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 5/21/2015 Lena Avellan 1
CORESET II 2-2015 CORESET II benthic and pelagic CORESET II – EUTRO-OPER CORESET II mainly by correspondence COREBAM CORESET II 5/21/2015 Lena Avellan 2
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 5/21/2015 Lena Avellan 3
Gear 5-2013 guidance • Priorities of the project 1 st operationalize core indicators 2 nd develop pre-core indicators as far as possible 3 rd 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 5/21/2015 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 Scientific background, what type of data is supporting it, • detail (Monitoring Manual?), describe optimal monitoring and Referenced and reviewed (specific persons and groups?) identifying 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 the • Clearly describe what type of monitoring of parameters relevant core indicator targets to the indicator are currently being monitored coordinately by • Spatial issues; what ecologically relevant areas (assessment units) all 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 -> where indicator is assessed, e.g. all seals not assessed in whole Baltic hosting Sea • Long-term updating practices agreed, containing information • Assessment methods and rationale described in detail, e.g. statistical on; test and description (protocol) 1. Collected data is reported frequently at a certain month • GES-rationale clearly described, 2. A certain institute/CP/group carries out the analyses • GES-value endorsed, GES-value for each assessment unit if they are required for the indicator based on common data different. An indicator can be operational even if the GES-value is 3. Long-term data storage, e.g. specified common data base preliminary (in most cases a trend) and requires more work and • Quality assurance routines in place for data 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 5/21/2015 Lena Avellan 5
HELCOM indicator definitions • Commonly agreed • Agreed by a sub-set of CPs to apply in a limited area • GES-boundary/ Environmental Target based on other than ecological reasons • Commonly identified as needed • GES-boundary/ • ”core indicator still under Environmental Target development” • Some element lacking, e.g. GES- boundary or monitoring based data • Commonly agreed • No GES-boundary/ • No agreement Environmental Target • Living list of proposals to cover gaps • BSEFS • Concept that is being tested CORESET II 5/21/2015 Lena Avellan 6
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 5/21/2015 Lena Avellan 7
Guidance document No 32. on biota monitoring • Extremely low boundaries Table 1.1 > sub-GES maps even if EQS (µg/kg food authorities have not Substance matrix Protection goal ww) issued warnings and Human health detrimental effects are not PBDE 0.0085 Fish (fillet) via consumption of seen in the Baltic Sea fishery products Human health • Current monitoing Fluoranthene Crustaceans 30 via consumption of programmes sample other (PAH) and molluscs fishery products matrixes (e.g. whole fish) Human health Benzo[a]pyrene Crustanceans and no conversion factors 5 via consumption of (PAH) and molluscs available (potentially lipid fishery products content?) Mercury and its 20 Fish Secondary poisoning compounds • Analytical methods of Human health environmental laboratories PFOS 9.1 Fish (fillet) via consumption of may not be sufficiently fishery products sensitive Fish (fillet), Human health Dioxin an dioxin- 0.0065 • crustaceans via consumption of Molluscs are not used like compounds TEQ 2005 and molluscs fishery procudts extensively as human food HBCDD 167 fish Secondary poisoning in the Baltic Sea CORESET II 5/21/2015 Lena Avellan 8
Guidance document No 32. on biota monitoring Table 1.1 Table 5.3 EQS (µg/kg QS biota HH QS biota sec pois Substance matrix Protection goal ww) Human health PBDE 0.0085 Fish (fillet) via consumption of 0.0085 44 fishery products Human health Fluoranthene Crustaceans 30 via consumption of 30 11522 (PAH) and molluscs fishery products Human health No data Benzo[a]pyrene Crustanceans 5 via consumption of 5 (PAH) and molluscs available fishery products Mercury and its 500 20 20 Fish Secondary poisoning compounds Human health 9.1 33 PFOS 9.1 Fish (fillet) via consumption of fishery products Fish (fillet), Human health Dioxin an dioxin- 0.0065 0.0065 TEQ 0.0012 TEQ crustaceans via consumption of like compounds TEQ 2005 and molluscs fishery procudts 6100 167 HBCDD 167 fish Secondary poisoning CORESET II 5/21/2015 Lena Avellan 9
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 output • 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 outcomes between OSPAR and HELCOM comparable CORESET II 5/21/2015 Lena Avellan 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 5/21/2015 Lena Avellan 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 5/21/2015 Lena Avellan 12
S&C 2-2015 guidance on core indictors for which agreement on the GES-boundary and publication of 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 5/21/2015 Lena Avellan 13
S&C 2-2015 guidance on core indictors for which agreement on the GES-boundary and publication of 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 5/21/2015 Lena Avellan 14
Recommend
More recommend
