DRAFT Intercalibration of methods to evaluate river EQ using fish Niels Jepsen, JRC & Didier Pont,...
Embed Size (px)
Transcript of DRAFT Intercalibration of methods to evaluate river EQ using fish Niels Jepsen, JRC & Didier Pont,...
DRAFT Intercalibration of methods to evaluate river EQ using fishNiels Jepsen, JRC & Didier Pont, Cemagref
Content of the Report
Background and purpose General results and conclusionsCommon Approach at the European level using ICMsComparison between national methods and ICM-EQRAnnex I: Description of the Common DatabaseAnnex II: Report from the Alpine GroupAnnex III: Report from the Atlantic GroupAnnex IV: Report from the Carpathian GroupAnnex V: Report from the Lowland GroupAnnex VI: Report from the Mediterranean GroupAnnex VII: Report from the Midland GroupAnnex VIII: Report from the Nordic Group
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?
High/Good and Good/Moderate ecological classes boundaries from the different national methods and their correspondence with the ICM-EQR.
High / Good BoundaryGood / Moderate BoundaryCountryNationalEQRICM-EQRNationalEQRICM-EQRBWLUX-IBIP1.0791.1090.8680.975CZ-FI1.3280.9870.9960.784FR-FBI1.0640.9780.9330.865LT-LFI1.1230.9910.8600.775NL-FI1.2581.3320.9431.059SE-VIX1.2361.0810.7700.870
Comparability of reference sites ?
Boundary-setting from the Alpine Group
Austria - FIAAustria - EFIGermany - FIBSGermany - EFIFrance - FBIFrance - EFISlovenia - EFIHigh-Good0,881,190,851,031,041,391,49Good-Moderate0,630,800,470,690,940,941,00
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!
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
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.
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 ICMs. 1-2 meetings:
June 2009: Final Report: boundaries setting
The river fish IC group asks for
2 more years and