CORESET II core indicators strategic endosment (ref. Doc 4-1 and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 1

CORESET II core indicators strategic endosment

(ref. Doc 4-1 and Doc 4-6)

Lena Avellan Project Manager GEAR 11-2015 19-20 May Berlin, Germany

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 2

CORESET II 2-2015 COREBAM CORESET II benthic and pelagic CORESET II – EUTRO-OPER

CORESET II mainly by correspondence

Core indicator adoption process

• HOD 48-2015 (10-11 June) adoption and

publication decisions to be based on a technical and a strategic review by relevant HELCOM working groups

• Indicator reports made available for national

consultaiton (1/14/20 April) through the Adoption Process Workspace

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 3

Gear 5-2013 guidance

• Priorities of the project

1st operationalize core indicators 2nd develop pre-core indicators as far as possible 3rd develop candidate core indicators to fill identified gaps in the set of indicators compare to legislation needs

• ”Pick low-hanging fruit”
• Task Manager approach to ensure CP ownership and

transparency

• Ensure close cooperation with other relevant HELCOM

projects and processes

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 4

Agreed criteria for an operational core indicator (CORESET II 1-2014 outcome)

a) the scientific concept / design of the indicator,

• Detailed description
• Scientific background, what type of data is supporting it,
• Referenced and reviewed (specific persons and groups?)
• Clarify connection to anthropogenic pressures qualitatively or

quantitatively as appropriate for the indicator

• Policy relevance, it is to be defined what criteria in the MSFD does the

core indicator targets

• Spatial issues; what ecologically relevant areas (assessment units)

does the indicator cover

b) assessment methods, c) GES boundaries or assessment criteria,

• Covers whole Baltic Sea and identified HELCOM Assessment Units

where indicator is assessed, e.g. all seals not assessed in whole Baltic Sea

• Assessment methods and rationale described in detail, e.g. statistical

test and description (protocol)

• GES-rationale clearly described,
• GES-value endorsed, GES-value for each assessment unit if they are
• 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 Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 5

d) coordinated monitoring and methodology

• Describe what data is fed into the indicator; Monitoring

methods, sampling frequency, spatial resolution described in detail (Monitoring Manual?), describe optimal monitoring and identifying possible gaps.

• Technical guidelines described largely through the HELCOM

Monitoring Manual, detailed and accessible for all users

• Clearly describe what type of monitoring of parameters relevant

to the indicator are currently being monitored coordinately by all countries/by a number of CP’s/ad hoc or in projects

• Appropriate quality assurance in place

e) data management arrangements

• Detailed description of data flow; sampling -> analyzing ->

hosting

• Long-term updating practices agreed, containing information
• n;

1. Collected data is reported frequently at a certain month 2. A certain institute/CP/group carries out the analyses required for the indicator based on common data 3. Long-term data storage, e.g. specified common data base

• Quality assurance routines in place for data

HELCOM indicator definitions

• Commonly agreed
• GES-boundary/ Environmental Target
• Commonly identified as needed
• ”core indicator still under

development”

• Some element lacking, e.g. GES-

boundary or monitoring based data

• No agreement
• Living list of proposals to cover gaps
• Concept that is being tested

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 6

• Agreed by a sub-set of CPs

to apply in a limited area based on other than ecological reasons

• GES-boundary/

Environmental Target

• Commonly agreed
• No GES-boundary/

Environmental Target

• BSEFS

Hazardous substance core indicators

• the issue of EQS -GES
• GEAR 8-2014: GES-boundaries to be aligned with EQSD
• S&C 1-2014: Not straight forward in all cases
• WFD Guidance Document No. 23 on biota monitoring

published January 2015

• CORESET II Feb-2015 h.z. themathic meeting: EQS

relevant as GES-boundary when derived for secondary poisoning, when derived for human health not suitable as environmental assessment target (but as D9)

• EU WG GES Apr-2015: EQS relevant no matter which

protection goal

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 7

• Extremely low boundaries

> sub-GES maps even if food authorities have not issued warnings and detrimental effects are not seen in the Baltic Sea

• Current monitoing

programmes sample other matrixes (e.g. whole fish) and no conversion factors available (potentially lipid content?)

