Report on Harmonisation of freshwater biological methods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CEN230211prEN/ISO 20079CEN230210prEN/ISO 16712CEN230XXXprENXXXCEN230XXXprENXXXwith unicellular green algae (ISO/DIS 8692)Water quality – Determination of the toxic effects ofwater constituents and waste water to duckweed (Lemnaminor) – Duckweed growth inhibition testWater quality – Determination of acute toxicity ofmarine or estuarine sediments to amphipodsWater quality - Guidance on pro-rata multi-habitatsamplingof benthic invertebrates from wadeable riversWater quality – Guidance standard on the design ofmultimetric indicesUAP-vote, ISO/CENUAP-vote, ISO/CEN86. In WFD terms the current programme contributes to but does not completely meetthe more immediate needs for intercalibration or subsequent monitoring. This reflectsthe lack of resources available to WG 2 in supporting the relevant specialistworkshops, encouraging experts to devote time to standardization especially thosefrom the new EU countries, pre- and co-normative research, translation services etc.C. Proposals for the formulation of future work programme items in WG 287. Under advice from the expert (TG) groups and the ad hoc group WG 2 hasdeveloped a strategy document designed to prioritise future work programmeactivities, which has been widely distributed. ECOSTAT is invited to confirmwhether or not this prioritisation meets there needs and timescales.88. The work programme changes in response to the perceived needs of the EU and isconstrained by the absence of financial support and the identification ofmethodologies that are suitable for standardization. In this respect the EU sponsoredR&D has a critical role in assisting the standardization process. For example, in theMay 2004 meeting the EU STAR (Standardization of River Classification) projectsubmitted two proposals for standardization in relation to multihabitat sampling ofinvertebrates in wadeable streams and the selection of multimetrics. Both were likelyto be proposed as new work items in CEN and will shortly be added to the WG2Aworkprogramme. Similarly the EU FAME (Fish Assessment Method for Europe)project has developed a European classification system based on fish and WG 2 isliaising with the project leaders on the possibility of standardizing this work and anominated FAME expert will attend the next CEN/ TC 230 meeting.89. However, numerous other working documents are under consideration includingsuch diverse items as laboratory intercalibration for ecological assessment,hydroacoustics for non-destructive fishery assessment, sampling of marine algae, best22
practice guides for identification keys, lake hydromorphological assessment, thedevelopment of a scoring system for assessing the quality of physical features inrivers and the quantification and use of performance characteristics in ecologicalassessment methods, amongst many others that are, at the current time, given lowerpriority.D. Current contribution to WFD intercalibration90. All of the recently published standards contribute to the intercalibration process,where the GIGs choose to use the same method of ecological assessment.91. Additionally, the advanced drafts available for several biological and ecologicalassessment methods could also support the process, particularly where these arepending formal vote for adoption as EU standards. In formulating theirintercalibration strategies, the GIGs and ECOSTAT should consider not only the useof these standards for future data collection, but also advise WG 2 of priority gaps thatneed to be addressed in method standardization.E. Future liaison and involvement with ECOSTAT WG 2A92. CEN/TC 230/WG 2 states in its mission statement that "it is committed to thedelivery of scientifically robust methods for biological and ecological assessment andclassification in support of European Union legislation and sound science".93. The priority objectives of WG 2 are hence to:(i) examine the present state of standardization of biological and ecologicalassessment methods;(ii) advise CEN/TC 230, the Commission, its expert groups and its delegatedagencies of progress in, and barriers to, the standardization of biological andecological assessment methods;(iii)determine, evaluate and advise CEN and others of gaps in the availableresearch that need to be addressed prior to normalization;(iv) identify needs in the knowledge-base supporting European standardization andidentify and promote appropriate project proposals;23
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: 84. The development of specific sta
Page 25 and 26: 100. The information received from
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?