Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(v) provide standards in a timely manner for EU needs and CEN priorities.94. Within this context there is considerable scope for ECOSTAT working group 2Ato identify future ecological standardization priorities specifically in mandated areassuch as the EU Eutrophication strategy.95. ECOSTAT supports the better resourcing of the standardization work in CEN inorder to deliver the outputs required to meet their specific needs and againsttimescales they foresee as being timely to the delivery of WFD.96. Following a meeting with DG Environment preliminary discussions have takenplace in relation to the mandating of specific standardisation projects. ECOSTAT isinvited to contribute to this debate. Ultimately the standards produced should bereferred to the Article 21 committee for inclusion in the WFD.Further information CEN can be obtained through the WEB site www.cenorm.be/bossor through the Secretariat of Working Group 2 at peter.hale @doeni.gov.ukEvaluation of the usefulness of existing methods in relation to theWFD97. In Annex VII is summarised the WFD ecological quality classificationrequirements, in particular for lakes and rivers.A. Lakes98. The intercalibration metadata questionnaire directly asked whether the siteselected was classified in compliance with the WFD, and most countries, 65% ofthose that submitted lakes, stated that the assessment was based on a non-WFDcompatibleclassification system. The countries that considered having classificationmethods that were at least partially WFD compatible (e.g. not implemented nationwide) are Estonia, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and UK.99. However, the judgments of compatibility with the ecological classificationrequirements of the WFD were subjective and generally based on the nationalinterpretations of the Directive; the numbers of non-compatible classifications wouldprobably increase, if there was an agreement on the minimum requirements for aWFD compatible classification.24
100. The information received from the national representatives in the ECOSTATWG2A on the state of compatibility of their national classification methods with theWFD requirements can be summarized as follows (see also table in Annex VIII):• aquatic flora, Lithuania and Sweden are in the process of developing WFDcompatible classifications;• benthic invertebrates, UK method is declared to be WFD compatible;• phytoplankton, Austria and Sweden have developed WFD compatibleclassifications but only for some lake types, while Latvia has now estimatedpreliminary reference conditions for lakes in the country;• Fish, UK, as well as other countries, is on the way of developing a WFDcompatible classification method;• Macrophytes and phytobenthos, Germany has developed a classificationmethod with these two elements that is considered WFD compatible;• Aquatic plants and benthic invertebrates, UK has developed a classificationmethod with these two elements that is considered WFD compatible.B. Rivers101. In terms of metric requirements by the WFD, these are met for phytobenthosas all countries include in their methods a measurement of taxonomic compositionand abundance. The overview shows, that at the moment, some countries aremodifying their own assessment methods for phytobenthos in order to fill the gaps(Austria, Germany and Spain) or have new methods under development that willinclude these requirements (Portugal). Norway and the Netherlands have assessmentmethods that respect the parameters to be measured for the WFD, but these are notrelated with reference conditions.102. This is not the case for phytoplankton, methods include taxonomiccomposition and abundance, but no reference to recording of the planktonic bloomsthat is required by the Directive for this biological element. For phytoplankton, noneof the assessment methods are WFD compatible.25
Page 1 and 2: Institute for Environment and Susta
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTSBackground and purpose of t
Page 5 and 6: Background and purpose of the docum
Page 7 and 8: States and candidate countries. Inf
Page 9 and 10: classification, each of these being
Page 11 and 12: BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENT: PHYTOPL
Page 13 and 14: indicators, species lists, frequenc
Page 15 and 16: 53. The identification and enumerat
Page 17 and 18: 64. In general, this technique is t
Page 19 and 20: RIVER BIOLOGICAL QUALITY ELEMENT: F
Page 21 and 22: 84. The development of specific sta
Page 23: practice guides for identification
Page 27 and 28: Evaluation of the suitability of cu
Page 29 and 30: group should update its primary fin
Page 31 and 32: ReferencesAFNOR (Association Franç
Page 33 and 34: EN ISO 8689-2 Water quality - Biolo
Page 35 and 36: Lazaridou-Dimitriadou, M., C. Kouko
Page 37 and 38: Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver, 1949.
Page 39: Annex I: Composition of the Geograp
Page 43 and 44: Annex III: River biological assessm
Page 45 and 46: Annex IV: Analysis of lake biologic
Page 47 and 48: Number of sampling stations10080%60
Page 49 and 50: IT 90% acetone spectrophotometricPT
Page 51 and 52: 10. The sampling depth and volume s
Page 53 and 54: PTESFIIE5667-2/98 Romanianstandardi
Page 55 and 56: Sampling stations%1008060402001 2-1
Page 57 and 58: MACROPHYTES16. The aquatic Macrophy
Page 59 and 60: Plants sampled per GIG1008060%40Eme
Page 61 and 62: NO qualitativ method species number
Page 63 and 64: indicators, species lists, frequenc
Page 65 and 66: 26. The sampling frequency is varia
Page 67: CEN/TC 230/WG 2/ TG 4 N28, 2 nd wor
Page 70 and 71: programs are based only on the diat
Page 72 and 73: 21. Some countries like France, Est
Page 74 and 75:
Table 1. European methods for monit
Page 76 and 77:
countries also covers Non-EU Member
Page 78 and 79:
49. The Danish Stream Fauna Index i
Page 80 and 81:
Hungary58. Since 2002 a modificatio
Page 82 and 83:
Acidification Index, based on the s
Page 84 and 85:
Identification is predominantly to
Page 86 and 87:
size of the net range between 250 t
Page 88 and 89:
water bug genus (Aphelocheirus) and
Page 90 and 91:
Table 5. Common abundance classific
Page 92 and 93:
108. Process Assessment focuses on
Page 94 and 95:
Austria120. MuLFA: Ecological Integ
Page 96 and 97:
Sweden126. Swedish fish Index: Appe
Page 98 and 99:
ut comparisons have been made with
Page 100 and 101:
seasons for sampling are summer and
Page 102 and 103:
102
Page 104 and 105:
Consultation open to ECOSTAT &inter
Page 106 and 107:
Table 1. List of European standards
Page 108 and 109:
108
Page 110 and 111:
development of typologySweden Yes,
Page 112 and 113:
one or other option depends on the
Page 114 and 115:
114
Page 116 and 117:
• An integrated holistic evaluati
Page 118 and 119:
• Phytoplankton: Yes; Clorophyll
Page 120 and 121:
• Macroalgae: No• Benthic inver
Page 122 and 123:
• Macrophytes: No• Macroalgae:
Page 124:
Mission of the JRCThe mission of th
show all

Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?