• Analytical methods of

environmental laboratories may not be sufficiently sensitive

• Molluscs are not used

extensively as human food in the Baltic Sea

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 8

Substance EQS (µg/kg

ww)

matrix Protection goal PBDE 0.0085 Fish (fillet) Human health via consumption of fishery products Fluoranthene (PAH) 30 Crustaceans and molluscs Human health via consumption of fishery products Benzo[a]pyrene (PAH) 5 Crustanceans and molluscs Human health via consumption of fishery products Mercury and its compounds 20 Fish Secondary poisoning PFOS 9.1 Fish (fillet) Human health via consumption of fishery products Dioxin an dioxin- like compounds 0.0065 TEQ2005 Fish (fillet), crustaceans and molluscs Human health via consumption of fishery procudts HBCDD 167 fish Secondary poisoning

Guidance document No 32. on biota monitoring

Table 1.1

Substance EQS (µg/kg

ww)

matrix Protection goal PBDE 0.0085 Fish (fillet) Human health via consumption of fishery products Fluoranthene (PAH) 30 Crustaceans and molluscs Human health via consumption of fishery products Benzo[a]pyrene (PAH) 5 Crustanceans and molluscs Human health via consumption of fishery products Mercury and its compounds 20 Fish Secondary poisoning PFOS 9.1 Fish (fillet) Human health via consumption of fishery products Dioxin an dioxin- like compounds 0.0065 TEQ2005 Fish (fillet), crustaceans and molluscs Human health via consumption of fishery procudts HBCDD 167 fish Secondary poisoning

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 9

Guidance document No 32. on biota monitoring

QS biota HH QS biota sec pois 0.0085 44 30 11522 5 No data available 500 20 9.1 33 0.0065 TEQ 0.0012 TEQ 6100 167 Table 5.3 Table 1.1

Hazardous substance core indicators

• the issue of the assessment protocol
• Nationally developed assessment protocol so far applied in

HELCOM core indicators

• Synergies and regional comparability sought between

HELCOM hazardous substance experts and OSPAR MIME

• DE proposed at S&C 1-2014 to also look into the MIME spatial
• utput
• Initial comparisons showed minor difference between the

methods, closer scrutiny still on-going

• At least now initially, experts believe that the MIME protocols

could be applied in HELCOM core indicators, making the

• utcomes between OSPAR and HELCOM comparable

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 10

General comments on EQS-GES by S&C 2-2015

• Acknowledged that EU MS are required to use EQS,

and consequently agreed to always use EQS where available

• Proposed to always combine status assessments with

available long-term trends measured in biota

• Supported the approach to include secondary GES-

boundaries as needed for alternative matrices

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 11

MSCG

• review of applicability of WFD guidance on

biota monitoring under MSFD

• JRC group on review of D8-D9 to carry out
• HELCOM Secretariat has participated in the

work to coordinate comments from TMs

• If CPs wish to comment jointy, the Secretariat

has offered to compile comments submitted before 25 June

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 12

S&C 2-2015 guidance on core indictors for which agreement on the GES-boundary and publication

• f the report was requested

1. Abundance of coastal fish key functional groups Agreed 2. Abundance of coastal fish key species Agreed 3. Abundance of salmon spawners and smolt Agreed 4. Abundance of sea trout spawners and parr Agreed 5. Abundance of waterbirds in the breeding season Agreed 6. Abundance of waterbirds in the wintering season Agreed

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 13

S&C 2-2015 guidance on core indictors for which agreement on the GES-boundary and publication

• f the report was requested

1. Distribution of Baltic seals Agreed 2. Population trends and abundance of seals

• Agreed. Link between GES and Rec 27-28/2 to be clarified

3. Nutritional status of marine mammals SE & DE agreed to clarify remaining issues with TMs, possibly teleconf. 4. Reproductive status of marine mammals DE to clarify remaining issues with TMs, possibly teleconf. 5. Zooplankton mean size and total stock

