CORESET II Progress of the Project (5/1) Lena Avellan Project - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
coreset ii
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

CORESET II Progress of the Project (5/1) Lena Avellan Project - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 14, 2023 447 likes •725 views

CORESET II Progress of the Project (5/1) Lena Avellan Project Manager CORESET II MONAS20/2014, 8.-10.4.2014 Oslo, Norway CORESET II 4/9/2014 Lena Avellan 1 CORESET II in a nutshell Operationalization of HELCOM core indicators for

slide-1
SLIDE 1

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 1

Lena Avellan Project Manager CORESET II MONAS20/2014, 8.-10.4.2014 Oslo, Norway

CORESET II Progress of the Project (5/1)

slide-2
SLIDE 2

CORESET II in a nutshell

  • Operationalization of HELCOM core indicators

for hazardous substances and biodiversity

  • Project running September 2013 - June 2015
  • Supervized by HELCOM GEAR

HELCOM MONAS comments on technical aspects HELCOM HABITAT comments on some BD-indicators

  • Development work is carried out by national experts termed

Task Managers in Lead (TML) or Assisting (TMa)

  • All indicators will undergo an evaluation process to define which can

be accepted as operational core indicators at the end of CORESET II

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 3

Rough schedule and milestones

CORESET II 1/2014 15-16.1.2014 Berlin CORESET II 2/2014 September/ October GEAR 6/2014 26-27.3.2014 Berlin MONAS 20/2014 8-10.4.2014 Oslo HABITAT 16/2014 13.-16.5.2014 Sweden GEAR Autumn? HELCOM MONAS 21/2014 November ? GEAR 5/2013 30-31.10.2013 MONAS 19/2013 19-22.11.2013 CORESET II 3/2015 ? GEAR Spring ? MONAS Spring ? HOD June 2015 Core indicators published

  • n-line
  • Pre-core and Candidate indicators work

continues until summer 2015, meaning that they can only be accepted by HOD autum/2015

Fill-in MORE template ”expert evaluation meeting” TMs to present the developed core indicator, meeting to solve remaining problems Possibly back-to-back with OSPAR COBAM

2013 2014 2015

Maybe a need for a final

  • verview – possibly back-

to-back with EUTRO-OPER Kick-off meeting Gap-analysis, criteria specification

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Task Managers

  • Task Managers have been appointed either in Lead (TML) or as

assisting (TMa) by GEAR Contacts

  • As of yesterday (7.4.) a total of 75 TMs have been officially

appointed

  • In addition, a number of national experts have expressed interest

in joining the TM-work but have not yet been appointed by their GEAR contact and some experts have been named as other relevant experts who wish to follow the discussions

  • Indicators with only TMa:s assigned have so far not made progress

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

CORESET II kick-off

15-16 January 2014, Berlin

  • Carried out a gap-analysis
  • Looked into specific tasks that TMs need to

carry out and discussed organizing the work

  • Specified the criteria an indicator must fulfill

to be a core indicator

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Data-arrangements

Criteria a core indicator must fulfill 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 database

  • Quality assurance routines in place for data

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Data-arrangements

Different options are available and need to be considered

  • 1. ICES is currently processing and hosting some of the

data used in the core indicators through COMBINE

  • 2. Some HELCOM expert groups have collected and

analyzed data

  • 3. External contractors are involved in some of the core

indicator development

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 8

Data-arrangements

1) Using ICES to compile, review and agree to publish:

  • ICES has hosted the COMBINE-data since 1998 (previously

BMP)

  • CPs report data to ICES, established system
  • ICES provides data that has been somewhat processed to

the HELCOM community

slide-9
SLIDE 9

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 9

Data-arrangements

1) Using ICES to compile, review and agree to publish:

+ Well established reporting system + ICES capacity for data-handling and storage is much higher than e.g. the HELCOM Secretariat

  • ICES schedules are sometimes out of synch with the

HELCOM schedules

  • Slow process to correct problems in data once it has been

sent to HELCOM (e.g. hazardous substance core indicators in CORESET I)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Data-arrangements

