Baltic Marine Environment Protection CommissionMonitoring RevisionTallinn, Estonia, 23-24 April 2014

MORE 9-2014

Document title Review of general section and summaries of monitoring programmesCode 3-1Category CMNTAgenda Item 3 – Review of general section and summaries of monitoring programmesSubmission date 4.4.2014Submitted by SecretariatReference

BackgroundA draft of the general section of the monitoring manual was presented to MORE 8/2014. The meeting proposed changes and agreed to submit further comments to the Secretariat by 3 February which was later extended to 28 February. The Secretariat has compiled the contributions and made an updated draft based on these changes. Some comments have been kept for discussion at the meeting.

Action requiredThe Meeting is invited

- to discuss the new draft, further revise it as appropriate, and agree on how to finalize the general section and summaries of the monitoring programmes.

1

HELCOM monitoring manual

General description of monitoring

1. Introduction

Development of HELCOM monitoring and assessment

Monitoring is since long a well-established function of the Helsinki Convention. Monitoring of the physical, chemical and biological variables of the open sea started in 1979 while monitoring of radioactive substances started in 1984.

The first assessment report on the effects of pollution on the marine environment was published in 1980. Since 1987 a periodical assessment of the status of the marine environment has been published every 5 years approximately.

Since the 2000s the occasional production of reports has evolved to a more coordinated and periodical publication of Baltic Sea thematic and holistic assessments. This development was supported by the adoption of the Data and Information Strategy (2004) and the first version of the HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (2005).

In 2007 the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) was adopted which meant to put in to practice the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities. The BSAP further emphasizes the need to monitor and assess the change in the marine environment and progress towards the visions, goals and objectives of the action plan.

In 2010 the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting decided to establish HELCOM as the regional platform to coordinate the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in the Baltic Sea region. The Meeting also agreed that the common understanding of Good Environmental Status (GES) should be based on the common visions, goals and objectives of the BSAP as well as on jointly developed quantitative targets and indicators.

Current Monitoring and Assessment Strategy

The HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy was revised in 2013 with the aim of supporting an indicator-based assessment approach and monitoring, and to be in line with other international monitoring and reporting requirements. It is based on shared objectives and a set of common principles for coordinated monitoring. Specifically, the new Strategy was revised in order to:

Support regionally coordinated activities of the HELCOM Contracting Parties regarding monitoring and assessment of the Baltic Sea i.e. the implementation of the BSAP and the requirements of the EU MSFD.

Adjust the cooperation on monitoring to the latest technical and scientific developments. Enlarge and strengthen the monitoring component of the Strategy.

2

Provide a hierarchy of sub-divisions of the Baltic Sea that should be used in monitoring and assessment purposes.

The general principles of the Strategy are translated into concrete specifications and requirements through the ongoing (2014) revision of the HELCOM monitoring programmes, guidelines and manuals. This will follow European processes such as the MSFD CIS for those Contracting Parties that are also EU member states.

Aims of HELCOM monitoring

Aims of monitoring

HELCOM monitoring focuses on parameters that are indicative of:

The state of the environment. The prevailing anthropogenic pressures and their impacts. The progress towards objectives and targets. The effectiveness of measures.

The set of parameters monitored enables the production of regional assessment products described in attachment 3 (HELCOM Assessment System) of the HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy.

HELCOM monitoring is carried out in such a way that an assessment with adequate confidence and precision is achieved.

The requirement for HELCOM monitoring arises from the BSAP and the MSFD and it is linked to the commonly agreed and Baltic-Sea-wide applicable set of HELCOM core indicators.

The regional joint coordinated monitoring programme is hence primarily serving, in an integrated manner, the methodological elements laid out by the core indicators.

