candidate indicators developed in CORESET II Lena Avellan Project - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Litter- and Noise candidate indicators developed in CORESET II Lena Avellan Project Manager Pressure 2-2015 Tallin, Estonia CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 1

HELCOM core indicators • Commonly agreed indicators evaluating progress towards agreed targets, GES-boundary or Environmental Target • Published indicator to be regularly up-dated and the basis for thematic and holistic assessments as defined in the HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (2013) • Based on data from national monitoring efforts • Core indicators still under development are termed ’pre - core’ if agreed on in principle and ’candidate’ when new concepts are tested CORESET II A project to operationalize the existing core indicators and further develop pre-cores and candidates CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 2

CORESET II • 3rd priority of the project to develop new candidate core indicators to cover identified gaps • Aim: to develop candidate indicators as far as possible by the end of the project, June 2015 Continuous low frequency Beach litter anthropogenic sound Distribution in time and space of loud Microlitter in the watercolumn low- and mid-frequency impulsive sound Litter on the seafloor CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 3

Current adoption process Indicator reports available in the ’Adoption process workspace’ State and Conservation 2-2015, 11-15 May • Technical review of the concept and methodology Gear 11-2015, 19-20 May • Strategic review of the indicators HOD 48-2015, 10-11 June • Adoption of indicators, targets and agreement on publication CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 4

Agreed criteria for an operational core indicator (CORESET II 1-2014 outcome) a) the scientific concept / design of the indicator, d) coordinated monitoring and methodology • • Detailed description Describe what data is fed into the indicator; Monitoring methods, • sampling frequency, spatial resolution described in detail Scientific background, what type of data is supporting it, (Monitoring Manual?), describe optimal monitoring and identifying • Referenced and reviewed (specific persons and groups?) possible gaps. • Clarify connection to anthropogenic pressures qualitatively or • Technical guidelines described largely through the HELCOM quantitatively as appropriate for the indicator Monitoring Manual, detailed and accessible for all users • Policy relevance, it is to be defined what criteria in the MSFD does • Clearly describe what type of monitoring of parameters relevant to the core indicator targets the indicator are currently being monitored co-ordinately by all • Spatial issues; what ecologically relevant areas (assessment units) countries/by a number of CP’s/ad hoc or in projects does the indicator cover • Appropriate quality assurance in place b) assessment methods, c) GES boundaries or assessment criteria, e) data management arrangements • Covers whole Baltic Sea and identified HELCOM Assessment Units • Detailed description of data flow; sampling -> analyzing -> hosting where indicator is assessed, e.g. all seals not assessed in whole • Long-term updating practices agreed, containing information on; Baltic Sea 1. Collected data is reported frequently at a certain month • Assessment methods and rationale described in detail, e.g. 2. A certain institute/CP/group carries out the analyses required statistical test and description (protocol) for the indicator based on common data • GES-rationale clearly described, 3. Long-term data storage, e.g. specified common data base • GES-value endorsed, GES-value for each assessment unit if they are • Quality assurance routines in place for data different. An indicator can be operational even if the GES-value is preliminary (in most cases a trend) and requires more work and maybe an update in 5 years time. Confidence of evaluation needs to be included • Show applicability of GES by using case study assessment for a selected area CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 5

Indicator report structure • Key message – Non-expert audience – Very brief summary ”cover page” – Aim: ”indicator image”, easy to browse and compare e.g. Biodiveristy and maritime themed indicators • Detailed structure in sub-pages, some themes from key message more in-depth and some other themes as well CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 6

Indicator report structure • Indicator concept • Monitoring requirements – Good Environmental Status – Monitoring guidelines /Environmental Target – Optimal monitoring – Assessment protocol – Current monitoring – Relevance of the • Description of data and indicator up-dating • Policy relevance – Metadata • Role of XX in the – Arrangements for up- ecosystem • Results and confidence dating • Publications and Archive CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 7

Examples of CORESET II key message maps Level 2 – Sub-basins CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 8

Examples of CORESET II key message maps Level 3 – sub-basins with coastal areas split CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 9

Request to S&C 2-2015 Agree on shift from candidate to pre-core • Beach litter • Microlitter in the watercolumn • Continuous low frequency anthropogenic sound CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 10

Request to S&C 2-2015 Take note of work in progress and guide further work on candidate core indicators • Distribution in time and space of loud low- and mid-frequency impulsive sound • Litter on the seafloor CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 11

Beach litter • Environmental Target concepts proposed • Ecological relevance described • Assessment protocol not yet developed • Scattered pilot monitoring data available • All available datasets are not yet comparable e.g. due to differing categorization of litter • Distance to source identified as a clear explanatory factor for litter density on beaches CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 12

Microlitter in the watercolumn • Environmental Target concepts proposed • Ecological relevance described • Assessment protocol not yet developed • Very little data yet available for this emerging issue • Differeing mesh size in filters used in different studies limits comparability of some current results CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 13

Litter on the seafloor • No Environmental Target defined • Assessment protocol not yet developed • Ecological relevance briefly described, specifically noticing the effect of so called ghost nets • No results yet available • Very little input to CORESET II work CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 14

Continuous low frequency anthropogenic sound • Environmental Target generally described • Ecological relevance described • Assessment protocol not described • Expecting significant input in early 2016 from the BIAS project – Monitoring guidance – Soundscape – Support for quantitative targets and evaluations CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 15

Distribution in time and space of loud low- and mid-frequency impulsive sound • No Environmental Target proposed • Assessment protocol not developed • Ecological relevance briefly described • No initial results • The indicator evaluation method is closely linked to how impulsive sounds are measured  Registry of impulsive noise needed  OSPAR ICG-Noise is considering a registry proposal that HELCOM could also consider CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 16

CORESET II 5/8/2015 Lena Avellan 17