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

Future work on HELCOM indicators – open 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 of 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.

Relevant Policy HELCOM WG(s) team HELCOM 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). Indicator leads/co-leads WGs, via Secretariat, inform expert lead(s) and groups. Expert groups Intersessional, as needed, including contact to WGs. Requests and questions filed by experts or WG(s). Name 10/17/2018 Surname 7

2. Reference group • Application of policy leads: “value of an intersessional indicator reference group (a selection of 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.

Relevant Reference HELCOM WG(s) group HELCOM 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. Indicator leads/co-leads Free and open discussion. Expert groups Two-way process: Secretariat<>CP members. Intersessional, as needed, including contact to WGs.

Policy and Relevant reference HELCOM WG(s) team HELCOM Proposal referred to on other slides. Will nominated persons or volunteers be same person? A single group/team carrying out the functions of both. Indicator leads/co-leads Same process and approach. 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 9: Workshop (i.e. Step 4 ) Stage 2: policy matching and mapping Stage 3: national review Stage 4: Confirm (i.e. Step 3) Stage 7: Stage 6: Stage 5: Experts Inform GEAR 19E prepare Stage 8: Policy prep. February April/May NOW: (early) 2019 2019? Autumn 2018

Stage 1 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 2 and 3 Stage 2 Intersessional – ongoing policy mapping and discussion Stage 3 National review 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 4 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 5 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 6, 7 and 8 Stage 6 Stage 7 Stage 8 Step 4 Joint workshop Policy Inform Experts preparation prepare 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

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