Values (μg/l)
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
NEA 1/26a
France
0,76
0,33
4,4
10,0
Ireland
0,82
0,6
9,9
15,0
Norway
0,67
0,33
2,5
5,0
Spain (Eastern Cantabrian coast)
0,67
0,33
1,5
3,0
Spain (Western-Central Cantabrian Coast)
0,67
0,33
3,0
6,0
Spain (Gulf of Cadiz coast)
0,67
0,33
5,0
10,0
United Kingdom
0,8
0,6
5,0
10,0
NEA 1/26b
Belgium
0,8
0,67
12,5
15,0
France
0,67
0,44
10,0
15,0
Netherlands
0,67
0,44
10,0
15,0
United Kingdom (south)
0,82
0,63
9,8
14,3
United Kingdom (north)
0,8
0,6
10,0
15,0
NEA 1/26c
Germany
0,67
0,44
5,0
7,5
Denmark
0,67
0,44
5,0
7,5
NEA 1/26e
Portugal (Iberian strong upwelling-A5)
0,67
0,44
8,0
12,0
Portugal (upwelling-A6,A7)
0,88
0,49
4,5
8,2
Spain (Western Iberian upwelling coast)
0,67
0,44
6,0
9,0
Spain (Western Iberian upwelling coast — rías)
0,67
0,44
8,0
12,0
NEA 3/4
Germany (Eems Dollard)
0,8
0,6
7,0
11,0
Germany (Wadden Sea)
0,8
0,6
7,0
11,0
Netherlands (Eems Dollard)
0,8
0,6
6,75
10,13
Netherlands (Wadden Sea)
0,8
0,6
9,6
14,4
Netherlands (North Sea)
0,8
0,6
11,25
16,88
NEA 8a
Norway
0,79
0,57
3,95
5,53
Sweden
0,75
0,49
1,54
2,35
NEA 8b (The Sound)
Denmark
0,79
0,59
1,22
1,63
Sweden
0,8
0,6
1,18
1,56
NEA 8b (The Kattegat and Great Belt)
Denmark
0,83
0,64
1,22
1,58
Sweden
0,84
0,65
1,18
1,52
NEA 9
Norway
0,76
0,43
3,92
6,9
Sweden
0,73
0,38
1,89
3,6
NEA 10
Norway
0,73
0,49
3,53
5,26
Sweden
0,71
0,46
1,39
2,14

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios and parameter values

## NORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macroalgae and Angiosperms Sub-Biological Quality Element Macroalgae

Intertidal or subtidal macroalgae rocky bottom
Country and Type
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Type NEA1/26 A2 intertidal macroalgae
France
CCO — Cover, Characteristic species, Opportunistic species on intertidal rocky bottoms
0,8
0,6
Portugal
PMarMAT — Marine Macroalgae Assessment Tool
0,8
0,61
Spain
CFR — Quality of Rocky Bottoms
0,81
0,6
Spain
RICQI — Rocky Intertidal Community Quality Index
0,82
0,6
Spain
RSL — Reduced Species List
0,75
0,48
Type NEA1/26 B21 intertidal macroalgae
Ireland
RSL — Rocky Shore Reduced Species List
0,8
0,6
Norway
RSLA — Rocky Shore Reduced Species List with Abundance
0,8
0,6
United Kingdom
RSL — Rocky Shore Reduced Species List
0,8
0,6
Type NEA 7 intertidal macroalgae
Norway
RSLA — Rocky Shore Reduced Species List with Abundance
0,8
0,6
United Kingdom
RSL — Rocky Shore Reduced Species List
0,8
0,6
Type NEA8a/9/10 subtidal macroalgae
Norway
MSMDI — Multi Species Maximum Depth Index
0,8
0,6
Sweden
MSMDI — Multi Species Maximum Depth Index
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## NORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macroalgae and Angiosperms Sub-Biological Quality Element Macroalgae

Intertidal blooming macroalgae soft bottom, indicative of abundance
Country and Type
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Type NEA 1/26
Germany
OMAI — Opportunistic Macroalgae-cover/acreage on soft sediment intertidal in coastal waters
0,78
0,59
France
CWOGA — Macroalgal Bloom Assessment
0,825
0,617
Ireland
OGA tool — Opportunistic Green Macroalgal Abundance
0,8
0,6
United Kingdom
OMBT — Opportunistic macroalgal blooming tool
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## NORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macroalgae and Angiosperms Sub-Biological Quality Element Angiosperms

