Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment of Transboundary Rivers

Abstract

For the implementation of the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, the UN/ECE Task Force on Monitoring and Assessment has been mandated to prepare guidelines on monitoring and assessment of transboundary watercourses, in its 1994/1995 working programme, the task force has drawn up guidelines for water quality monitoring and assessment of transboundary rivers. As a basis for the preparation of these guidelines, studies have been carried out on the current practices in UN/ECE countries and state of the art on monitoring and assessment. Biological assessment methods and quality assurance in monitoring and assessment, being of growing importance, have been worked out in two special studies. Since there is a wide diversity in functions and uses of different water bodies, the guidelines describe a strategy for developing a monitoring network and are not intended to be a manual. Major issues of the guidelines are specification of information needs and development of monitoring strategies, as these are the keys to effective and cost-effective monitoring networks. The information need should be based on the functions and uses of the river as well as on issues and pressures and on impacts of measures in the river basin. This may be facilitated by the use of indicators. The basic principle for the guidelines is the monitoring cycle, describing a chain of activities from specification of information needs for water management to use of information from the monitoring and assessment programme.

Full text

Volume 7, number 5. 1997 21
J.G. Timmerman, M. Adriaanse, R.M.A. Breukel, M.C.M. van Oirschot and J.J. Ottens
For the implementation of the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International
Lakes, the UN/ECE Task Force on Monitoring and Assessment has been mandated to prepare guidelines on monitoring
and assessment of transboundary watercourses. In its 1994/1995 working programme, the task force has drawn up
guidelines for water quality monitoring and assessment of transboundary rivers. As a basis for the preparation of these
guidelines, studies have been carried out on the current practices in UN/ECE countries and state of the art on monitoring
and assessment. Biological assessment methods and quality assurance in monitoring and assessment, being of growing
Importance, have been worked out in two special studies.
Since there is a wide diversity in functions and uses of different water bodies, the guidelines describe a strategy for
developing a monitoring network and are not intended to be a manual. Major issues of the guidelines are specification of
information needs and development of monitoring strategies, as these are the keys to effective and cost-effective
monitoring networks. The information need should be based on the functions and uses of the river as well as on issues
and pressures and on impacts of measures in the river basin. This may be facilitated by the use of indicators. The basic
principle for the guidelines is the monitoring cycle, describing a chain of activities from specification of information
needs for water management to use of information from the mqnitoring and assessment programme.
INTRODUCTION
On 17 March 1992 the Convention on the Pro-
tection and Use of Thansboundary Watercourses and
.International Lakes was adopted in Helsinki. The Con-
vention, drawn up under the auspices of the UN
Economic Commissiop for Europe, has entered into
force on 6 October 1996. Under the Helsinki Con-
vention, the Parties bordering the same transboundary
waters will, among other things, have to set up joint or
coordinated systems for monitoring and assessment of
the conditions of transboundary waters and set up co-
ordinated or joint communication, warning and alarm
systems [1]. Reliable information from these systems
is needed to monitor compliance with the provisions
of the Helsinki Convention. Information related to in-
stream quality and quantity, aquatic and riparian flora
and fauna, and sediment is needed. Also, emission
sources have to be monitored to obtain information
on the concentration of pollutants in effluents and to
carry out pollution-load assessments.
The UN/ECE Task Force on Monitoring and As-
sessment, with twenty participating countries (Fig. 1)
and led by The Netherlands, has been charged with
the preparation of draft guidelines on monitoring and
assessment of transboundary watercourses and inter-
national lakes. During the first phase (working pro-
gramme 1994/1995), the focus has been on 'running-
water' transboundary watercourses (i.e. rivers, streams,
canals). Special attention was paid to biological assess-
ment methods and quality assurance. For the prepara-
tion of the guidelines, the following studies have been
carried out:
-an inventory of transboundary rivers and interna-
tional lakes, general characteristics and issues and
an overview of monitoring and assessment prac-
tices, with the aid of a questionnaire;
-a review of various categories of biological assess-
ment methods;
-a review of quality assurance aspects in monitoring
and assessment;
-a review of state of the art in monitoring and
assessment methodologjes for running-water trans-
boundary watercourses.
