1. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Task on Harmonisation of Freshwater Biological Methods Status Report AC Cardoso and A Solimini Harmonisation Task Team: JRC - AC Cardoso, G Premazzi, A Solimini, S Poikane, F Martinet (FR), ML Serrano (ES), T Rafael (PT), P Hale (CEN), S Birk (STAR project)

2. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Contents of the presentation Information available Overview of methods currently in use in the MS Time table next steps

3. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Overview and comparability of the national biological methods in use Evaluate applicability in the assessment of ecological quality as required by the WFD Evaluate applicability as common metrics for the purpose of the IC exercise Identify needs for development of new methods or harmonisation of existing methods (link to CEN) Objectives

4. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Sampling/ Surveying, lab processing MetricClassification Intercalibration biological assessment method Harmonisation comparison of biological monitoring systems Biological monitoring systems

5. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Information available SourceLakesRivers ECOSTAT WG2A14(9)25(14) Intercalibration metadata 21 (22)25 (27) WFD CIS Monitoring WG 47

6. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Lakes

7. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Biological elements used in the assessment for different pressures Information from ECOSTAT WG2A No of countries 14

8. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Data used in the classification of Intercalibration lakes Eutrophication is the main pressure IC metadata base of Jan 04 No of countries 21 18 countries

9. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 IC metadata base of Jan 04

10. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Phytoplankton sampling IC metadata base of Jan 04

11. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 IC metadata base of Jan 04 Phytoplankton sampling

12. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 IC metadata base of Jan 04 Phytoplankton sampling

13. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 IC metadata base of Jan 04 Phytoplankton metrics

14. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Chlorophyll sampling IC metadata base of Jan 04

15. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Chlorophyll sampling IC metadata base of Jan 04

16. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Chlorophyll sampling IC metadata base of Jan 04

17. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Impossible to summarise, everybody uses a different methodology either extraction or combination of extraction and measurement method A significant part of the variance in chlorophyll concentrations will be explained by the methods used Chlorophyll extraction and measurement

18. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 IC metadata base of Jan 04 Benthic invertebrates sampling

19. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 IC metadata base of Jan 04 Benthic invertebrates sampling

20. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Benthic invertebrates metric

21. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 conclusions Information is difficult to process and still the detail scarce for a robust comparison Not all biological elements are covered by the national monitoring Most countries have phytoplankton and chlorophyll methods to monitor the impact from eutrophication pressures A general evaluation is that there is a great scatter in the methods used at CIG and EU levels Only 5 classification methods were considered to be in agreement with WFD requirements the majority are now in development

22. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Rivers

23. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Biological elements used in the assessment for different pressures

24. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Most used sampling method and taxonomic level used for QEs

25. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Number of quality classes for metric and biological element

26. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Number of quality classes for metric and biological element

27. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 WFD assessment compatibility per pressure and biological element

28. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 WFD assessment compatibility per pressure and biological element

29. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 conclusions Information is difficult to process and still the detail scarce for a robust comparison Most countries have benthic invertebrate and fish methods to monitor respectively the impact from organic pollution and general (multiple?) pressures Macrophytes are mostly sampled via census, fish by electrofishing and nets, phytobenthos by brush scraping and benthic invertebrates by hand net. Samples from these methods are identified to species or genus or family 5 class classification scales for benthic invertebrates and phytobenthos when the metric is either a biotic or multimetric index Most methods are not WFD compatible

30. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 End of NovemberFinal report 19 NovemberComments returned to JRC 5 NovemberDraft reported circulated for comments within drafting group and GIGs 7-8 OctoberPresentation of results of analysis of collected information in WG2A meeting 15 SeptemberTables returned to JRC 15 JulyRequest to fill in tables sent to GIG contact persons 7-8 July 2004Presentation at the WG2A meeting 21-22 June 20041 st draft DateIssue Timetable

31. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Contents of Report on harmonisation of freshwater biological methods 1. Background and purpose of this document 1.1 WFD classification and intercalibration requirements 1.2 Common understanding of ‘common metric’: 1.3 Strengths and weakness of using existing data sets 2. State-of-the-art of biological methods in the EU member countries and CC 2.1 Lakes (JRC) 2.2 Rivers 3. Comparative analysis by EU, GIG 3.1 Lakes 3.2. Rivers

32. WG 2A ECOSTAT 7-8 July 2004 Contents 4. ISO and CEN Methods related to the WFD Existing methods/guidance & standards Methods under development CEN procedure for standard development interaction with ECOSTAT 5. Evaluation of the usefulness of existing methods in relation to the WFD 5.1 Determination EQRs Evaluation within GIGs 5.2 Evaluation their applicability as ‘common metrics’ for intercalibration GIG identification of possible common metrics 5.3 Needs for method development and harmonisation 5.3.1 Ongoing initiatives – WFD compliant methods in development 6. Conclusive remarks and recommendations