Seagrasses
Country and Type
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Type NEA 1/26
Germany
SG — Assessment tool for intertidal seagrass in coastal and transitional waters
0,8
0,6
France
SBQ — Seagrass beds quality in coastal and transitional water bodies
0,8
0,645
Ireland
Intertidal Seagrass tool
0,8
0,61
Netherlands
SG — Monitoring beds of SG per waterbody using aerial photographs, ground truth and specifying surface & density per species
0,8
0,6
Portugal
SQI — Seagrass quality index
0,8
0,6
United Kingdom
Intertidal Seagrass tool
0,8
0,61
Type NEA 3/4
Germany
SG — Bewertungssystem für Makroalgen und Seegräser der Küsten- und Übergangsgewässer zur Umsetzung der EG-Wasserrahmenrichtlinie in Deutschland
0,8
0,6
Netherlands
Monitoring beds of SG per waterbody using aerial photographs, ground truth and specifying surface and density per species
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## NORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrate fauna

Country and Type
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Type NEA 1/26
Belgium
BEQI — Benthic Ecosystem Quality Index
0,8
0,6
Denmark
Danish Quality Index (DKI)
0,8
0,6
Germany
M-AMBI — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index
0,85
0,7
France
M-AMBI — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index
0,77
0,53
Ireland
IQI — Infaunal Quality Index
0,75
0,64
Netherlands
BEQI2 -Benthic Ecosystem Quality Index 2
0,8
0,6
Norway
NQI — Norwegian Quality Index
0,72
0,63
Portugal
BAT — Benthic Assessment Tool
0,79
0,58
Spain
M-AMBI — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index
0,77
0,63
United Kingdom
IQI — Infaunal Quality Index
0,75
0,64
Type NEA 3/4
Germany
M-AMBI — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index
0,85
0,7
Netherlands
BEQI2 — Benthic Ecosystem Quality Index 2
0,8
0,6
Type NEA 7
Norway
NQI — Norwegian Quality Index
0,72
0,63
United Kingdom
IQI — Infaunal Quality Index
0,75
0,64
Type NEA 8b
Denmark
Danish Quality Index (DKI)
0,84
0,68
Sweden
BQI — Swedish multimetric biological quality index (soft sediment infauna)
0,71
0,54
Type NEA 8a/9/10
Norway
NQI — Norwegian Quality Index
0,82
0,63
Sweden
BQI — Swedish multimetric biological quality index (soft sediment infauna)
0,71
0,54

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## Water category Coastal waters Geographical Intercalibration Group Mediterranean Sea

Description of types that have been intercalibrated (for phytoplankton only)
For benthic invertebrate fauna, macroalgae and seagrasses the intercalibration results apply to the entire Mediterranean Sea covered by the Country
Type
Description
Density (kg/m3)
Annual mean salinity (psu)
Type I
Highly influenced by freshwater input
< 25
< 34,5
Type IIA, IIA Adriatic
Moderately influenced by freshwater input (continent influence)
25 — 27
34,5 — 37,5
Type IIIW
Continental coast, not influenced by freshwater input (Western Basin).
> 27
> 37,5
Type IIIE
Not influenced by freshwater input (Eastern Basin)
> 27
> 37,5
Type Island-W*
Island coast (Western Basin)
All range
All range
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Type I: France, Italy
Type IIA: France, Spain, Italy
Type IIA Adriatic: Italy, Slovenia
Type Island-W* (no boundaries for this type and no possible the intercalibration due to justified reasons): France, Spain, Italy
Type IIIW: France, Spain, Italy
Type IIIE: Greece, Cyprus

## MEDITERRANEAN SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

Parameter values are expressed in μg/l of Chlorophyll a, for the 90th percentile calculated over the year in at least a five year period.
Country and Type
Ecological Quality Ratios
Values (μg/l)
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Type II A
France
0,67
0,37
1,92
3,5
Spain
0,67
0,37
1,92
3,5
Type II A Adriatic
Croatia
0,82
0,61
1,7
4,0
Italy
0,82
0,61
1,7
4,0
Slovenia
0,82
0,61
1,7
4,0
Type IIIW
France
0,67
0,42
1,18
1,89
Spain
0,67
0,42
1,18
1,89
Type IIIE
Cyprus
0,66
0,37
0,29
0,53
Greece
0,66
0,37
0,29
0,53