• Agreed. Regional GES-boundaries still to be calculated, proposed to be done

though ZEN ZIIM 6. Trends in arrival of new non-indigenous species Agreed

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 14

S&C 2-2015 guidance on core indictors for which agreement on the GES-boundary and publication

• f the report was requested

1. Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD) Agreed 2. Metals CPs to clarify biota matrix used in monitoring for GES 3. Polybrominated biphenyl ethers (PBDE) Agreed 4. Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and their metabolites GES agreed but needs to be specified and assesment protocol

• elaborated. There might be a need

to review the list of PAH to be included over all 5. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and dioxins and furans GES for PCBs to be further clarified 6. Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS) Agreed 7. Radioactive substances Agreed 8. White-tailed eagle productivity Agreed

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 15

S&C 2-2015 guidance on core indicators with no request to agree on GES-boundaries

1. Number of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gear Publish and continue work on Environmental Target 2. Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species Continue work 3. State of the soft-bottom macrofauna community High priority to continue work. For HOLAS II there may be a need to use national indexes 4. Proportion of large fish in the community Continue work 5. TBT and imposex Continue work. Derivation of TBT GES for sediment to be elaborated and for biota to be specified.

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 16

S&C 2-2015 guidance

• n pre-core indicators

1. Reproductive disorders: Malformed eelpout and amphipod embryos Agreement on GES could not be reached as for amphipods further clarification is needed 2. Acetylcholinesterase inhibition Continue work, not considered high priority 3. Diclofenac concentration Consider future work after completion of the Assessment of Pharmaceuticals 4. Estrogenic-like chemicals and effects Consider future work after completion of the Assessment of Pharmaceuticals 5. Lysosomal membrane stability (LMS) Continue work 6. Oil-spills affecting the marine environment

• Noted. Technical review by Response 20-2015 (1-3 June)

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 17

S&C 2-2015 guidance

• n pre-core indicators

1. Cumulative impact on benthic biotopes High priority. Proposed that HOLAS II core team could consider the pressure layers and available data sources. 2. Distribution, pattern and extent of benthic biotopes High priority. A regional benthic biotope map needs to be developed to support further development of monitoring methods. 3. Lower depth limit distribution of the macrophyte community Continue work but operationalization is believed to take time, thus using national macrophyte-indicators in HOLAS II is proposed.

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 18

S&C 2-2015 agreed on shift from candidate to pre-core

1. Diatoms/Dinoflagellates index

• Agreed. GES applicability currently only verified for Kiel Bay

2. Seasonal succession of functional phytoplankton groups

• Agreed. GES applicability currently only verified for Gulf of Riga

3. Maximum length fish in the pelagic community

• Agreed. Currently only pelagic community included

4. Beach litter

• Agreed. Even proposed by some CPs to be shifted to ’core’

5. Continuous low frequency anthropogenic sound

• Agreed. BIAS soundscape in 2016 to allow for quantification

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 19

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 20

S&C 2-2015 agreed on shift from candidate to pre-core

1. Total nitrogen concentration Proposed to shift to core when GES-boundaries are presented 2. Total phosphorous concentration Proposed to shift to core when GES-boundaries are presented 3. Cyanobacterial surface accumulation Some conceptual issues on applicability and nutrient concentration as driver

• f blooms in some areas still to be cleared out. PEG proposal to add a

biomass parameter. 4. Phytoplankton spring bloom intensity based on chl-a Some conceptual issues on the indicator as a signal of eutrophication in some areas to be further clarified

S&C 2-2015 guidance

• n candidate core indicators

1. Harbour porpoise distribution and abundance GES should be harmonized with HD FCS 2. Phytoplankton species assemblage clusters based on environmental factors Development of statistical methods needed 3. EROD activity Concept to be developed to allow inclusion of all species 4. Biomass ratio of opportunistic and perennial macroalgae Continue testing of biomass alt. coverage 5. Distribution in time and space of loud low- and mid-frequency impulsive sound Development to be linked to development of Regional Registry (Pressure 2-2015) 6. Microlitter in the watercolumn Monitoring guidelines to be further developed to agree on what data to include 7. Litter on the seafloor Monitoring guidelines to be further developed to agree on what data to include