In these studies, emphasis was on water quality
aspects of the monitoring and assessment of trans-
boundary rivers. When relevant for the assessment of
the water quality and the ecological functioning of the

22 European Water Pollution Contr(
river basin, attention was also paid to water-quantity
aspects. The studies resulted in background documents
for the guidelines.
The Guidelines on Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment of Transboundary Rivers and the back-
ground documents have been thoroughly discussed by
the Task Force. The guidelines were submitted to the
Working Party on Water Problems in February 1996
and were finally adopted by the ECE Committee on
Environmental Policy in May 1996.
This paper gives a short description of the studies
and their outcome and describes main principles of the
guidelines.
rather than. harmonised ECE-wide.
The majority of the countries have reported onl,
monitoring in the water-phase as current practice.
However, the presence of pollutants is not restrictea
to the water-phase, but is distributed over differem
media, determined by physical, chemical and biological!
processes such as adsorption, desorption and bioac- I
cumulation. Water quality monitoring will be more
efficient if per variable or group of variables the most
representative media are selected.
Attention should be given to selection of the mostj
appropriate media in which to perform routine mon-:
itoring (water-phase, suspended solids, sediments or!
biota). International harmonisation, at least at the
level of transboundary water systems, is advisable in\
this respect. Relatively little international cooperation
has been reported on early warning monitoring ana
alarming procedures. Especially when surface water is
used for drinking water, such monitoring procedures i
are essential. Early warning procedures have been.l
reported on the rivers Danube, Elbe and Rhine. !
Routine biological monitoring is reported to be car-'~
ried out in all countries and in almost all water bodies.
Emphasis is on pathogenic bacteria and, to a lesser ex-
tent, on phytoplankton, zooplankton and invertebrates.
Macrophytes and vertebrates are less often monitored.
Since ~iological monitoring can offer a broad effect-
oriented overview of the water quality it may provide
a cost-effective way of gathering water quality infor-
mation compared to monitoring a wide variety of
chemical substances. As a large part of the ~osts of
biological monitoring are related to labour costs, es-
pecially countries with relatively low labour costs will
benefit. Regarding this, more attention should be given
to increasing the scope of biological monitoring to
achieve full integration of biological monitoring in
routine ambient monitoring.
INVENTORY OF TRANSBOUNDARY RIVERS AND
INTERNATIONAL LAKES [2,3]
Monitoring information from 26 countries in the
ECE-region in Europe. and Central-Asia has been
collected by means of a questionnaire and by collect-
ing information from international river-commissions.
Main functions in most transboundary rivers are recre-
ation, fisheries, aquatic wildlife and industrial and
agricultural uses (Fig. 2). Other important functions
are power generation and drinking water supply. Of-
ten the same river will support different functions in
different countries.
Most important negative impacts on water quality
are caused by loads from upstream, agricultural and
industrial uses and effluents from households.
The identification of functions and the issues re-
lated to these functions are important topics in inter-
national cooperation. There is a wide diversity in func-
tions and uses of different water bodies. Next to this,
the economic and social importance of these functions
and uses differs per water body. Therefore, monitoring
activities should be harmonised per catchment-area

,Volume 7, number 5, 1997
Figure 3. River assessment strategies. Left, present: assessment methods and river management along political borders. Right, future
situation: management along catchment borders.
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR
WATERCOURSES [4] of rivers. Determination on species level is essential
in this respect. Biotic indices and biotic scores are ap-
plied to assess biological quality of running waters. The
methodology of a biotic index or score can be used in
different modifications over a very wide geographical
area. To account for variations in species composition,
regional differentiation is a necessary prerequisite.
Some recently developed methods can be incorporated
in standards. The estaplishment of a database of well
defined, unaffected reference situations and communi-
ties in all different river types, based on ecoregions,
will facilitate the use of biotic indices in water quality
standards. Identification on family level makes deter-
mination rapid and prevents. methods from being too
much differentiated. However, when more detailed in-
formation is needed, determination on family level
may not be sufficient.
The saprobicindex [5,6] is the most commonly used
biological assessment method for the assessment of bi-
ological status or quality of river water in the reporting
countries. The purpose of this index is to classify the
saprobic state of running waters, covering the full
range from unpolluted to extremely polluted waters.