## Phytoplankton: 

parameter indicative of biomass parameter (Chlorophyll a)

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios and parameter values

## MEDITERRANEAN SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macroalgae and Angiosperms Sub-Biological Quality Element Macroalgae

The following results apply to the upper infralittoral zone (3,5-0,2 m depth) in a rocky coasts:
Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Cyprus
EEI-c — Ecological Evaluation Index
0,76
0,48
France
CARLIT — Cartography of Littoral and upper-sublittoral rocky-shore communities
0,75
0,6
Greece
EEI-c — Ecological Evaluation Index
0,76
0,48
Croatia
CARLIT — Cartography of Littoral and upper-sublittoral rocky-shore communities
0,75
0,6
Italy
CARLIT — Cartography of Littoral and upper-sublittoral rocky-shore communities
0,75
0,6
Malta
CARLIT — Cartography of Littoral and upper-sublittoral rocky-shore communities
0,75
0,6
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja obalnega morja na podlagi makroalg
0,76
0,48
Spain
CARLIT — Cartography of Littoral and upper-sublittoral rocky-shore communities
0,75
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## MEDITERRANEAN SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macroalgae and Angiosperms Sub-Biological Quality Element Angiosperms

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Croatia
POMI — Posidonia oceanica Multivariate Index
0,775
0,55
Cyprus
PREI — Posidonia oceanica Rapid Easy Index
0,775
0,55
France
PREI — Posidonia oceanica Rapid Easy Index
0,775
0,55
Italy
PREI — Posidonia oceanica Rapid Easy Index
0,775
0,55
Malta
PREI — Posidonia oceanica Rapid Easy Index
0,775
0,55
Spain
POMI — Posidonia oceanica Multivariate Index
0,775
0,55
Spain
Valencian-CS
0,775
0,55

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## MEDITERRANEAN SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrate fauna Biological Quality Element

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Italy
M-AMBI — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index
0,81
0,61
Slovenia
Metodologija vrednotenja ekološkega stanja obalnega morja na podlagi bentoških nevretenčarjev
0,83
0,62
Cyprus
Bentix
0,75
0,58
France
AMBI
0,83
0,58
Greece
Bentix
0,75
0,58
Spain
BOPA
0,95
0,54
Spain
MEDOCC
0,73
0,47

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## Water category Coastal waters Geographical Intercalibration Group Black Sea

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
Description
CW-BL1
Mesohaline, microtidal (< 1 m), shallow (< 30 m), moderately exposed to very exposed, mixed substratum (fine sand for zoobenthos)
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated: Bulgaria and Romania

## BLACK SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Bulgaria
IBI
0,8
0,63
Romania
IBI
0,8
0,63

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## BLACK SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Macroalgae and Angiosperms

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Bulgaria
EI-Ecological index
0,837
0,644
Romania
EI-Ecological index
0,837
0,644

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## BLACK SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Benthic Invertebrate fauna

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Bulgaria
M-AMBI(n) — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index Normalized
0,9
0,68
Romania
M-AMBI(n) — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index Normalized
0,9
0,68

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## Water category Transitional waters Geographical Intercalibration Group Baltic Sea GIG

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
Surface salinity psu
Bottom salinity (psu)
Exposure
Ice days
Other Characteristics
BT1
0 — 8 Oligohaline
0 — 8
Very sheltered
—
Polish Vistula lagoon and Lithuanian Curonian lagoon
Countries sharing types that have been intercalibrated:
Lithuania and Poland

## BALTIC SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

Results for parameter indicative of biomass (Chrophyll a)
The following results refer to summer mean May/June — September
Country
Ecological Quality Ratios
Values (μg/l)
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Lithuania
0,83
0,57
31,7
46,6
Poland
0,77
0,61
33,46
42,2