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 21

List of potential future candidate core indicators identified by CORESET II experts

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 22

1. Phytoplankton taxonomic diversity 2. Distribution of seabirds 3. Breeding success in guillemots on Gotland 4. PCB and dioxins for safe fish to eat 5. State of hard-bottom communities 6. Dredging and dumping of dredge materials 7. Seal pup weight at weaning

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 23

D8 Cont. (20) D9 (-) D11 Noise (2) D2 NIS (1) D10 Litter (3) D6.1

Seafloor

(1) D7 (-) D3.1

Fishing (ICES)

BIRDS (2) MAMMALS (5) FISH (6+ICES) BENTHIC HABITATS (1+4) PELAGIC HABITAT (4) FOOD WEBS D4 (”4”), D1.7 (0)

Number of indicators availble for HOLAS II

• All core indicators, pre-core and candidate indicators

D5 Eutro (11)

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 24

D8 Cont. C6 C2 (PC5) D9 (-) D11 Noise (PC1) D2 NIS C1 D10 Litter (PC1) D6.1

Seafloor

(PC1) D7 (-) D3.1

Fishing (ICES)

BIRDS C2 MAMMALS C 2 C 2 FISH C 4 C 1 (PC 1) +ICES BENTHIC HABITATS C 2 (PC 2) PELAGIC HABITAT C1 (PC2) FOOD WEBS D4 (0), D1.7 (0)

Number of indicators availble for HOLAS II

• utcome of State & Conservation 2-2015

core with GES, core without GES, (pre-core)

D5 Eutro C5 (PC4)

BSAP assessments in HOLAS II outcome of State & Conservation 2-2015 core with GES,core without GES, (pre-core)

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 25

Eutrophication

Concentrations of nutrients close to natural levels C3 (PC2) Clear water C1 Natural level of algal blooms C1 (PC2) Natural distribution and occurrence of plants and animals (PC2) Natural oxygen levels C1

Biodiversity

Natural marine and coastal landscapes (PC2) Thriving and balanced communities of plants and animals C3 C3 (PC1) Viable populations of species C6 C1 (PC1)

Hazardous substances

Concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels C4 C3 (PC2) All fish are safe to eat Healthy wildlife C2 C1 (PC6) Radioactivity at the pre-Chernobyl level C1

Maritime activities

Enforcement of international regulations – no illegal discharges Safe maritime traffic without accidental pollution

C1

Efficient emergency and response capabilities Minimum sewage pollution from ships No introductions of alien species from ships

C1

Minimum air pollution from ships Zero discharges from

• ffshore platforms

Minimum threats from

• ffshore installations

2013 Ministerial Declaration Litter and Noise (PC 2)

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 26

Examples of CORESET II key message maps

Level 3 – sub-basins with coastal areas split

General comments on GES by S&C 2-2015 4J.17 (doc 4-1)

• Important to cross-check

compatibility of GES-boundaries

• Supported the initiated

discussions between the Secretariat and ICES WGIAB on potential analysis/modelling

• HOLAS II coordination needed in

ICES cooperation and possible guidance on selecting a sub-set

• f indicators for initial testing

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 27 Historical reference period (pre 1986)

Modern baseline (1998-2008) Acceptable deviation from baseline (>15 years)

piscivores Acceptable range from baseline cyprinids Trend (<15 years) piscivores cyprinids Ecotoxicological effect

Modern baseline (ca 1980-1990), acceptable deviation (control charts)

General comments on GES by S&C 2-2015

• Recommended that GES-boundaries should be

revisited when needed to take in to account e.g. new knowledge, MSFD reporting requirements and changes in climate driven factors

• Proposed that HELCOM should formulate a process for

a systematic review of GES boundaries

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 28

CORESET II Lena Avellan 5/21/2015 29