The major limitation of the" saprobic system is that
pollution tolerances are highly subjective and based
on ecological observations and are rarely confirmed by
experimental studies [7]. In case of using the saprobity
index the limitations have to be taken into account.
Available biological assessment methods vary both
in number and in scope of application. The scope of
the methods range from assessment of a single impact
on a single compartment of a river to assessment of
multiple aspects of an entire riverine ecosystem. As the
scope of the method increases, the number of compa-
rable available methods tends to decrease. Biological
assessment. tools should be carefully chosen with re-
spect to designated functional uses and/or the intrinsic
ecological value of the riverine ecosystem. Develop-
ment of complex integrated assessment methods that
include all biotic and abiotic variables is not desirable.
Monitoring and assessment of the ecological status
of a river, representing an intrinsic natural value rather
than functional anthropogenic use, can only be per-
formed by means of biological or ecological methods.
Biological monitoring and assessment is therefore an
essential part of river water quality monitoring. The
international state of the art on biological assessment
and presentation methods has been reviewed and the
current practices of routine biological monitoring and
assessment methods in UN/f-CE countries have been
evaluated. As a result, recommendations for harmoni-
sation efforts have been formulated.
Evaluation of current practices on biological mon-
itoring and assessment in ECE Task Force countries
reveals great differences in the extent of implementa-
tion and use of biological methods. Only few methods
are commonly applied. Application of new monitoring
and assessment techniques requires implementation
time, capacity building and sufficient financial and ad-
ministrative means. Therefore, harmonisation between
countries should include a step by step extension,
based on current practices, meanwhile considering the
perspective of future developments. Next to this, river
quality assessment should be harmonised over ecolog-
ical relevant borders of catchment areas rather than
along administrative borders (Fig. 3).
Aspects of monitoring strategy like site selection,
sampling frequencies and sampling methodology, show
a large variation in the level of detail, hindering bal-
anced recommendations for harmonisation. Sampling
frequency and methodology is closely related to the
biotic group concerned. From a comparison of the
suitability of biotic groups for biological quality as-
sessment, the benthic macro invertebrate community
appeared to be very suitable for routine monitoring
and assessment .of biological quality (i.e. the quality
from a biological point of view) of the aquatic zone

24 European Water Pollution Control"
Instead, such an integrated method should be com-
posed of selected, 'smart' variables, which have proven
to be representative for a community or a water quality
aspect, and which are sensitive for general or specific
impacts on riverine ecosystem elements. An example
of such a variable may be chlorophyll-a as an indicative
variable for eutrophication.
Current practices on chemical monitoring serve the
objectives related to a number of functional uses in a
satisfactory way. However, monitoring and assessment
of ecological status and quality could be extended.
Present biological assessment methods based on the
macroinvertebrate or phytoplankton community com-
position, basically involving organic pollution, should
be combined with other aspects of the river water
body like habitat quality, toxicity and sediment quality.
On habitat quality a number of regional methods are
under development (see e.g. [8-10]). Toxicological and
sediment quality assessment methods are sufficiently
available from the research field of ecotoxicology,
mostly involving experimental or laboratory setups.
Since a river is part of a riverine ecosystem with an in-
trinsic ecological value, biotic groups like amphibians,
water birds and mammals in other compartments like
banks, marshes and floodplains have to be considered.
Methods for integrated assessment of these different
groups are being developed [11].
extent to which information obtained from the moni-
~oring system meets the information need. Efficiency
IS concerned with obtaining information at as low as
possible cost, both financial and personnel costs.
A secondary goal of quality management concerns
the definition of processes and activities that lead
to information and description of the way results
are achieved. When processes are known, measures
can be taken to improve these processes and the
effectiveness of measures can be determined. In quality
management, quality policy is important. Quality policy
defines the level of quality to be reached and sets the
prerequisites for the quality management.
In order to perform quality assurance, a quality
system should be developed. In a quality system proce-
dures and protocols of relevant processes and products
are recorded. They deal with all elements of the mon-
itoring cycle. Protocols for operational steps in the
process, a.o. sampling, sample transport, sample stor-
age, laboratory analysis, data validation, data storage,
data analysis and data presentation, should be elab-
orated. Insufficient quality control in these steps may
lead to unreliable data. By using protocols, mistakes
may be avoided or traced and undone. Also, stan-
dard requirements on recurrent products are set out.