## Water category Transitional waters Geographical Intercalibration Group North East Atlantic

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Type
Characterisation
Salinity (psu),Tidal range (m), Depth (m)
Current Velocity (knots), Exposure
MixingResidence Time
NEA 11
Transitional Waters
0 — 35 Micro to macrotidal < 30
Variable Sheltered or moderately exposed
Partly permanently stratified Days to weeks
Countries sharing type that have been intercalibrated:
Belgium, Germany, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom
Description of sub common intercalibration types for Biological quality element Benthic Invertebrate Fauna:
Sub type
Characterisation
MS sharing sub-type
A
Lagoons
Ireland, Spain, United Kingdom
B
Freshwater-oligohaline, medium river flow
Ireland, Spain, United Kingdom
C
Mesotidal estuary with irregular river flow
Portugal, Spain
D
Large estuaries
Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom
E
Small-medium estuary with > 50 % intertidal area
Ireland, Germany, Spain, United Kingdom
F
Small-medium estuary with < 50 % intertidal area
Ireland, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom

## NORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element: Phytoplankton

Parameter values are expressed in μg/l measured as the national chlorophyll-a metric calculated in a six year period. National metrics for France, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain typically use a measure of P90 Chl-a with salinity adjusted thresholds, Ireland uses a combination of P90 Chl-a and median values, and United Kingdom uses a metric based on a count of exceedances of certain statistical measures. In the case of UK, P90 values were calculated only for IC purposes.
Salinity ranges stablished by the median (P50) salinity as follows: Euhaline [30,1-34,4] PSU; Polyhaline [18,1-30,0] PSU; Mesohaline [5,1-18,0] PSU; Oligohaline [0,5-5,0] PSU
Country
Ecological Quality Ratios
Values (μg/l)
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
France
0,67
0,397
5,33
8,88
Ireland
0,8
0,6
12,96
25,96
Netherlands
0,8
0,6
12,0
18,0
Portugal-North
0,667
0,467
10,0
14,288
Spain — Central Cantabrian and Galician estuaries — Mixing zone
0,67
0,44
8,0
12,0
Spain — Central Cantabrian and Galician estuaries — Euhaline
0,67
0,33
4,0
8,0
Spain — East Cantabrian estuaries — Euhaline
0,67
0,33
1,95
3,9
Spain — East Cantabrian estuaries — Polyhaline
0,67
0,33
3,3
6,6
Spain — East Cantabrian estuaries — Mesohaline
0,67
0,33
5,1
10,2
Spain — East Cantabrian estuaries — Oligohaline
0,67
0,33
6,6
13,2
Spain — Gulf of Cádiz estuaries — Mixing zone
0,67
0,33
3,75
7,5
Spain — Gulf of Cádiz estuaries — Euhaline
0,67
0,33
3,0
6,0
United Kingdom
0,8
0,6
10,0
15,0

## Phytoplankton: 

parameter indicative of biomass parameter (Chlorophyll a)

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios and parameter values

## NORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element: Macroalgae and Angiosperms Sub-Biological Quality Element Macroalgae

Intertidal blooming macroalgae soft bottom, indicative of abundance
Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
France
TWOGA — Macroalgal Bloom Assessment
0,8
0,6
Ireland
OGA Tool — Opportunistic Green Macroalgal Abundance
0,8
0,6
United Kingdom
OMBT- Opportunistic macroalgal blooming tool
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## NORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element: Macroalgae and Angiosperms Sub-Biological Quality Element Angiosperms

Seagrasses
Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Germany
SG-Assessment tool for intertidal seagrass in coastal and transitional waters
0,8
0,6
France
SBQ-Seagrass beds quality in coastal and transitional water bodies
0,8
0,645
Ireland
Intertidal Seagrass tool
0,8
0,61
Netherlands
SG- Monitoring beds of SG per waterbody using aerial photographs, ground truth and specifying surface & density per species
0,8
0,6
Portugal
SQI-Seagrass quality index
0,8
0,6
United Kingdom
Intertidal Seagrass tool
0,8
0,61

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## NORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element: Macroalgae and Angiosperms Sub-Biological Quality Element Angiosperms

Saltmarshes
Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Spain — Cantabria
AQI — Angiosperm Quality Index
0,88
0,73
Portugal
AQuA — Angiosperm Quality Assessment Index
0,8
0,6
United Kingdom
SM — UK Saltmarsh Tool
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## NORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebrate fauna

