ABSTRACT1. In the absence of a standard procedure for characterizing the physical habitat of lakes in Europe, this paper describes the development of a multi-purpose Lake Habitat Survey (LHS). The technique has been designed to meet the hydromorphological assessment needs of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), as well as to assist in monitoring the condition of designated sites in the UK and for wider application in environmental impact assessments and restoration programmes.2. LHS involves detailed recording of shoreline features at a number of plots (Hab-Plots), complemented by a meso-scale survey of the entire lake, including shoreline characteristics and pressures, and modifications to the hydrological regime. A temperature and dissolved oxygen profile is also compiled at the deepest point of the lake (Index Site). Existing databases are exploited where possible, and remote sensing data (e.g. aerial photographs) are used to assist field-based observations.3. Initial field trials demonstrated that the consistency of the method, whether conducted by boat or on foot, was high. More than 250 surveys were carried out across the UK in 2004 through collaboration with the statutory environment and conservation agencies.4. Two levels of complexity were tested } a full version requiring 10 Hab-Plots and an abridged version, LHS core , involving four plots and omitting the Index Site. While 8-10 plots were required to capture the full diversity of features at complex sites, LHS core data were sufficient to generate metrics for classification purposes.5. A Lake Habitat Modification Score (LHMS) may be calculated from LHS data. This synthesizes a wide array of hydromorphological and human pressures and has direct applications for assessment of ecological status under the WFD. Preliminary analysis illustrates a spectrum of hydromorphological alteration of 82 lakes in the UK.6. Further considerations are discussed, including the prospect that the LHS protocol might form the basis of a European standard developed through CEN (Comite´Europe´en de Normalisation).

1. Declaring protected areas (PAs) stands out as one of the main conservation strategies worldwide and there are clear commitments to expand their extent under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; Aichi targets for 2020). This conservation strategy has also received increasing attention in a freshwater context in the last two decades.2. Despite increasing conservation efforts, the effectiveness of PAs for freshwater purposes is questioned and freshwater biodiversity continues to decline. There are many reasons for this poor effectiveness: a lack of consideration of freshwater needs when designing and declaring protected areas, fewer resources devoted to freshwater conservation management than to other actions, and poor understanding of complex management problems beyond the limits of the protected area.3. This supplement compiles some examples from around the world on implementing and managing PAs, assessing their effectiveness, and demonstrating their important role not only in preserving biodiversity but also human well-being and in meeting future challenges to achieve the CBD targets for freshwater biodiversity.4. Here the challenges of establishing effective PAs for freshwater biodiversity in a rapidly changing world are reviewed. We advocate better monitoring programmes to assess the effectiveness of PAs for freshwater biodiversity, in which the unique characteristics of freshwater systems, such as the important role of connectivity and the close links with the rest of the landscape they drain, are considered.5. There are new conservation opportunities to enhance the value of PAs for freshwater biodiversity under the new conservation paradigm of 'people and nature'. The imperative of finding solutions that generate co-benefits alongside biodiversity conservation, and the clear reliance of human communities on freshwater services, has created an environment that may be more favourable to PAs focused in whole or part on fresh waters.

Globally, Invasive Alien Species (IAS) are considered to be one of the major threats to native biodiversity, with the World Conservation Union (IUCN) citing their impacts as 'immense, insidious, and usually irreversible'. It is estimated that 11% of the c. 12,000 alien species in Europe are invasive, causing environmental, economic and social damage; and it is reasonable to expect that the rate of biological invasions into Europe will increase in the coming years. In order to assess the current position regarding IAS in Europe and to determine the issues that were deemed to be most important or critical regarding these damaging species, the international Freshwater Invasives -Networking for Strategy (FINS) conference was convened in Ireland in April 2013. Delegates from throughout Europe and invited speakers from around the world were brought together for the conference. These comprised academics, applied scientists, policy makers, politicians, practitioners and representative stakeholder groups. A horizon scanning and issue prioritization approach was used by in excess of 100 expert delegates in a workshop setting to elucidate the Top 20 IAS issues in Europe. These issues do not focus solely on freshwater habitats and taxa but relate also to marine and terrestrial situations. The Top 20 issues that resulted represent a tool for IAS management and should also be used to support policy makers as they prepare European IAS legislation.

ABSTRACT1. Characterizing the physical structure and assessing the habitat quality of rivers is becoming more important in the context of environmental planning, appraisal and impact assessment. In Europe the EC Water Framework Directive requires assessment of hydromorphological quality in establishing the ecological status of rivers.2. Hydromorphological quality assessment plays a crucial role in the Directive because it is used to determine 'undisturbed' and 'heavily modified' conditions of rivers. A common approach is needed to ensure comparability of classification outputs between EU Member States.3. Three hydromorphological and river habitat assessment methods, developed in Germany, France and the UK, were used for qualitative cross-comparison in 2001. Each was tested on river stretches in North-East France and in the French Pyr! e en! e ees.4. The type of features recorded by all three methods was broadly similar, but differences in survey strategy, data collection, and analysis resulted in variations in quality assessment. Different interpretation of what constitutes 'undisturbed conditions' has a major impact on outputs. There are also scale-related problems in comparing the different methods.5. Despite these differences, there is sufficient common ground to allow refinement of the methods and achieve better harmonization. This will require technical agreement on the terminology and definition of features, and a reach-based hierarchical framework for survey and reporting.6. An impact-based assessment centred on deviation from undisturbed hydromorphological conditions could be the best option for a simple, practicable classification scheme, but agreement is needed on the criteria used to define and calibrate such a system.7. Habitat quality assessment using the presence and diversity of features as a basis for classification needs to be improved. Assumptions used for diagnostic interpretation need to be tested

1. One hundred and sixty rivers in Scotland with historical records of freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera were surveyed between 1996 and 1999 for the presence of the species.2. M. margaritifera populations were classed as either 'extinct' (no mussels remaining), 'not currently viable' (ranging from only dead shells present to no juveniles present, regardless of the number of adults found), or 'functional' (at least one juvenile was found, regardless of the overall numbers of adults present).3. M. margaritifera populations could be classed as 'functional' in only 52 rivers (34% of total surveyed) and in only 17 of these were juveniles below 20 mm (5 yrs old) present. Furthermore, in only 10 of these functional rivers were mussels also still considered either to be common or abundant and these included both large easterly-flowing rivers and small western rivers and streams.4. In approximately two-thirds (101) of the 155 rivers occupied 100 years ago, M. margaritifera is now extinct or is about to become extinct. Furthermore, analysis indicates that the rate of mussel population extinction has accelerated since 1970, with a recent average of two mussel river extinctions per year.5. The predominant threat to the mussel populations has undoubtedly been pearl fishing. This has been occurring at every river, even in the most remote northwest areas, where most of the 'functional' populations remain. Recent legislation has provided full protection to M. margaritifera, so that all pearl harvesting is now illegal. 6. Locally, river engineering and host salmonid stock decline poses a serious threat and eutrophication has already eliminated populations in southern and eastern Scotland. 7. In every part of its global range, M. margaritifera has declined substantially and is now either threatened with extinction or is highly vulnerable. Based on recent estimates from across the species range, it appears that Scotland now probably holds at least half of the world's remaining functional M. margaritifera populations.