For all relevant products, requirements must be made
explicit and documented. Standards for methods and
techniques for, among others, sampling, transport and
storage of samples, laboratory analysis, data valida-
tion, data storage and exchange, calculation methods
and statistical methods are part of these requirements.
International standards are preferred. If international
standards are not available or not adequate, national
or local standards should be applied or developed. The
quality system describes how requirements are input to
processes and how deviations from requirements must
be dealt with. This quality system is, like the monitor-
ing and assessment process, not static but should be
subject to regular evaluation and, if required, subject
to adjustment (Fig. 4).
QUALITY ASSURANCE [12]
The process of monitoring and assessment may be
s~en as a chain of activities, each activity imposing con-
ditions on the type and quality of information flowing
from the previous element. Therefore it is important
that the quality of the information flowing from one
element of the cycle to the next can be controlled. This
process is represented in the monitoring cycle (Fig. 6).
Managing quality in monitoring and assessment im-
plies looking at 'effectiveness' and 'efficiency' of the
monitoring cycle. Effectiveness can be described as the
PLANNING
EXECUTION
DESIGN
r
EVALUATION DESIGN
EVALUATION DESIGN
INFORMATION NEED
PRESENTATION
ANALYSIS OF
INFORMATION NEED
Figure 4. A quality spiral for the monitoring process [13J.

Volume 7, number 5, 1997 25
STATE OF THE ART ON MONITORING AND
ASSESSMENT OF RIVERS [14] relatively much emphasis is put on testing for com-
pliance with quality and quantity standards, generally
made explicit by means of discharge permits. Addi-
tional objectives of effluent monitoring may be control
of operational processes [15] and prediction of envi-
ronmental impact in the receiving water body [14).
Selection of variables, sampling frequencies and .ana-
lytical methods should depend on information about
discharged pollutants and their interrelations, their
concentration levels and their variability. Toxicity test-
ing can be of special significance as a means of assess-
ing possible negative environmental effects of unknown
components in the chemical approach [16).
The Whole Effluent Environmental Risk (WEER)
[17] is an example of a toxicological assessment
methodology (Fig. 5). This methodology is relevant
for effluent monitoring but can also be used for am-
bient monitoring. The methodology proposes testing
of one organism per trophic level using standardised
tests. Results from these tests may be used to look for
both short-term and long-term environmental hazards,
as shown in Fig. 5.
Generally, the main goal of water management
is characterised as promoting and protecting (desir-
able) water uses, including ecosystem functioning. This
requires a multifunctional approach, balancing socio-
economic issues (competing interests of water uses)
and environmental issues. For this, water management
needs information on status and pressures of their
water bodies. Policy objectives, together with require-
ments of different water uses and ecosystem function-
ing have to be translated into information needs for a
monitoring system.
Ambient monitoring
Early warning
The aim of ambient monitoring is to evaluate the
status of a water in relation to its functions and
natural character. Integration of approaches based
on river basin, ecosystem and emission/water quality
is recommended to promote the sustainability of all
water uses.
-In the river basin approach it is recognised that
the best way to deal with water quality and wa-
ter resources is along the natural boundaries of
the water systems rather than along administrative
boundaries (Fig. 3).
-An ecosystem approach takes into account all eco-
logical aspects of the a9uatic system. This approach
provides the best means to determine the status of
the ecosystem and the effects of water u~es on the
ecosystem functioning.
-The approach based on emission/water quality fo-
cuSecS on water quality in which resulting data are
usually related to standards.
Each of these three approaches generates specific
types of information needs. For the success of any
water quality monitoring system design it is of primary
importance to explicitly define the information needs.
For each approach, selection of variables and set-
ting of criteria and objectives is closely associated.
This selection should account for the actual occur-
rence of pollutants, properties of variables like bio-
accumulation and persistence of pollutants, the avail-
ability of reliable and affordable analytical methods
for determination, and proven efficiency of pollution
control by water policy and water management. Inclu-
sion of aggregate variables, indicators, environmental
effect variables (e.g. toxicity), and/or integrity of bio-
logical communities should be considered in selecting
variables.