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Sub type D
Germany
M-AMBI — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index
0,85
0,7
Netherlands
BEQI2 — Benthic Ecosystem Quality Index 2
0,8
0,6
Spain
M-AMBI — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index
0,77
0,53
Portugal
BAT — Benthic Assessment Tool
0,838
0,582
Sub type E
Spain
M-AMBI — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index
0,77
0,53
Spain
QSB — Quality of Soft Bottoms
0,8
0,6
Sub type F
Spain
M-AMBI — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index
0,77
0,53
Portugal
BAT- Benthic Assessment Tool
0,806
0,58

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## NORTH EAST ATLANTIC GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element: Fish fauna

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Belgium
EBI — Zeeschelde Estuarine Biotic Index
0,85
0,615
France
ELFI — Estuarine and Lagoon Fish Index
0,91
0,675
Germany
FAT — TW — Fischbasiertes Bewertungswerkzeug für Übergangsgewässer der norddeutschen Ästuare
0,84
0,62
Ireland
TFCI — Transitional Fish Classification Index
0,81
0,58
Ireland
EMFI — Estuarine Multi-metric Fish Index
0,92
0,65
Netherlands
FAT — TW — WFD Fish index for transitional waters, type O2
0,8
0,6
Portugal
EFAI — Estuarine Fish Assessment Index
0,865
0,7
Spain
AFI — AZTI’s Fish Index
0,78
0,55
Spain
TFCI — Transitional Fish Classification Index
0,9
0,65
United Kingdom
TFCI — Transitional Fish Classification Index
0,81
0,58
United Kingdom
EMFI — Estuarine Multi-metric Fish Index
0,92
0,65

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## Water category Transitional waters Geographical Intercalibration Group Mediterranean Sea

Description of types that have been intercalibrated
Spain and France do not consider distinction between restricted or chocked lagoons.
Common IC type
Type characteristics
MS sharing IC common type
CL-Oligohaline
Coastal lagoons (Salinity < 5 psu)
Spain, France, Italy
CL-Mesohaline chocked and restricted
Coastal lagoons (Salinity 5 — 18 psu)
Spain, France, Italy, Greece
CL-Polyhaline chocked and restricted
Coastal lagoons (Salinity 18 — 40 psu)
Spain, France, Italy, Greece
Hyperhalines (Salinity > 40 psu).
Hyperhalines (Salinity > 40 psu)
Spain
Estuaries
Estuaries (salt wedge type)
Spain, Croatia

## MEDITERRANEAN SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element: Phytoplankton

Country and type
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Coastal lagoons Polyhaline chocked
France
PhIL — Phytoplankton index for Mediterranean polyhaline lagoons
0,71
0,39
Greece
MPI — Multimetric Phytoplankton Index
0,78
0,51
Italy
MPI — Multimetric Phytoplankton Index
0,78
0,51
Coastal lagoons Polyhaline restricted
France
PhIL — Phytoplankton index for Mediterranean polyhaline lagoons
0,71
0,39
Greece
MPI — Multimetric Phytoplankton Index
0,82
0,54
Italy
MPI — Multimetric Phytoplankton Index
0,82
0,54

## Phytoplankton: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## MEDITERRANEAN SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element: Macroalgae and Angiosperms

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
France
Exclame
0,8
0,6
Greece
EEI-c — Ecological Evaluation Index
0,7
0,4
Italy
MaQI — Macrophyte Quality Index
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

## MEDITERRANEAN SEA GEOGRAPHICAL INTERCALIBRATION GROUP RESULTS Biological Quality Element: Benthic invertebrate fauna

Country and Type
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Coastal lagoons Polyhaline restricted
France
M-AMBI — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index
0,84
0,63
Italy
M-AMBI — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index
0,96
0,71
Greece
M-AMBI — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index
0,83
0,62
CL-Mesohaline chocked and restricted
Italy
M-AMBI — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index
—
0,71
Greece
M-AMBI — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index
—
0,62

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems intercalibrated

### Division: -- PART 2 --

### Division: Water category Rivers Geographical Intercalibration Group Cross-GIG River fish fauna

## Biological Quality Element Fish fauna

Mediterranean group
Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Italy
NISECI index (New Index of Ecological Status of Fish Communities)
0,8
0,6
Bulgaria
TsBRI (Type Specific Bulgarian Fish Index)
0,86
0,65

