HOLAS II and CORESET II Lena Avellan Project Manager CORESET II - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 1

Lena Avellan Project Manager CORESET II PRESSURE 1-2014 30-31 October Helsinki, Finland

HOLAS II and CORESET II

This presentation

• Present the HOLAS II project
• Present the HELCOM core indicators and their link to

HELCOM assessments

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 2

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 3

HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (Attachment 3)

HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment is carried out in six-year monitoring and assessment cycles which are further specified by HELCOM GEAR.

Second holistic assessment of ecosystem health in the Baltic Sea (HOLAS II)

• Project running from late-2014 to mid-2018
• HELCOM HOD 46-2014 agreed in principle on the project,

recognizing that the project core team will further need to elaborate some of the project details and descriptions

• HELCOM GEAR 7-2014 agreed in principle that HOLAS II

should be developed by 2017 so that Contracting Parties that are also EU Member States can use it as a roof report for the 2018 reporting obligations under MSFD Articles 8, 9, and 10

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 4

HOLAS II background

HELCOM Initial Holistic Assessment (HOLAS) published in 2010 as BSEP 122

– assessed the health of the marine environment for the years 2003-2007 – established a baseline for assessing the effectiveness of implementation of measures thought the BSAP – provided as a contribution to the EU MSFD implementation

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 5

2013 Ministerial Meeting agreed to develop a second HELCOM holistic assessment (HOLAS II)

– the assessment should be developed so that it supports MSFD reporting for those Contracting Parties that are also EU Member State – HELCOM assessment tools are to be used after further development and testing – the Baltic Sea Impact Index is to be further developed – include economic and social analysis of the use of the Baltic Sea and of the cost of degradation of the marine environment

HOLAS II

• To be based on the commonly agreed HELCOM core indicators and

structured around the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework (DPSIR)

• Assessment tools will be used for making thematic assessments

– HEAT (eutrophication): Current version 3.0. further developed in EUTRO-OPER – CHASE (hazardous substances): further developed in HARMONY – BEAT (biodiversity): currently further deevloped in EU-project DEVOTES – BSPI and BSII (Baltic Sea Pressure and Impact Index): further developed in HARMONY – HOLAS (integrated assessment): has not been further developed since last the holistic assessmen

• The project will further develop the indicator-based assessment

system moving HELCOM towards the goal of a fully operational and increasingly automated assessment system

• The assessments will be based on the HELCOM assessment units

and thereby also provide a possibility to disaggregate and use the results for national reporting purposes

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 6

Structure of HOLAS II based on the DPSIR-framework

Name Surname 10/30/2014 7

Working arrangements for HOLAS II

Name Surname 10/30/2014 8

late-2014 to mid-2018 late-2014 to mid-2018

• n 50% basis

2015-2016

2010 Ministerial Declaration ”...we decide that core set indicators with quantitative targets shall be developed for each of the segments of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan, while ensuring that the indicators can also be used for the other international monitoring and reporting reuquirements inter alia the EU Marine Stategy Framework Directive, and that a full indicator-based follow-up system for the implementation of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan be further developed...” 2013 Ministerial Declaration 2(K) ”We support the first set of core indicators of environmental status and pressures with the intention that they will form the basis of an indicator-based follow-up system for measuring progress towards achieving good environmental status with a full set of operational core indicators, and further STRESS that the joint coordinated monitoring by the Contracting Parties should provide the data necessary for regular updating of the HELCOM core indicators and assessments”

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 9

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 10

Driver Pressure Status Impact Response

Level of human activities e.g.

• Emissions of hazardous substances,

excess nutrients or noise

• By-catch
• Habitat degradation

Status - direct linke to pressures

• Status of eutrophication (eutro-oligo scale)

measured by deviation in nutrient concentration from natural in water

• Population size of marine mammals

Environmental effects (impacts)- indirect link to pressures

• chlorophyll-a concentration in the water
• bio-effect indicators e.g. Reduced breeding

success due to hazardous substances Impact on society

• Cost of degradation of ecosystem services
• Benefits of functioning ecosystem services
• Intrisic environmental value

Measures implemented to e.g.