Early warning systems for surlacewater and efflu-
ent discharges are very important in the protection of
downstream water uses, drinking water extraction in
particular. An early warning system provides an alarm,
and traces the cause in case of an accidental pollution.
This "infQrlIlation need differs considerably from that
of ambient water quality monitoring and effluent mon-
itoring, especially in the need for reliable and timely
warning. This puts special emphasis on the selection
of sampling sites, sampling frequencies, variables and
analytical methods. Within this context, the potential
of including biological early warning systems (dynamic
toxicity testing) should be considered. Also observa-
tion of process operations in industries can provide an
important contribution to early warning, consequently
combining it with effluent monitoring.
An early warning system may include clearly de-
fined warning and alarm values, a decision support
system for calamity handling, computer models for cal-
culation of transit times, communication systems and
well-trained staff to operate all this [18].
GUIDELINES [19]
The intention of the Guidelines on Water Quality
Monitoring and Assessment of Transboundary Rivers
is to assist ECE governments and joint bodies (e.g.
river basin commissions) in developing and implement-
ing procedures for monitoring and assessing trans-
boundary waters in their region. The target group
comprises decision-makers in environmental and water
Effluent monitoring
I.. :(
;f
i

ity and quantitative aspects of transboundary waters
are common in riparian countries. Also; river quality
should be assessed in an integrated manner, based
on criteria that include water quality and quantity for
different human uses as well as for flora and fauna. To
provide reliable information, systematic analysis and
assessment of water quality, flow regimes and water
levels, habitats, biological communities, sourc~s and
fate of pollutants, as well as mass balance derivations,
may be conducted.
ministries and agencies and all those who are respon-
sible for managing the monitoring and assessment of
transboundary rivers. The character of the guidelines is
strategic rather than technical. They are not intended
to be a manual for developing a monitoring network,
as this is too specific for a river basin. The aim of
the guidelines is to provide a framework from which
specific tailor-made monitoring networks can be de-
veloped. Targets, programmes and measures should be
drawn up per river basin.
In the following sections main features of the
guidelines will be discussed. Specification of information needs
The most critical step in developing a monitoring
programme is the clear definition and specification
of information needs and monitoring objectives. In-
formation needs and monitoring objectives should be
specified to such an extent that design criteria for the
various elements of the information system can be de-
rived. For this, issues and targets of water management
at different levels (global, ECE region-wide, river basin
level, regional and local levels) should be prioritised.
As the Convention focuses on the river basin approach,
riparian countries should, individually and collectively,
identify issues that are specific to their river basin and
indicate priorities.
Proper identification of information needs prin-
cipally requires that concerns and decision-making
processes of information users are defined in advance.
The information need should be based on the core ele-
ments in river basin management and on the active use
of information in the decision-making process. These
elements can be defined as functions/uses of the river,
issues (problems) and pressures (threats), and impacts
Principles of the guidelines
The process of monitoring and assessment can
be seen as a sequence of related activities, starting
with the definition of information needs and ending
with the use of the information product. This cycle
of activities, the monitoring cycle, is shown in Fig. 6.
Successive activities in the monitoring cycle should
be specified and designed, based on the required
information product as well as the preceding part of
the chain. All stages of the monitoring process should
be jointly considered by riparian countries in drawing
up programmes for monitoring and assessment of
river basins. Evaluation of the obtained information
may lead to new or redefined information needs, thus
starting a new sequence of activities. In this way, the
monitoring process will be improved (Fig. 4). The
structure of the guidelines follows the sequence of the
monitoring cycle.
Fundamentally, the guidelines focus on the river
basin approach, as issues of pollution, ecological qual-

,Volume 7, number5.. 1997 27
Figure 6. The monitoring cycle.
Monitoring strategies
of measures on the overall functioning of the river
basin (Fig. 7).