2) Using HELCOM groups to compile, review and agree to publish:

  • HELCOM SEAL 7/2013 discussed a detailed workflow

(annual/bi-annual update):

  • Data from CPs from previous year (or more recent) reported

to the team leader (ultimately to a common database) by March each year

  • Data analysed, necessary graphs updated and text of the core

indicator report amended by end of August each year, submission to HELCOM SEAL by mid-September

  • Annual HELCOM SEAL meeting to consider the updates and

agree to publish

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 11

Data-arrangements

2) Using HELCOM groups to compile, review and agree to publish:

+ Data processing and QA/QC carried out in the HELCOM family + National experts in control of interpretation of the indicator result

  • Only few permanent/semi-permanent HELCOM expert

groups exist

  • Capacity for project-type HELCOM groups to process data

is limited

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Data-arrangements

3) Using external groups/contractors/consultants to compile, review and agree to publish:

  • HELCOM CPs collect data and submit for analysis to

contractor

  • Suggested e.g. for bird-indicators as no HELCOM group is

available but nationally collected annual data needs processing

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 13

Data-arrangements

3) Using external groups/contractors/consultants to compile, review and agree to publish:

+ Several available and specialized actors

  • The cost may become high
  • HELCOM experts and CPs have lower control of the

interpretation of the indicator results

slide-14
SLIDE 14

HELCOM biodiversity database

  • Pilot-outcome of the EU-RSC-Data project

Deltares in the lead, SYKE included 6/2014 - 12/2014

  • Pilot-database to be developed for HELCOM RED LIST

data, mainly species data

  • Writing INSPIRE compatible metadata
  • Develop interface to the HELCOM Map and Data service
  • To be hosted at the HELCOM Secretariat

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 14

Data-arrangements

slide-15
SLIDE 15

HELCOM biodiversity database

A cluster of HELCOM biodiversity databases probable in the future, due to different data models, different update intervals etc.

  • Red List; distribution and quality data, updated 6/12 years
  • Core indicators; variable data-content, updated at various

intervals

  • HELCOM MPA-database; under development
  • Harbour porpoise; database sporadically updated
  • Alien species port database; developed as a tool for granting

ballast water exemptions

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 15

Data-arrangements

slide-16
SLIDE 16

GES

  • All GES currently provisional according to decision

at HOD 41/2013

  • Developing GES is in focus for CORESET II
  • TML have reported progress, note that indicators

with only TMa have as a rule not made concrete progress

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

GES

Criteria a core indicator must fulfill b) Assessment methods, c) GES bondaries 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(or boundary) endorsed and described separately if

different in

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

GES - biodiveristy

  • Mammals – concepts are there, discussions on setting the boundary
  • Waterbirds – tentative boundary and deviation that need

strengthening

  • By-caught waterbirds – no GES, proposal to use model for decline
  • Coastal fish – FISH-PRO II agreed on GES in 2013, planned to use the

concept in CORESET II

  • Macrozoobenthos – discussion on the BQI-concept and the

population structure (species unclear) are ongoing and discussions on setting the boundary in the future

  • Macrophytes – species-specific reference values to be used and

discussions on which species to use are still on-going

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

GES – hazardous substances

  • PFOS and HBCDD – in place
  • Reproductive disorders – tentative, whether to use percentile
  • r trend is still unclear
  • EROD and Vitellogenin – tentative, whether to use percentiles
  • r trend is still unclear

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Gap analysis -BSAP

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 20

Segment Objective Core indicators targeting the

  • bjective

Pre-core- or candidate indicators targeting the

  • bjective

primarily secondarily

Eutrophication Concentration of nutrients close to natural level 2 Clear water 1 Natural levels of algal blooms 1 Natural distribution and occurrence of plants and animals 6 1 Natural oxygen levels 1 Hazardous substances Concentrations of hazardous substances close to natural levels 7 2 Fish safe to eat 7 2 Healthy wildlife 3 3 9 Radioactivity at pre-Chernobyl level 1 Biodiversity Natural marine and coastal landscapes 2 Thriving and balanced communities of plants and animals 5 1 Viable populations of species 11 1 2 Others No illegal pollution 1 Safe maritime traffic without accidental pollution 1 No introduction of alien species 1

slide-21
SLIDE 21

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 21

Gap analysis -MSFD

Descriptor Criteria Core indicators targeting the criteria Pre-core- or candidate indicators targeting the criteria primarily secondarily