• regulate fishing quotas
• establish marine protected areas
• implement best available practice

and best available technology

• spatial- and mobility planning

Drivers

• Population growth
• Economic activity
• Climate change

ecosystem service activities resilience

HELCOM core indicators in the DPSIR –framework

• a means for effective communication

Pressure indicators with Environmental Targets Status indicators with GES-boundaries Response indicators

Status-Pressure-Response; what does it mean for indicators?

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 11

Status Pressure Response

Indicator GES-boundary Indicator Environmental Target Measure

Radioactive substanes: Caesium-137 in fish and seawater Concentration at pre-Chernobyl level (supporting paramenter) Liquid discharges of CS-137, SR-90 and CO-60 into the Baltic Sea from local nuclear installations Declining trend Apply Best Available Techniques at nuclear facilities to minimize discharge Scenario 1 →

sub-GES Environmental Target exceeded Enforce BAT

Scenario 2 →

sub-GES Environmental Target achieved No new measure triggered Wait for the substance to (very slowly) disappear from the environment, pace due to halving-time

Crude example

MONAS 19-2013 defined the following terms relevant for indicators

The table is only descriptive, and not an official definition

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 12

Indicator definitions

Commonly agreed Measures progress towards GES or environmental target Core indicator Yes Yes Pre-core indicator Partially Candidate indicator No Supplementary indicator Yes, among relevant CPs Yes Supporting parameter Yes No

CORESET II in a nutshell

• A project for Operationalization of HELCOM core indicators

for hazardous substances and biodiversity. Now also umbrella for pressure indicators

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

HELCOM STATE comments on technical aspects communication also with HELCOM PRESSURE, MARITIME and RESPONSE

• Close cooperation with HELCOM project EUTRO-OPER developing

eutrophication core indicators

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 13

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

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 co-ordinately 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 on;

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

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 14

The indicator report

• n-line structure is built

around these criteria

CORESET II 2-2014 29-30 September

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 15

HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (Attachment 4)

HELCOM Assessment Units

• why use them?
• Aim for a clear and understandable message for the general

public for each indicator

• Using the exact same borders and units will support the

considerations of aggregation in the thematic assessments and further in HOLAS II

• The indicators describe different spatial scales, showing the

assessment unit level communicates about the spatial scale of the indicator (how to communicate temporal aspects is a separate challenge)

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 16

Level 1. The whole Baltic Sea

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 17

Core

• Abundance of waterbirds in the

wintering season (Level 2 aspired)

• Abundance of waterbirds in the

breeding season (Level 2 aspired) Candidate

• Beach litter
• Litter on the seafloor
• Microplastics in the watercolumn

Level 2. Sub-basins

Core

• Population growth rate,

abundance and distribution of marine mammals

• Pregnancy rates of the

marine mammals

• Nutritional status of seals
• White-tailed eagle

productivity

• Number of drowned

mammals and waterbirds in fishing gears

• Abundance of salmon

spawners and smolt

• Zooplankton mean size

and total stock

• Trends in arrival of new

non-indigenous species

• Radioactive substances:

Caesium-137 in fish and surface waters Pre-core

• Reproductive disorders:

Malformed eelpout and amphipod embryos Candidate

• Phytoplankton species

assemblage clusters based on environmental factors

• Actual inputs of nitrogen

and phosphorous to the basins

• Low and mid frequency

impulsive sounds

• Ambient noise

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 18

Level 3. Sub-basins and coastal regions

Core

• Zooplankton mean size and

total stock

• Trends in arrival of new non-

indigenous species

• Abundance of coastal key fish

species

• Abundance of costal fish key

functional groups

• Proportion of large fish in the

community

• Abundance of sea trout

spawners and parr

• Population structure of long-

lived macrozoobenthic species

• Hexabromocyclodocecane

(HBCDD)

• Perfluorooctane sulphonate

(PFOS)

• Metals (lead, cadmium and

mercury) Pre-core

• Cumulative impact on benthic

habitats

• Distribution, pattern and extent
• f benthic biotopes
• Lysosomal Membrane Stability