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods

### Division: Water category Rivers Geographical Intercalibration Group Cross-GIG Very Large Rivers

## Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-biological Quality Element Phytobenthos

Country
National classification systems intercalibrated
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-Good boundary
Good-Moderate boundary
Belgium (Flanders)
PISIAD index (Proportions of Impact-Sensitive and Impact-Associated Diatoms)
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods intercalibrated — Type R-L2

### Division: Water category Lakes Geographical Intercalibration Group Alpine lakes

## Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrates fauna

Country
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Italy
BQIES (Benthic Quality Index Expected Species number)
0,88
0,76

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods

## Biological Quality Element Fish fauna

Country
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
France
ELFI (European Lake Fish Index): Indice Ichtyofaune Lacustre (IIL)
0,73
0,49

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods

### Division: Water category Lakes Geographical Intercalibration Group Central-Baltic lakes

## Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

Country
National classification methods
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
France
Phytoplankton Index for Lakes (IPLAC): Indice Phytoplancton Lacustre
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods

## Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-biological Quality Element Macrophytes

Country
National classification methods
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
France
French Macrophyte Index for Lakes (IBML): Indice Biologique Macrophytique en Lacs
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods

## Biological Quality Element Fish fauna

Country
National classification methods
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Belgium (Flanders)
Fish-based index for lakes and reservoirs in Flanders (Belgium)
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods

### Division: Water category Lakes Geographical Intercalibration Group Mediterranean lakes

## Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

Country
National classification methods
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
France
Phytoplankton Index for Lakes (IPLAC): Indice Phytoplancton Lacustre
0,8
0,6
Greece
HeLPhy — Hellenic Lake Phytoplankton Assessment Method
0,8
0,6
Italy
Italian phytoplankton assessment method (IPAM)
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods

## Biological Quality Element Macrophytes and Phytobenthos Sub-biological Quality Element Macrophytes

Country
National classification methods
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
France
French Macrophyte Index for Lakes (IBML): Indice Biologique Macrophytique en Lacs
0,8
0,6
Greece
HeLM — Hellenic Lake Macrophytes Assessment Method
0,8
0,6
Italy
VLMMI — Volcanic Lakes Multimetric Macrophyte Index
0,7
0,5

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods

## Biological Quality Element Benthic Invertebrate fauna

Country
National classification methods
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Greece
GLBiI — Greek Lake Benthic invertebrate Index
0,8
0,6
Italy
BQIES (Benthic Quality Index Expected Species number)
0,88
0,76

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods

## Biological Quality Element Fish fauna

Country
National classification methods
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
France
ELFI (European Lake Fish Index): Indice Ichtyofaune Lacustre (IIL)
0,73
0,49
Greece
GLFI — Greek Lake Fish Index
0,8
0,6
Italy
Lake Fish Index (LFI)
0,82
0,64

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods

### Division: Water category Lakes Geographical Intercalibration Group Eastern Continental lakes

## Biological Quality Element Fish fauna

Country
National classification methods
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Bulgaria
Bulgarian fish based method for ecological classification and monitoring of lakes
0,76
0,52

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification methods

### Division: Water category Coastal waters Geographical Intercalibration Group Baltic Sea

## Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

Country and Type
Ecological Quality Ratios
Values (μg/l)
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
BC2 (including German national types B1, B2a, B2b)
Germany (B1)
0,91
0,67
9,3
12,7
Germany (B2a)
0,89
0,67
1,8
2,4
Germany (B2b)
0,93
0,67
1,4
1,95

## Phytoplankton: 

parameter indicative of biomass parameter (Chlorophyll a)

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios and parameter values

### Division: Biological Quality Element Macroalgae and Angiosperms

## 

Country and Type
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
BC2
Germany
PHYBIBCO — PHYtoBenthic Index for Baltic inner coastal waters
0,8
0,6
BC1
Finland
Fucus depth limit(macroalgae)
0,9
0,74
Sweden
MSMDI (macroalgae and angiosperms)
0,6
0,4
BC6
Denmark
Depth limit of eelgrass, Zostera marina (angiosperm)
0,9
0,74
Sweden
MSMDI(macroalgae and angiosperms)
0,6
0,4
BC7
Germany
Balcosis — Baltic ALgae COmmunity AnalySIs System(macroalgae and angiosperms)
0,8
0,6
Poland
MQAI — Macrophyte Quality Assessment Index
0,9
0,7
BC8
Germany
Balcosis — Baltic ALgae COmmunity AnalySIs System(macroalgae and angiosperms)
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