Specification of information needs also implies
specification of an information product. This concerns
.criteria for water quality assessment (e.g. considera-
tions for the setting of standards or criteria for the
choice of alarm conditions for early warning), selec-
tion of monitoring variables, specification of relevant
margins (the information margin that the information
user is concerned about) for each monitoring variable,
0
and requirements for reporting and presentation of
th~ infqrmation product (e.g. visualisation, the degree
of aggregation, indices). The- use of indicators might
facilitate the specification of information needs, since
they are linked to certain issues. Furthermore, indi-
cators often comprise a set of core variables, thereby
directing the monitoring strategy for a certain issue.
Information needs evolve during monitoring due
to developments in water management, attaining of
targets or changing policies. Consequently, monitoring
strategies often need to be adjusted over time. Dy-
namic information needs require regular rethinking of
the information strategy in order to update the con-
cept. However, one should not neglect the need for
continuity in time series of measurements for detec-
tion of significant and reliable trends in river basin
characteristics.
After specification of information needs, strategies
are required to design and operate monitoring pro-
grammes in such a way that the desired information
is obtained. Strategies define the approach and cri-
teria needed for a proper design of the monitoring
programme, thus implying translation of information
needs into moqitoringnetworks.
Inventories and preliminary surveys provide infQr.:
mation needed to set up monitoring as effectively
and efficiently as possible. This includes a general
screening of all available information relevant 10 the
aspect under consideratiOn, evaluation of sit~ condi-
tions, identification of pollution hot spots, screening of
occurrence of pollutants or toxic effects by surveys, and
surveys to determine variability of monitoring variables
in time and space.
The diversity of information needs will probably
require different monitoring networks to fulfil the dif-
ferent monitoring objectives. Integration of these mon-
itoring activities for reasons of cost-effectiveness in an
early stage of the monitoring cycle may cause an over-
or underdimensioning of monitoring networks. There-
fore, it is recommended to develop an information
strategy per monitoring objective or information need.
Integration of monitoring efforts may be considered in
the implementation phase.
The methods used and the variables selected de-
pend on the differ~nt aims of environmental quality
monitoring. A step-wise approach to come to this se-
lection is recommended, leading from broad to fine
assessments. Each step is concluded with an evaluation
of whether or not the obtained information is suffi-
cient. This tiered testing strategy can ultimately lead to
a reduction in requested variables to be measured for
further routine monitoring (Fig. 8),
A monitoring approach based solely on ambient
water quality is inadequate because of the many chem-
Figure 7. Core elements in water management.

28 European Water Pollution ContrQ
comparability of data of a transboundary river, inter.
laboratory testing on the level of the whole river basin
is necessary.
Step 1
if information
is insufficient Data management
Step 2
if information
is insufficient
Step 3
if information
is insufficient
Step 4
Figure 8. Tiered testing strategies.
icals present in the water and the prohibitive costs of
sampling and analyses for all these chemicals and/or
a lack of analytical methods. For prediction, detection
and control of waste loads to the receiving river basin,
integration of physico-chemical analysis of water, sus-
pended matter, sediments and organisms, ecotoxico-
logical assessments QY bio-assays and biological early-
warning methods, and biological surveys is required.
Application of biological methods may offer a cheaper
option compared to ch~mical analytical methods. Also,
nse of mixture toxicity variables and other aggregate
variables and use of tiered approaches or step-wise
procedures for screening of water, sediments and biota
will provide more information at lower cost. However,
use of these effect-oriented methods for problem indi-
cation does not eliminate the need for chemical anal-
ysis for diagnostic purposes and for tracing back the
pollution source. Combined use of different methods
enhances the interpretation possibilities with respect to
cause and effect, e.g. media (water/sediment), contami-
nants and bio-availability. This approach also leads to a
more cost-effective strategy for monitoring, compared
to trying to monitor the rapidly increasing number of
chemicals individually (see e.g. [20]).
In joint monitoring, data from different monitoring
networks are to be compared, but standards used are
not necessarily equal. For the sake of exchange of
information, it is necessary that used standards provide
comparable data. This requires agreement on the def-
inition of terms used in exchanging data. Additional
information that is essential to characterise the data
must be unambiguously. For instance, if chemical data:
are exchanged, the information should comprise sam-!
piing location, date and time of sampling and methods
used for sampling, storage and analysis. These terms
can be documented in a data dictionary. This data
dictionary can also contain formats for the storage 01
data.