– a toxic stress indicator Candidates

• EROD/CYP1A (Ethoxyresorufin-

O-deethylase) induction

• Ratio of diatoms and

dinoflagellates

• Seasonal succession of

functional phytoplankton groups

• Mean maximum length (MML)
• f the fish community
• Vitellogenin induction
• Acetylcholin-esterase inhibition
• Biomass ratio of opportunistic

and perennial macroalgae

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 19

Level 4. Sub-basins and coastal regions split into WFD waterbodies/-types

Core

• State of the soft-bottom macrofauna

communities Pre-core

• Lower depth distribution limit of macrophyte

species Candidate

• Seasonal succession of functional phytoplankton

groups (candidate)

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 20

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 21

Trends in ar ends in arrival of rival of new new non non-indigen indigenous s

• us species

pecies HELCOM core indicators are at the core

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 22

29-30 September 2014 CORESET II 2-2014

Discuss progress so far on all indicators. Suggest a technical way forward for all indicators and which candidates to discard.

1 October 2014 COREBAM

Joint meeting with OSPAR ICG-COBAM to identify opportunities for cooperation on biodiversity indicators

8-10 October 2014 GEAR 8-2014

General message on how CORESET II has considered comments by CPs. COREBAM communication paper for consideration on possible cooperation opportunities. GEAR will consider the progress of the project in general and provide general guidance to STATE on the selection of the final list of indicators.

4-7 November 2014 STATE 1-2014

The meeting is to propose the final list of indictors for which work is to continue within CORESET II using the provided background material from CORESET II 2-2014 and guidance from GEAR 8-2014 in order to provide a report to HOD47-2014. Draft indicator reports to be available as working documents for the meeting.

9-10 December 2014 HOD 47-2014

The final list of indicators to be developed in CORESET II to be

• presented. Some of the suggestions from the join HELCOM-OSPAR

meeting are also to be presented.

CORESET II meetings and schedule

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 23

January – March 2015 CORESET II thematic TM- meetings

Finalization of indicator reports in preparation of the adoption

• process. Indicator reports to be presented for review to STATE and

GEAR after the final thematic meetings (exact dates for specific indicators to be specified). Pelagic-and Benthic indicator TMs possibly meeting back-to-back with EUTRO-OPER in week7.

Spring 2015 GEAR x-2015

Final CORESET II indicator reports to be reviewed from a strategic

• perspective. Agree on final structures, definitions and procedures for

developing and managing the HELCOM core indicators in the future.

March 2015

• nwards

STATE 2-2015

Final CORESET II indicator reports to be reviewed from a technical point of view. The technical review will begin intersessionally before the STATE 2-2015 as soon as the indicator reports are provided by the CORESET II Task Managers.

10-11 June 2015 HOD 48-2014

Provide final indicators reports and future procedures for agreement and adoption. Indicators will be published on-line in the new format

CORESET II meetings and schedule

Hazardous susbtance core indicators

Currently under active development in CORESET II

– 8 core indicators – 4 pre-core indicators – 3 candidate indicators

• All the current indicators are state-indicators
• Long-term up-keep and the need for pressure-indicators

need to be considered

• Experts have expressed that a HELCOM hazardous

substances expert group could achieve these tasks, the EG could be linked to both PRESSURE and STATE groups

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 24

What does the future hold for HELCOM core indicators?

The decisions to place indicators in core-, pre-core or candidate stage is taken by STATE> GEAR> HOD

CORESET II Mid-2015

Candidate indicator Pre-core indicator Core indicator

HOLAS II, 2017 > 2018

Supporting parameter Core indicator Supplementary indicator

?

Or… Or… e.g., did not meet scientific scrutiny,

• r monitoring requirements inconceivable

(possibly pre-core- and candidate indicators) e.g., promising but monitoring requirements not currently met but conceivable in future Either…

CORESET II Lena Avellan

CORESET II Lena Avellan 26

> 2018

?

What does the future hold for HELCOM core indicators?

• Core indicators will serve as effective assessment

and communication tools in the long-term

• Suggesting long-term data-arrangements and up-

dating procedures is part of the work of CORESET II different options are currently considered and will probably need to be indicator specific

• Envisioned that HELCOM groups would be

responsible for adopting up-dates

BSAP goal to reach GES by 2021 EU MSFD goal to reach GES by 2020

CORESET II Lena Avellan 10/30/2014 27