1. USING ALIEN SPECIES DATA FOR THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
Improving consistency

2. GENERAL PRINCIPLE

3. Importance of a common understanding
Where appropriate, acknowledge real differences between Member States
A difficult balance to achieve

4. GUIDANCE TOPICS BENEFITING FROM GREATER CONSISTENCY
Definitions
How to create species lists
How to assign levels of impact to species
Monitoring and recording

5. GUIDANCE TOPICS NOT FOR INCLUSION
Assessment and ecological status classification – BUT
Need to be sure that different approaches provide equally valid results
Ultimate aim – to be able to identify water bodies where pressures from alien species are causing damage and, where possible, to reduce or eliminate those pressures

6. Fixed lists of alien species
– BUT
Need agreed principles on how such lists should be prepared and updated

7. 1. DEFINITIONS
Already definitions (e.g. by IUCN) for terms such as ‘native species’, ‘alien species’, ‘invasive species’, ‘establishment’, ‘persistence’
Helpful to have an agreed set of definitions written down in one place
Related issues – e.g. dates of introduction – need criteria for a better definition of ‘nativeness’; ‘naturalised species’

8. 2. HOW TO CREATE SPECIES LISTS
Guidance needs to consider the following:
Only those species known to be invasive?
Only the very worst species?
Only aquatic species, or others (e.g. bankside species such as Japanese knotweed or Himalayan balsam)?
Only species in BQEs or any species?
Only species alien to a Member State, or native species that become invasive when introduced to a different region of the same MS?

9. 3. HOW TO ASSIGN LEVELS OF IMPACT TO SPECIES
Guidance needs to consider the following:
One list of ‘high impact’ species?
Another list of ‘low impact’ species?
A list of ‘unknown impact’ species?
An ‘amber list’ (‘orange list’) of species not yet present but potentially a future problem?

10. 4. MONITORING AND RECORDING
Routine sampling methods may not detect some important alien species – guidance on common approaches would be helpful
Data storage would benefit from greater consistency – how can this best be achieved?
Protocols are needed for sharing data across Europe – need to be able to extract data relevant to WFD from existing databases (e.g. DAISIE)

11. HOW CAN WE ACHIEVE GREATER CONSISTENCY?

12. CEN guidance standard
CEN Technical Report
Another form of guidance

13. CEN GUIDANCE STANDARD Difference of opinion in ECOSTAT
A guidance standard
Would not include guidance on status classification
Would not include static species lists, only criteria for listing
A useful focus on common procedures
Could be wider than the WFD, or could be confined to the WFD

14. ONE OPTION Discuss as part of a wider alien species workshop
February 2011
Ispra
Report conclusions at CEN/TC 230/WG 2, March 24, 2011
Discuss at ECOSTAT, March 30-31, 2011
Starting preliminary work on a CEN guidance standard is not a firm commitment