Data analysis should be embedded in a data analy-
sis protocol (DAP) that clearly defines a data analysis
strategy and takes the specific characteristics of the
data concerned, such as missing data, detection lim-
its, etc., into account. The DAP may be extended to
reporting formats for the resulting information. This
reporting protocol can help to define different charac-
teristics for each use or a~dience.
Reporting of information is the final step in the
data management programme and links gatheqngof
information with information users. Water manage-
ment measures can be taken based on this information.
Also, the information obtained can be used to evalu~te
and adjust the specified information need, thus clqsing
the monitoring cycle.
Quality management
A joint body should set prerequisites for quality
management of the monitoring process. This should
be based on the quality policy as declared by the
joint body. To implement quality management, a qual-
ity system should be introduced. This quality system
documents agreements and relevant processes and
products in the form of procedures and protocols,
and deals with every element of the monitoring cycle.
The quality system also documents responsibilities and
competence with regard to distinguished procedures.
Training of staff, e.g. related to equipment used, may
also be included in the quality system. Nevertheless,
the level of detail of the quality system may vary. In
laboratory analyses, procedures may be very detailed,
whereas in specifying the information need procedures
may be roughly described. Regular evaluations and, if
required, adjustments of the quality system should take
place.
Monitoring programmes
The design and operation of monitoring pro-
grammes include many field aspects and aspects of
laboratory work. The design of monitoring networks
includes selection of variables, appropriate media,
sampling sites, sampling methods, pretreatment meth-
ods, transport, storage and analytical methods. Inter-
laboratory testing should be performed to ensure that
laboratories involved in a monitoring network achieve
an acceptable standard of accuracy and precision. For
..

Volume 7, number 5, 1997 29
Institutional aspects
Riparian countries should agree on quantified man-
agement targets. These can be worked out in a strategic
action plan for a river basin together with measures
aiming at ecologically sound and rational water man-
agement, conservation of water resources and envi-
ronmental protection. The strategic action plan should
be based on national programmes and on mutual as-
sistance, and should be confirmed on a ministerial
level.
According to the Convention, a joint body, set
up by riparian parties for one or more transbound-
ary river basins, should coordinate the execution of
relevant provisions of the Convention and of applica-
ble bilateral and/or multilateral agreements. 1"his joint
body should have an independent secretariat to en-
sure balancing of interests. Activities under the joint
body should be harmonised. Riparian countries should
cooperate when choosing locations, variables, etc., to
avoid duplication and to reduce monitoring effort.
From experience of existing river commissions it
is recognised that cooperation between riparian coun-
tries has to be based on confidence and needs time to
grow. In this respect, a phased approach to coopera-
tion seems most favourable.
Funding for execution of monitoring and assess-
ment, and for joint research, should be provided bythe!iparian.
countries. Pollution charges or fees may
be a basis foriunding, but joint monitoring and assess-
mentprogrammes should always be part of the regular
budget;
FUTURE ACTIVITIES
Under the working programme of the UN/ECE
Task Force on Monitoring and Assessment pilot
projects have started to evaluate these guidelines, In
the pilot projects joint monitoring programmes will
be developed, following strategies as described in the
guidelines.. Experiences from these pilot projects will
lead to evaluation and adaptation of the guidelines.
Also, under the working programme of the Task Force,
studies on groundwater have started. These studies will
lead to the development of guidelines for groundwater
monitoring and assessment by the end of 1998. Guide-
lines for monitoring and assessment of international
lakes and estuaries will be developed at a later stage.
REFERENCES
1 UN/ECE, Convention on the Protection and Use of Trans-
boundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Helsinki River
1featy), Helsinki, 17 March 1992.
2 R.M.A. Breukel, J.G. Timmerman, 1fansboundary Rivers and
International Lakes, Volume 1 in the 1994/1995 working pro-
gramme of the UN/ECE Thsk Force on Monitoring and Assess-
ment, Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water
1featment (RIZA), Lelystad, RIZA reportnr. 95.064, 1996.
3 C.A.M. Van Helmond, R. Hupkes, R.M.A. Breukel, Current
Practices in Monitoring and Assessment of Rivers and Lakes,
Volume 2in the 1994/1995 working programme of the UN/ECE
Thsk Force on Monitoring and Assessment, Institute for In-
land Water Management and Waste Water lfeatment (RIZA),
Lelystad, RIZA report nr. 95.065, 1996.
