Future work on HELCOM indicators open issues including discussion - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Future work on HELCOM indicators –

• pen issues including discussion on

policy and reference groups.

GEAR 19-2018

Owen Rowe – HELCOM indicators

Future work on HELCOM indicators

• HELCOM HOD 54-2018 (Outcome paragraph

4.25, document 4-5).

– Step 1: Review – Analyze current status by mapping to policy documents. This process is underway with Annex 1 representing the responses currently received by indicator leads/co-leads and expert groups. – Step 2: Define – Policy based discussion of mapped indictors. – Step 3: Confirm – Outline general working structure. – Step 4: Prepare – Joint policy-technical-expert workshop for common focus. – Step 5: Execute – initiate work program on indicator development and adjustment.

stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/

www.helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/indicators/

Preliminary HELCOM indicator review

• Step 1 – review: 2 questionnaires and

supporting documents sent to indicator leads/co-leads and hosting expert groups.

• Responses from technical experts collated

(though not fully synthesized).

• This information provides an overview of

situation and can form the basis for discussion and input at the spring 2019 workshop.

Open questions

• 1. Policy leads.
• 2. Reference group.
• 3. Workshop timing for step 4 (spring 2019).
• 4. End target point in step 5.
• 5. Intersessional process for step 3 and planning
• f step 4.

• 1. Policy leads
• Application of policy leads: “Discuss effective policy

implementation for future indicator work, such as the addition of a policy lead to each indicator”. – Per indicator? – too much – For clusters of related indicators (e.g. biodiversity, hazardous substances, eutrophication)? – A policy team (see next slide)? – see also later proposals in presentation.

Name Surname 10/17/2018 7

HELCOM

Policy team Informal group (possibly a CG). No decision making powers. Free and open discussion. Two-way process: Secretariat<>CP members. Report or address findings/issues to relevant WG(s). WGs, via Secretariat, inform expert lead(s) and groups. Intersessional, as needed, including contact to WGs. Requests and questions filed by experts or WG(s). Relevant HELCOM WG(s) Indicator leads/co-leads Expert groups

• 2. Reference group
• Application of policy leads: “value of an

intersessional indicator reference group (a selection

• f nominated individuals from Contracting Parties

from existing Working Groups…)” – A reference group to assist with problem solving, technical issues or practical problems that may arise during development/adjustment steps and/or any future update process (see next slide). – see also later proposals in presentation.

HELCOM

Reference group Informal group (possibly a CG). Support and advise the Secretariat on practical issues: e.g. progress or reporting issues, missed deadlines, informal exchanges of ideas and possible developments. No decision making powers. Free and open discussion. Two-way process: Secretariat<>CP members. Intersessional, as needed, including contact to WGs. Relevant HELCOM WG(s) Indicator leads/co-leads Expert groups

HELCOM

Policy and reference team Proposal referred to on other slides. Will nominated persons or volunteers be same person? A single group/team carrying out the functions of both. Same process and approach. Relevant HELCOM WG(s) Indicator leads/co-leads Expert groups

• 3. Workshop timing for step 4
• The precise timing of the workshop for step 4

needs to be considered.

• Proposed for spring 2019, possibly back-to-

back with GEAR meeting.

• Practical aspects such as: hosting, timeframe

and divisions of this workshop (e.g. thematic) are also be relevant considerations.

• 4. End target point in step 5.
• In step 5 two phases of indicator

adjustment/development work, with targets:

– by end of 2020 (i.e. in advance the BSAP update) – by early (spring) 2022 (i.e. In advance of 3rd hlistic assessment, timetabled for 2023). – There was an open issue regarding that this date should be moved to autumn 2021.

• 5. Intersessional process for Step 3

and planning of Step 4

• Step 3: Confirm – Outline general working

structure.

• Step 4 Prepare – Joint policy-technical-expert

workshop for common focus

– Need for discussion and preparatory work to ensure all aspects are in place for Step 4. – To carry out effectively intersessional work and review will likely be important. – Proposed plan follows.

Timeline overview

Stage 1: GEAR 19 Stage 3: national review Stage 5: GEAR 19E NOW: Autumn 2018 February (early) 2019 Stage 2: policy matching and mapping Stage 4: Confirm (i.e. Step 3) Stage 9: Workshop (i.e. Step 4) Stage 6: Inform April/May 2019? Stage 7: Experts prepare Stage 8: Policy prep.

Stage 1

GEAR 19 – 2018 - now

Initial discussion on details:

• Agreement on open issues
• Initial review of expert responses
• Initial review of policy match process
• Consider any feedback from State and Conservation
• Identify and discuss any obvious gaps/adjustment needs (from policy perspective)
• Identify any obvious policy/indicator priority areas
• Identify areas for potential synergy
• *Discuss potential for indicators to be used for assessment of measures
• *Discuss the use of indicators within the BSAP update
• Discuss MSFD Article 8 and Commission decision to inform what lists of elements/species are

adopted nationally. *These issues are intended to be considered during the BSAP update process discussions where progress has been made.

Stage 1

Stage 2 and 3

Intersessional – ongoing policy mapping and discussion

Secretariat to complete policy mapping and provide to GEAR:

• Complete ongoing policy match and mapping process (e.g. species and element lists)
• Provide to GEAR
• National review process through GEAR WG contacts
• Preparatory work for GEAR 19E

Stage 2 Stage 3 National review

Stage 4

Confirm – this is the process in Step 3 of main document

Step 3: Confirm – Outline general working structure:

• Secretariat to develop a document to share with GEAR (and other relevant WGs)
• The document will contain information, definitions, and information to act as an indicator

management document

• Comments through national GEAR contacts at GEAR 19E

Stage 4

Stage 5

GEAR 19E

Regional agreement on policy perspective and practical aspects:

• Discussion on national perspectives and agreement on regional approach
• Identification of gaps and needs from policy perspective
• Agreement on the indicator management document
• Identification of priority aspects (policy perspective)
• Initial identification of potential cooperation

Stage 5

Stage 6, 7 and 8

Inform

All parts carried out in preparation for joint workshop Inform:

• Critical information and decisions from GEAR 19E passed to relevant WGs
• WG comments reviewed intersessionally
• Final version passed to expert leads/groups

Experts prepare:

• Experts on priority areas asked to prepare clear proposal on work plans to be discussed at

workshop

Policy preparation:

• Clear guidelines prepared by GEAR in cooperation with Secretariat (possibly via Policy and

reference group?) in preparation for workshop

Stage 6 Stage 7 Stage 8 Step 4 Joint workshop Experts prepare Policy preparation

Timeline overview

Stage 1: GEAR 19 Stage 3: national review Stage 5: GEAR 19E NOW: Autumn 2018 February (early) 2019 Stage 2: policy matching and mapping Stage 4: Confirm (i.e. Step 3) Stage 9: Workshop (i.e. Step 4) Stage 6: Inform April/May 2019? Stage 7: Experts prepare Stage 8: Policy prep.