**3.2. Multi‐stakeholder consultation on criteria and standards**

**Units Australia1a Australia1b Brazil2**

Chromium (IV)

300 Water Quality

ecosystems. 2

CONAMA Resolution 274, 2000.

EU Bathing Water Directive 2006.

National Water Quality Standards.

12 Quality criteria for water 1986/2012. 13 State of Ohio Water Quality Standards. 14 State of New York Nutrient standard plan. 15 Florida's surface water quality standards. 16 The bathing water regulations 2013.

Canada, Recreation water quality 2012.

National Drinking Water Quality Standards.

 South African Water Quality Guidelines: recreational uses. 10 South African Water Quality Guidelines: domestic uses. 11 South African Water Quality Guidelines: aquatic ecosystem.

Putrajaya Lake Water Quality Standards.

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

 **Canada3**

Lead mg/L 0.05 ≤0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05

Basic environmental law; environmental quality standards regarding water pollution.

**Table 2.** Comparison of selected parameters in different water quality standards and guidelines.

for four heavy metals, namely iron, lead, nickel and zinc, on local biota [22].

Water quality criteria for aquatic health are mostly chemical criteria that require knowledge of aquatic toxicity and environmental fate data. Most of aquatic ecosystems criteria are derived from toxicity data from multiple receptors in order to determine the ranges of tolerance for different organisms, including targeted protective species in relation to pollutants [3]. The commonly used criterion proposed by USEPA to measure the aquatic ecosystem health is usually the chronic effect value and the acute effect value. The minimum amount of data required for deriving water quality criteria for protecting freshwater aquatic environments varies between countries, as critically reviewed by Sha et al. [3]. In the United States and Europe, concentration approach is used with numeric criteria developed for cold water and warm water fish. In Australia, ecological health criterion is used compared to the contaminant limits approach adopted in the United States and Europe. Four biological criteria or indicators, namely species richness, species composition, primary production and ecosystem function, were recommended for assessing the ecosystem health [21]. When compared to developed countries where water quality criteria are well established for biota such as fish, specific information regarding the effects of pollutants that affect biota are very limited in tropical countries such as Malaysia. A recent work by Shuhaimi et al. has identified the acute test value

 **EU4**

Arsenic mg/L 0.05 0.05 ≤0.01 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01 ≤0.050.05 Mercury mg/L 0.001 0.0002 ≤0.07 ≤0.0005 0.001 0.001 0.0001 # # 0.012

Copper mg/l 1 0.02 1 0.02 # #

*Note*: NR, narrative criteria or standard; #, a function of hardness; NOO, no obvious odour; NOT, no obvious taste.

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality 2000, (a) recreation, (b) aquatic

mg/L 0.05 0.02 ≤0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 # #

 **Japan5**

 **Malaysia South**

**Africa** 

**6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16**

**United States UK**

A total of 32 local and four international experts were involved in the first stakeholder consultation. The findings from the first consultative process identified the need for the standards to be based on real data. They also stressed the need to consider the timing of data collection, the weather and the lake characteristics. Water quality parameter will differ with depth, and if sample is taken during daytime or night‐time and during dry and wet weather conditions. The findings in the second consultative process further refined the classification of the proposed NLWQCS and the threshold limits of parameters that may affect water quality. The need to engage with various stakeholders in the state jurisdiction was also highlighted. The state authority and/or state water authority can decide whether water standard is to be used throughout the state for managing or controlling activities within lakes within the state. The application of water quality criteria in Malaysia can be regulatory, depending on regulation and law, or voluntarily such as to support in maintaining water quality for respective uses.

The findings of the third consultative process include further refinement of the threshold values based on various monitoring experiences by the respective stakeholders. In the consultation process, stakeholders were divided into four groups to discuss the individual classification. Discussions were focused on the parameters that need to be identified as criteria determining the class. Other toxicants criteria were also reviewed by the groups. The main parameters of concern in determining of threshold limits includes chlorophyll‐*a*, turbidity, suspended solids, transparency, salinity, conductivity, total nitrogen, total phos‐ phorus, coliform and *E. coli*. A separate group was formed to discuss the minimum sampling strategy to support the criteria and standard. This includes the minimum number of samples required and the compliance level of the criteria. The final engagement with experts on the criteria suggested to change the classification into category as the four classifications were not based on ranking of parameters. Refinement was also made in setting the parameters, such as BOD, which is defined as BOD5 or BOD 5‐day test consistent with other standards in Malaysia.