4 R.A.E. Knoben, C. Roos, M.C.M. van Oirschot, Biological As-
sessment Methods for Watercourses, Volume 3 in the 1994/1995
working programme of the UN/ECE Thsk Force on Monitoring
and Assessment, Institute for Inland Water Management and
Waste Water lfeatment (RIZA), Lelystad, RIZA report nr.
95.066, 1996.
5 E. Pantle, H. Buck, Die biologische Oberwachung der Gewasser
und die Darstellung der Ergebnisse, Gas Wasserfach 96 (18),
604, 1955.
6 M. Zelinka, P. Marvan, Zur Prazisierung der biologischen Klas-
sification der Reinheit fliessender Gewasser, Arch. Hydrobiol.
57,389-407, 1961.
7 W. Sioof, Benthic macroinvertebrates and water quality as-
sessment: some toxicological considerations, Aquat. Toxicol. 4,
73-82, 1983.
8 S.P. Klapwijk, J.J.P. Gardeniers, E.l:H.M. Peeters, C. Roos,
Ecological assessment of water systems, In: Adriaanse et al.
(Eds.), Proceedings Workshop Monitoring Thilor-Made, pp.
105-117,1995.
9 M.l: Barbour, J.L. Plafkin, B.P. Bradley, C.G. Graves, R.W.
Wisseman, Evaluation of EP~s Rapid Bioassessment Benthic
Metrics: metric redundancy and variability among reference
stream sites, Environ. Toxicol. Chern. 11,437-449,1992.
10 G. Friedrich, K.-J. Hesse, J. Lacombe, Die okologischen
?ewasserstrukturkarte, In: Wasser Abwass~r Abfall, Band 11:
Oko'.ogische Gewassersanierung im Spannungsfeld zwisc.hen
Naturund Kultur. Peter Wolf, Kassel, pp. 189-202, 1993.
11 H.P. Wolfert, Rijkswateren-Ecotopen-Stelsels, uitgangspunten
en plan van aanpak, RIZA report nr. 96.050, 1996.
12 J.G, Timmerman, M.J. Gardner, J.E. Ravenscroft, Quality
assurance, Volume 4 in the 1994/1995 working programme
of the UN/ECE Task Force on Monitoring and Assessment,
InstitUte for Inland Water Management and Waste Water
lfeatment (RIZA), Lelystad, RIZA report nr. 95.067, 1996.
13 W.P. Cofino, Quality management of monitoring programmes,
In: Adriaanse, M., van de Kraats, J. Stoks, P.G., Ward, R.C.
(Eds.), Proceedings of the International Workshop Monitoring
Tailor-Made, Beekbergen, pp. 178-187, 1994.
14 H.A.G. Niederlander, J. Dogterom, P.H.L. Buijs, R. Hupkes, M.
Adriaanse, State of the Art on Monitoring and Assessment of
Rivers, Volume 5 in the 1994/1995 working programme of the
UN/ECE Thsk Force on Monitoring and Assessment, Institute
for Inland Water Management and Waste Water lfeatment
(RIZA), Lelystad, RIZA report nr. 95.068, 1996.
15 l: Zabel, Comparison of charging practices in four EC member
states. In: Walley, W.J., Judd, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Freshwater Europe Symposium on River Water Quality Mon-
itoring and Control; Current Practices and Future Directions,
Birmingham, 1993.
16 M.A. Van de Gaag, Ecotoxicology, an effective instrument for
water quality management, Eur. Water Pollut. Control 1 (2),
7-12, 1991.
17 M. Tonkes., J. Botterweg, Toxicology and Waste Water: Assess-
ment Method for the Environmental Risk of Waste Water,
Literature and data evaluation, Dutch report, English abstract,
AquaSense commissioned by RWS/RIZA, Lelystad, 157 pp.,
1994.
18 M. Adriaanse, H.A.G. Niederlander, P.B.M. Stortelder, Mon-
itoring Water Quality in the Future, Volume 1: Chemical
monitoring, Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste
I