## 

Country and Type
Ecological Quality Ratios
Parameter values/ranges Depth limit (m) Eelgrass Zoster marina
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
BC8
Denmark
Open coast
0,9
0,74
8,5
7

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios and parameters values for parameter indicative of abundance (Depth limit of eelgrass Zostera marina (angiosperm)

## Biological Quality Element Benthic Invertebrate fauna

Country and Type
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
BC2
Germany
MarBIT- Marine Biotic Index Tool
0,8
0,6
BC4
Estonia
ZKI — Estonian coastal water macrozoobenthos community index
0,39
0,24
Latvia
BQI — Benthic quality index
0,88
0,75

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

### Division: Water category Coastal waters Geographical Intercalibration Group North East Atlantic

### Division: Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

## 

Country and Type
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
NEA 7
United Kingdom
Phytoplankton tool
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

## 

Parameter values are expressed in μg/l as the 90 %ile value calculated over the defined growing season in a six year period.
Country and Type
Ecological Quality Ratios
Values (μg/l)
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
NEA 1/26d
Denmark
0,66
0,5
3,0
4,0
NEA 5
Germany
0,67
0,44
5,0
7,5
NEA 7
Norway
0,67
0,33
2,5
5,0
United Kingdom (inshore/North Sea)
0,67
0,33
10,0
15,0
United Kingdom (Atlantic)
0,67
0,33
5,0
10,0

## Phytoplankton: 

parameter indicative of biomass parameter (Chlorophyll a)

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios and parameter values

## Biological Quality Element Macroalgae and Angiosperms Sub-Biological Quality Element Macroalgae

Intertidal or subtidal macroalgae rocky bottom
Country and Type
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Type NEA 5
Germany
HPI — Helgoland Phytobenthic Index
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

## Biological Quality Element Macroalgae and Angiosperms Sub-Biological Quality Element Macroalgae

Intertidal blooming macroalgae soft bottom, indicative of abundance
Country
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
NEA 3/4
Germany
OMAI — Opportunistic Macroalgae-cover/acreage on soft sediment intertidal in coastal waters
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

## Biological Quality Element Macroalgae and Angiosperms Sub-Biological Quality Element Angiosperms

Saltmarshes
Country
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Germany
EM — Assessment of saltmarsh vegetation in coastal and transitional waters
0,8
0,6
Ireland
SMAATIE — Saltmarsh Angiosperm Assessment Tool for Ireland
0,8
0,6
Netherlands
TSM — WFD-metrics for natural watertypes: tidal salt marsh
0,8
0,6
United Kingdom
SM — UK Saltmarsh Tool
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

## Biological Quality Element Macroalgae and Angiosperms

Country and Type
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Type NEA 8b
Sweden
MSMDI (macroalgae and angiosperms)
0,8
0,6
Denmark
Depth limit of eelgrass Zostera marina (angiosperm)
0,9
0,74

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

## Biological Quality Element Benthic Invertebrate fauna

Country and Type
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Type NEA 1/26
Portugal
RAT — Rocky Shore Assessment Tool
0,8
0,6
Spain
BO2A — Benthic Opportunistic polychaetes/amphipods index
0,83
0,5
Type NEA 5*
Germany
MarBIT — Marine Biotic Index Tool
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

### Division: Water category Coastal waters Geographical Intercalibration Group Mediterranean Sea

## Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

Parameter values are expressed in μg/l of Chlorophyll a, for the 90th percentile calculated over the year in at least a five year period.
The values are not national boundaries but threshold values
Country and Type
Ecological Quality Ratios
Values (μg/l)
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Type I
France
0,67
0,33
4,925
10,0
Italy
0,85
0,62
5,6
14,1
Type II A Tyrrhenian
Italy
0,84
0,62
1,17
2,9
Type III W Adriatic
Italy
1,7
Type III W Tyrrhenian
Italy
1,17

## Phytoplankton: 

parameter indicative of biomass parameter (Chlorophyll a)

