1. DRAFT Intercalibration of methods to evaluate river EQ using fish Niels Jepsen, JRC & Didier Pont, Cemagref

2. Content of the Report Background and purpose General results and conclusions Common Approach at the European level using ICMs Comparison between national methods and ICM-EQR Annex I: Description of the Common Database Annex II: Report from the Alpine Group Annex III: Report from the Atlantic Group Annex IV: Report from the Carpathian Group Annex V: Report from the Lowland Group Annex VI: Report from the Mediterranean Group Annex VII: Report from the Midland Group Annex VIII: Report from the Nordic Group

3. Working groups since October More than 20 MS have been participating Currently 13 different methods, 6 are official Several under development/approval No official ICM, but EFI+ may be used Why the delay?

4. High / Good BoundaryGood / Moderate Boundary Country National EQR ICM-EQR National EQR ICM-EQR BWLUX-IBIP1.0791.1090.8680.975 CZ-FI1.3280.9870.9960.784 FR-FBI1.0640.9780.9330.865 LT-LFI1.1230.9910.8600.775 NL-FI1.2581.3320.9431.059 SE-VIX1.2361.0810.7700.870 High/Good and Good/Moderate ecological classes boundaries from the different national methods and their correspondence with the ICM-EQR.

5. Comparability of reference sites ?

6. Austria - FIAAustria - EFI Germany - FIBSGermany - EFI France - FBIFrance - EFI Slovenia - EFI High- Good0,881,190,851,031,041,391,49 Good- Moderate0,630,800,470,690,94 1,00 Boundary-setting from the Alpine Group

10. 1. The pilot exercise did not produce common boundaries between any national methods, but the first results demonstrated main problems and weaknesses of the methods. 2. One of the main problems was the lack of well-defined criteria used for selecting reference sites. It is necessary that each MS decide how they will select reference sites. If there are no such sites to be found, they must decide how to overcome this problem. 3. Available ICM are correlated with 7 of the 12 methods. 4. In general there is agreement on the sampling methods and the vast majority of sampling is done using electrofishing according to the CEN-standards. 5. Several national methods are still under development and will be ready within short time. 6. A well-developed and tested ICM would be an important asset for the intercalibration of the quite different national methods. EFI did not perform well! Main results

11. Methods are available and national boundaries can be established and intercalibrated More data is needed Clear common/comparable criteria for reference conditions A better response to certain pressures is expected/needed Still limited to relatively small rivers, mainly due to lack of reference sites and appropriate methods in large rivers

12. Main tasks: Final list of (common?) reference criteria Reference sites selection (~ 30-50 per country/region). Comparison between countries. All data (including Regional groups) centralised in one common database. Comparison between National Methods within Regional groups. Pre-classification of pressures: recommended but not an obligation. Evaluation and Testing of a new set of common metrics. Harmonising H/G and G/M class boundaries between MS.

13. Time-Table October 2007: Official confirmation of the mandate by ECOSTAT/JRC. Reformation of regional groups, inclusion of countries with new national methods. Drafting of workplans for the groups. (MEETING). January 2008: Final list of Reference sites. Comparison of Reference sites between countries. Definition of the methodology, agreement on a common approach. (MEETING). July 2008: Reporting of Regional Groups. New ICM’s. 1-2 meetings: June 2009: Final Report: boundaries setting

14. The river fish IC group asks for 2 more years and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$