1. 1.1 3 2 1.2. 5 1 1.3 5 2 1 1.4 1 1.5 2 1.6 4 1 6 2. 2.1 1 2.2. 3. 3.1. 3.2. 4. 4.1. 3 2 1 4.2 1 4.3 8 9 5. 5.1 2 5.2 2 5 5.3 1 1 1 6. 6.1 4 6.2 2 1 7. 7.1 7.2 8. 8.1 7 2 8.2 1 5 10 9. 9.1 7 2 10. 10.1. 3 10.2. 1 11. 11.1. 1 11.2. 1

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Detailed issues

Splitting the state pre-core indicator Reproductive disorders: Malformed eelpout and amphipod embryos keeping together: target the same MSFD criteria (8.2) splitting in two: monitoring methodology for the species differs requiring different competence for the analyses, different monitoring programmes

  • On a principle-level, is it more appropriate that HELCOM indicators are split if they target

different criteria or if the monitoring and assessment methodology is different? Developing a pressure core indicator for dredged materials A pressure indicator for dredging and dumping of dredge material has been discussed at a general level by the LAND/MONAS Expert Workshop on revision of HELCOM Guidelines for the disposal of dredged materials at sea (2/2014, 18-19 February 2014). More details under 7/1

  • Pressure indicators have been asked for, does MONAS20 support in principle this

pressure indicator? Progress on development of nutrient input pressure core indicators Pressure indicator for nutrient input, more details under Agenda Item 6/1

  • Actual inputs of nitrogen and phosphorous to the basins
  • Follow-up report on inputs reduction requirements for countries

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Summary for phytoplankton candidates

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 23

Candidates under discussion Conclusion and suggestion for CORESET II by the Project Manager Ratio of diatoms and dinoflagellates Maybe – unclear if there are available, interested experts Seasonal succession (progression) of functional phytoplankton groups Yes Spring bloom intensity index NO - to be developed in EUTRO-OPER Phytoplankton species assemblage clusters based on environmental factors Yes - although unclear how much work will remain to be done Cyanobacterial surface accumulations NO - to be developed in EUTRO-OPER Phytoplankton taxonomic diversity Yes - if there are experts taking it on, unclear if e.g. SYKE experts will participate in CORESET II Concentration of silica and chlorophyll a NO - this was suggested at the CORESET II kick-off meeting, but there seems to be no foundation for developing it further and some confusion on why and for what purpose it was suggested Proportion of cyanobacteria in summer phytoplankton biomass Probably not - mainly an eutrophication indicator, should therefore be taken forward in EUTRO-OPER? OR should PEG discuss what aspect of cyanobacteria should be included in the indicator? Cyanobacteria biomass index Maybe - should PEG discuss what aspect of cyanobacteria should be included in the indicator? Is this biomass-based cyano-indicator more promising that the proportion- indicator above? DISCARDED Ratio of autotrophic and heterotrophic

  • rganisms

NO Frequency and intensity of cyanobacterial blooms NO Phytoplankton diversity NO Phytoplankton functional diversity NO

slide-24
SLIDE 24

On-line

  • Core indicator reports will be published on-line,

structure developed at the Secretariat with the aim to suit all core indicators

  • Task Managers are provided workspaces in the

HELCOM Meeting Portal

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Issues for MONAS 20/2014

  • 1. Data-arrangements
  • consider the inital thuoghts from the TMs and discuss

different options for long-term data-arrangements with pros and cons

  • 2. GES
  • take note of the progress and advise
  • detailed or general advise to the TMs (e.g. percentiles

preferrable to trends)

  • 3. Gap-analysis
  • take not of the remaining gaps and comment
  • 4. On-line structure
  • take note and comment

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

CORESET II Lena Avellan 4/9/2014 26