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios and parameter values

## Biological Quality Element Macroalgae and Angiosperms Sub-Biological Quality Element Angiosperms

Country
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Greece
CymoSkew
0,75
0,5

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

### Division: Water category Transitional waters Geographical Intercalibration Group North East Atlantic

## Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

Parameter values are expressed in μg/l as the 90 %ile value calculated over the defined growing season
Country
Ecological Quality Ratios
Values (μg/l)
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Belgium
1,0
0,6
100
200

## Phytoplankton: 

parameter indicative of biomass parameter (Chlorophyll a)

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios and parameter values

## Biological Quality Element Macroalgae and Angiosperms Sub-Biological Quality Element Angiosperms

Saltmarshes
Country
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Belgium
TMQI -Tidal Marsh Quality Index
0,85
0,75
Germany
EM — Assessment of saltmarsh vegetation in coastal and transitional waters
0,8
0,6
Ireland
SMAATIE — Saltmarsh Angiosperm Assessment Tool for Ireland
0,8
0,6
Netherlands
TSM — WFD-metrics for natural watertypes: tidal salt marsh
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

## Biological Quality Element Macroalgae and Angiosperms Sub-Biological Quality Element Angiosperms

Seagrasses
Country
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Spain — Cantabria
AQI — Angiosperms Quality Index
0,85
0,7

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

## Biological Quality Element Benthic Invertebrate fauna

Country and Type
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Belgium
BEQI — Benthic Ecosystem Quality Index
0,75
0,5
Sub type D
Germany
AeTV — Aestuar Type Verfahren
0,8
0,6
Ireland
IQI — Infaunal Quality Index
0,75
0,64
Spain
TasBEM — Taxonomically Sufficient Benthic Multimetric
0,79
0,66
United Kingdom
IQI — Infaunal Quality Index
0,75
0,64
Sub type E
Germany
AeTV — Aestuar Type Verfahren
0,8
0,6
Germany
M-AMBI -
0,85
0,7
Ireland
IQI — Infaunal Quality Index
0,75
0,64
Spain
TasBEM — Taxonomically Sufficient Benthic Multimetric
0,79
0,66
United Kingdom
IQI — Infaunal Quality Index
0,75
0,64
Sub type F
Ireland
IQI — Infaunal Quality Index
0,75
0,64
Spain
TasBEM — Taxonomically Sufficient Benthic Multimetric
0,79
0,66
United Kingdom
IQI — Infaunal Quality Index
0,75
0,64

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

### Division: Water category Transitional waters Geographical Intercalibration Group Mediterranean Sea

## Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

Country and Type
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Coastal lagoons oligohaline and mesohaline
Spain (Balearic Islands)
FITOHMIB
0,93
0,73
Estuaries
Spain (Southern Coast)
TWIf — Phytoplankton index for transitional waters
0,5
0,36
Croatia
MPI — Multimetric Phytoplankton Index
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

## Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrate fauna

Country and Type
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Coastal lagoons Oligohaline, Mesohaline and Polyhaline
Spain (Balearic Islands)
INVHMIB
0,93
0,73
Coastal lagoons Oligohaline
Spain (Northeastern Coast)
QAELS
0,86
0,58
Coastal lagoons Mesohaline
Spain (Northeastern Coast)
QAELS
0,72
0,62
Estuaries
Spain (without salt wedge — Southern Coast)
BO2A
0,87
0,45
Spain (with salt wedge — Southern Coast)
BO2A
0,87
0,52

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

## Biological Quality Element Fish fauna

Country
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Italy
HFBI — Habitat Fish Bio-Indicator
0,94
0,55
Croatia
M-EFI — Modified Estuarine Fish Index
0,8
0,6

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

### Division: Water category Transitional waters Geographical Intercalibration Group Black Sea

## Biological Quality Element Phytoplankton

Country
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Romania
IBI — Integrated Biological Index
0,7
0,42

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

## Biological Quality Element Benthic invertebrate fauna

Country
National classification systems
Ecological Quality Ratios
High-good boundary
Good-moderate boundary
Romania
M-AMBI(n) — Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index Normalized
0,9
0,68

## Results: 

Ecological quality ratios of national classification systems

---
Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eudn/2018/229 (the official version)
Page: https://openlegislation.uk/eu-decision-2018-229
Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives.