3J-7Rev1: Timetable and process for updating indicator and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

• The meeting is invited to:

– take note of the timetable for updating the indicators evaluations and integrated assessments of the State of the Baltic Sea report, – take note of the current situation of data reporting and that data reported later than 31 October will not be included in the 2018 update of the State of the Baltic Sea report. – agree on how to carry out the approval of results of the integrated assessments, – inform the Secretariat (jannica.haldin@helcom.fi) by 30 November 2016 on State and Conservation contact points for approval of indicator evaluations under the respective theme.

3J-7Rev1: Timetable and process for updating indicator and assessment results of the State

• f the Baltic Sea report

General notes:

• Data reporting is partly still ongoing (late submissions) and data processing is still

undergoing at data hosts such as ICES and Secretariat. Late submissions delay the possible start of indicator calculation process.

• Cut-off deadline of 30 October is for NEW data submissions
• ”Traffic light tables” simply indicate a reporting of data for a

parameter/parametergroup for a year, not whether it is complete (all stations covered etc.) or contains required parameters for indicator extraction (e.g. required matrix)

• All tables except haz.sub. xtraction table have been updated with status of 24

October for this presentation

• Cases where data submission is pending originator (PO) should be solved as soon

as possible

3J-7Rev1: Timetable and process for updating indicator and assessment results of the State

• f the Baltic Sea report

Status of data reporting: Eutrophication indicators

Country DIP Tot-P DIN Tot-N Chl-a Secchi Oxygen CyaBI** Denmark

2011-2016 2011- 2016*** 2011-2013, 2015, 2016 2011-2016*** 2011-2016 2011-2015 2011-2016 BM not included

Estonia

2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 BM included (PEG)

Finland

2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 BM included (PEG)

Germany

2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 BM included (PEG)

Latvia

2011-2014 2011-2014 2011-2014 2011-2014 2011-2012 2011-2012 2011-2014 BM included (PEG)

Lithuania

2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 BM included (PEG)

Poland

2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 BM included (PEG)

Russia

2011-2012 2011-2014* 2011-2012 2011-2014* 2011-2014* 2011-2014* 2011-2014* BM not included

Sweden

2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 BM included (PEG)

*) Data used in the assessment is not from COMBINE but from Gulf of Finland Year database and applicable only to Gulf of Finland open sea assessment unit. **) CyaBI (Cyanobacterial bloom index) is multiparametric indicator based on biomass data and EO data. The table indicates whether biomass data was made available to PEG group for the indicator processing for 2017 version of State of the Baltic Sea report. EO data availability depends on availability of satellite data and is not presented in this table. ***) National quality assurance procedure iniated for submitted data Problems identified: Latvia and Russia have not data to COMBINE for the latest years.

Status of data reporting: Contaminants

Contaminants in biota: *Denmark data 2012 and 2015 (NERI) marked as PO (Pending Originator) on ICES webpage. **Finland data 2016 marked as PI (Pending ICES) on ICES webpage. ***Latvia data 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 marked as PI (Pending ICES) on ICES webpage. Biological effects: ****Biological effects monitoring in Denmark concerns imposex which is carried out every second year.

Country

Contaminants in biota Contaminants in sediment Contaminants in seawater Biological effects

Denmark

2011-2016* 2011-2015 No monitoring 2011, 2013, 2015*

Estonia

2011-2015 No monitoring 2011-2015

Finland

2011-2016** 2012, 2015 2011-2016

Germany

2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016

Latvia

2011-2015*** No monitoring

Lithuania

2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016

Poland

2011-2016 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016 2014-2016 2014, 2016

Russia

No monitoring 2011-2012 PO

Sweden

2011-2015 2011, 2014 No monitoring 2011-2015

Status of data reporting: Contaminants

Core indicator HBCDD PBDE PAH and metabolites PFOS Metals PCB, dioxin and furan TBT and imposex Substance Benzo(a )pyrene anthr acen e fluoran thene Hg Cd Pb Non DL- PCB dioxin TBT Impose x Matrix

B-biota, S- sediment, W- water

B B B S B B W B W B S W B S B B S* B* W B* Denmark 2011- 2016 2011- 2016 2011- 2016 2011- 2015 2011- 2016 2011- 2015 2011- 2016 2011- 2016 2011- 2015 2011- 2016 2011- 2015 2011- 2016 2011- 2016 2011- 2015 2011, 2013, 2015 Estonia 2011- 2015 2011- 2015 2011- 2015 Finland 2012, 2014- 2016 2011, 2012, 2014- 2016 2012 2011, 2012, 2014 - 2016 2011- 2016 2012 2011- 2014, 2016 2012 2011- 2016 2011, 2012, 2014- 2016 2012, 2015 Germany 2011- 2015 2013, 2015, 2016 2011- 2014, 2016 2013, 2015, 2016 2011- 2016 2011- 2016 2011- 2016 2011- 2014, 2016 2011 - 2016 2011- 2016 2011- 2014, 2016 2011- 2016 2011- 2014, 2016 Latvia 2015 Lithuania 2015 2015 2015 2011- 2015 2015 2015 2011- 2015 2011- 2016 2012- 2015 2011- 2015 2011- 2015 2011- 2015 2011- 2015 2015 2015 2011, 2015 2011, 2012, 2015 Poland 2011- 2016 2012- 2016 2012- 2016 2012- 2016 2014- 2016 2011- 2016 2011- 2016 2011- 2016 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016 2011- 2016 2011- 2016 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016 2011- 2016 2011, 2012, 2016 Russia Sweden 2011- 2014 2011- 2014 2011- 2014 2014 2011- 2014 2011- 2014 2011- 2014 2011- 2014 2011, 2014 2011- 2014 2011, 2014 2011- 2014 2011- 2014? 2014 2011- 2015 2011- 2015

Status of data reporting: Biodiversity (COMBINE)

* 2012, 2013 pending originator (quality/completeness issue) ** 2016 pending ICES *** 2012-2015 pending originator

Problems identified:

• Evaluations for the indicator on ‘Zooplankton mean size and stock’ was not based on data from COMBINE
• ‘State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community’ was only partly based on data from COMBINE.
• Phytoplankton pre-core indicator (diatom:dinoflagellate ratio) was not based on data from COMBINE.
• Reporting of biodiversity data to COMBINE have not been complete in past years, and additional data collection

and manual processing to harmonize data formats has been required for all three topics

• Phytoplankton and zooplankton data reporting have encountered taxonomical problems when the reported data

has been extracted for use. The reporting should adhere to the HELCOM species lists and biomass conversion factors as specified by the HELCOM projects ZEN-ZIIM and PEG. Country Phytoplankton Zooplankton Zoobenthos Denmark 2011-2014 2011-2014 2011-2015 Estonia 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 Finland 2011-2016* 2011-2016 Germany 2011-2016 2013-2016 2011-2016 Latvia 2011-2015 Lithuania 2011-2016 2011-2016*** 2011-2016 Poland 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 Russia Sweden 2011-2016** 2011-2016** 2011-2016**

Status of data reporting: White-taled eagle

Country Parameters required to calculate productivity Denmark 2011-2016 Estonia 2011-2016 Finland 2011-2016 Germany 2011-2016 Latvia 2011-2016 Lithuania 2011-2016 Poland 2011-2016 Russia Sweden 2011-2016

Problems identified:

• The main problem for the indicators is the lack of a coherent data reporting system.
• The data is mainly gathered on voluntary basis and not through national monitoring programmes.

Sweden and Finland have explored the possibility to develop a harmonized data structure, however no proposal has yet been made. Sweden has taken on the role of data host and harvester in previous work. The indicator leads have informed the Secretariat that at the Seaeagle 2017 conference (Roosta, Estonia) the HELCOM indicator will be discussed in a workshop and that they will inform of any suggestions regarding proposed improvements on data structure and reporting. The indicator leads also informed that at the same meeting they will host discussion with Russian counterparts on how to appropriately gather and incorporate data.

Status of data reporting: Radioactivity in the environment

* Radionuclides in sediment is not used for indicator, but in thematic assessment ** 2013 not available due to lab renovation Problems identified:

• Lack of reporting from Latvia and Russia after 2012

Country Radionuclides in biota Radionuclides in seawater Radionuclides in sediment * Denmark 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011, 2013 Estonia 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 Finland 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 Germany 2011-2012, 2014-2016** 2011-2016 2011-2016 Latvia No monitoring 2011-2012 2011-2012 Lithuania 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 Poland 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 Russia No monitoring 2011-2012 2011-2012 Sweden 2011-2016 2011-2016 2011-2016 Reporting of radioactivity takes places through the HELCOM MORS Expert group and is reported to the MORS Environmental database hosted by HELCOM Secretariat.

Status of data reporting: Illegal oil spills

Country Aerial surveillance hours and detected spills reported Denmark 2011-2016 Estonia 2011-2016 Finland 2011-2016 Germany 2011-2016 Latvia 2011, 2014 (monitoring by neighbouring countries when spill is observed) Lithuania 2011-2015 Poland 2011-2016 Russia No monitoring Sweden 2011-2016 Problems identified:

• Lack of monitoring in Latvia and Russia

Reporting of illegal oil spills takes places through the HELCOM IWGAS Expert group which is under the HELCOM Response Working Group and is reported to the HELCOM Illegal oil spills database hosted by HELCOM Secretariat. The data consists of detected spills of oil and other substances based on aerial surveillance and satellite observations.

Status of data reporting: Coastal fish

Country Key species Key functional groups Denmark 2011-2016 * Estonia 2011-2016 2011-2016 Finland 2011-2016 2011-2016 Germany ** ** Latvia 2011-2016 2011-2016 Lithuania 2011-2012*** 2011-2012*** Poland 2011-2016 2011-2016 Russia No monitoring No monitoring Sweden 2011-2016 2011-2016 Problems identified: In general there is no monitoring in Russia that the FISH PRO group would be aware of. *) For Denmark, monitoring does not capture piscivores and cyprinids/mesopredators reliably **) For Germany, no updates of data and no approval of indicator. Only coastal trawl survey data in in the Pomeranian Bay from the Rostock University is available for the coastal fish database. ***) For Lithuania, no funding for monitoring since 2012 Reporting of coastal fish data takes place through the HELCOM coastal fish database. A data request was carried out for FISH-PRO group in spring 2017 with a reporting deadline by end of May 2017

Status of data reporting: Birds

* Data usage restrictions applied in the previous reporting round ** For 2011-2015 Only 7 sites without data restrictions were included and for 2016 only two sites: More data exists but was not provided Problems identified:

• In some Contracting Parties, the monitoring is conducted by non-governmental bodies (volunteers,

NGOs, resulting in possible restrictions of data usage.

• Restrictions in data usage may result in a situation that underlying data used for indicator can’t not

be made available to third parties. Reporting of bird data takes place through the HELCOM bird database. Data was requested through a specific data call submitted in spring 2017.

Country Breeding counts Wintering counts Denmark 2011-2016 2011-2016* Estonia 2011-2016 2011-2016 Finland 2011-2016** 2011-2016 Germany 2011-2016* 2011-2015 Latvia 2011-2016* 2011-2016* Lithuania Not included 2011-2015 Poland 2011-2016 2011-2016** Russia Not included 2011-2015 Sweden 2011-2016 2011-2016

Status of data reporting: Seals – abundance/distribution

*) For ringed seals the spatial level of accuracy and aggregation has to be agreed with Estonian Environmental Agency. **) Contract for data usage is being drafted between data provider and HELCOM ***) Data is in preparation. ****) Last survey with the HELCOM method was done on 2011 for Grey seal and 2012 for Ringed Seal. Data from Ringed seal survey for 2017 exists. Problems identified:

• Data not yet delivered from Finland, Poland and (partly) Sweden.
• Suitable aggregation method for reporting required for following occasions: Large number of eskers in Finland and

Sweden results in challenging data processing and cumbersome reporting

• Reporting of ringed seal exact locations can be restricted in national law requiring aggregation (Estonia)
• Data usage restrictions may be applied for submitted data, which is not in line with HELCOM Data policy

Reporting of seals data takes place through the HELCOM seal database. Table 11 displays the pointwise

• r grid-based abundance/distribution counts submitted by HELCOM Contracting Parties in response to

data

Country Grey seal Harbour seal Ringed seal Denmark 2011-2016 2011-2016 No monitoring Estonia 2011-2015 * Finland ** ** ** Germany 2011-2016 2011-2016 No monitoring Latvia No monitoring No monitoring No monitoring Lithuania No monitoring No monitoring No monitoring Poland *** *** No monitoring Russia **** **** **** Sweden ** 2011-2016 ** Area Grey seal census report Baltic Sea 2011-2016

Status of data reporting: Seals – condition

Problems identified:

• Data from other countries than FI and SE is not included.
• Data is collected ad hoc by experts and there is no permanent data flow arrangement or a database
• established. The indicator leads have indicated that this would be a valuable discussion for the

future and a solution to data hosting and data calls would improve the potential of the indicator. Reproductive status – Grey seal Finland 2010-2016 Sweden 2011-2016 Nutritional status – Grey seal Finland 2010-2016 Sweden 2002-2016 There is no common database for data on condition of seals. The indicator evaluations included in the first version of ‘State of the Baltic Sea’ report are based on data from Finland and Sweden (Tables 13 and 14).

Status of data reporting: Non-indigenous species

Problems identified: In general there is no monitoring in Russia that the FISH PRO group would be aware of.

Country Latest NIS observations reported to the database Denmark 2011 Estonia 2015 Finland 2009 Germany 2016 Latvia 2015 Lithuania 2015 Poland 2014 Russia 2012 Sweden 2016

• The core indicator uses data from the AquaNIS database. The database does not require

reporting of zero-results, namely that no new introductions have been observed. Thus this table only provides an overview of the year of the latest entry into the database, with no information on whether this is a complete reporting for the year (or previous years) for the country.

Status of data reporting: Litter: Beach litter

• There is no agreed data reporting format or database for monitoring of beach litter. For the purpose of

the ‘State of the Baltic Sea’ report collection of beach litter data grouped in categories of litter material has been carried out through the HELCOM SPICE project. An additional data call to identify top ten beach litter items also within the SPICE project was conducted in May (deadline 1 September).

Country Beach litter Data grouped in categories of litter material Data on litter items Denmark 2015-2016 2015-2016 Estonia 2012-2016 2012-2016 Finland 2012-2016 2012-2016 Germany 2011-2016 2011-2016 Latvia 2012-2016 2012-2014 Lithuania 2012-2015 2012-2013 Poland 2015-2016 2015-2016 Russia Sweden 2012-2016 2012-2016

Problems identified: There is no data from Russia.

Status of data reporting: Litter: Litter on the seafloor

Country Litter on the seafloor Denmark 2012-2016 Estonia 2015-2016 Finland Not covered by the monitoring programme Germany 2012-2016 Latvia 2015-2016 Lithuania 2015-2016 Poland 2015-2016 Russia Not covered by the monitoring programme Sweden 2012-2016 Problems identified:

• No data available from Finland and Russia since the BITS program does not cover these countries.
• The BITS programme covers stations with a depth ranging from 13 to 118 m. The programme

therefore does not give information on the amounts of litter on the seafloor at shallow depths. Alternative methods for monitoring marine litter in shallow waters are available, but need to be further tested in the Baltic before proposals for their implementation can be developed.

• Litter on the seafloor uses data compiled from the BITS program (DATRAS database hosted by ICES) on

trawl hauls where litter on the seafloor is monitored two times per year.

Status of data reporting: Underwater noise: Impulsive noise

Problems identified: There is no data available from Latvia nor Russia. For a comprehensive understanding, countries should also be requested to report zero events on a yearly basis.

• Data on impulsive licenced noise events such as pile driving, controlled explosions from naval operations

and other activities that release energy to the Baltic Sea and the North East Atlantic are reported to the HELCOM/OSPAR registry hosted by ICES.

• Yearly compiled data is summarised in the table, where no reporting (blank spaces) is to be

differentiated from zero events reported in the Baltic Sea area (*). Poland informed they are in the process of submitting data to the registry.

Country Impact pile driving Sonar or acoustic deterrents Airgun arrays Explosions Generic explicitly impulsive source Denmark 2015* 2015* Estonia 2012-2016 Finland 2010 2008; 2010-2011 Germany 2013, 2014, 2015* 2016* Latvia Lithuania 2013; 2016 Poland Russia Sweden 2015 2015 2015