The Joint Monitoring System (attachment 1 of the Strategy) has been developed to meet national needs and facilitate reporting obligations in particular those of the HELCOM EU member states that report under the MSFD. It enables the assessment of the following components:

Biological diversity: population trends, distribution and condition of species and changes in quality and quantity of habitats and biotopes

Non-indigenous species: trends in arrival, quantities and impacts Commercially exploited fish and shellfish: trends in population, age and size structure Marine food webs: their occurrence at normal abundance and diversity; levels capable of

ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity

Human-induced eutrophication: its effects such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters

Sea-floor integrity: including benthic ecosystems Contaminants: concentrations and biological effects, including radioactive substances

3

Marine litter: quantities properties and effects Underwater noise: levels and impacts

In addition, the monitoring system enables the assessment of pressures and impacts, including the extent and intensity of human activities, in terms of:

Physical loss of, or damage to, habitats, e.g. through smothering, sealing, siltation, abrasion and selective extraction of living and non-living resources

Inputs of:o heavy metals and synthetic hazardous substanceso radioactive substanceso nitrogen and phosphorus as well as organic matter

Introductions of:o non-indigenous specieso microbial pathogenso marine littero energy, including underwater noise

Alteration of hydrological and hydrographical conditions through human activities, including a change in salinity and temperature, as well as acidification

Selective extraction of species, including incidental non-target catches (e.g. by commercial and recreational fishing.)

Cumulative and synergetic effects of different pressures and impacts

HELCOM monitoring is mainly driven by indicators and associated parameters for assessment purposes. The indicator system distinguishes

- Core indicators: An indicator is science-based and reflects a component contained in the HELCOM system of the vision, goals and ecological objectives and/or MSFD descriptor.

- Pre-core indicators: An indicator that that has been identified as necessary by the Contracting Parties for the BSAP/MSFD purposes and on which there is a common understanding at the general level but where the content of the indicator is still underdeveloped and for which there is no coordinated monitoring.

- Candidate indicators: A candidate indicator is an issue that is being developed into a core indicator proposal.

- Supplementary indicators: A supplementary indicator is an indicator applied in a sub-regional basis agreed among the countries of the sub-region.

- Supporting parameters: are any parameters that assist in the interpretation of indicator results but do not measure for example distance to a target such as the GES.

See a detailed description in Annex 3 of MONAS 18/2013 (page 27)

Commitment of Contracting Parties in relation to the indicator system is as follows:

4

Climate change

There is a need to maintain and acquire data and knowledge of climate risks in the Baltic Sea region and in the marine environment to improve the understanding of climate change. This can enable assessment of the ability of the marine environment to cope, adapt to or recover from the effects the changes. There is also a need to increase data collection that serves this purpose.

HELCOM monitoring should be configured also to detect climate change and its impacts on the Baltic Sea marine ecosystem. Therefore, sites with relevant long-term data records will be sustained, whilst accommodating improved data collection techniques where appropriate. National long-term data series should be integrated to this region-wide framework.

The MSFD also recognizes the need to the determination of good environmental status may have to be adapted over time in view of the impact of climate change.

2. Contracting Parties’ commitmentsThe Monitoring and Assessment Strategy, adopted by the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in 2013, sets out the basis for how the HELCOM Contracting Parties commit themselves to design and carry out their national monitoring programmes and work together to produce and update joint assessments.

HELCOM joint coordinated monitoring and preparation of the various assessment products require that the Contracting Parties allocate adequate resources and commit to agreed schedules of activities. This includes ensuring that needed resources are available nationally, e.g., ships, laboratories, personnel, data management and analysis capacities and expertise.

The national monitoring is coordinated within and between Contracting Parties in order to use resources in an efficient way. Shared monitoring stations and activities, information and data are steps towards this direction.

The aim is to use limited resources as efficiently as possible and to seek the added-value from HELCOM coordination and collaboration as a return to the Contracting Parties.

HELCOM thus offers a platform for the Contracting Parties to jointly plan and coordinate monitoring and assessment activities and to share resources to increase cost-efficiency and quality of data and assessment products as well as to fine-tune and optimise the activities to match national and international needs and obligations.

Other issues:

Deadlines for reporting

Cruise cooperation

3. Structure of the HELCOM monitoring systemThe HELCOM monitoring system has been built over the years including:

5

The Pollution Load Compilation programmes (PLC-Air and PLC-Water): They quantify emissions of nutrients and hazardous substances to the air, discharges and losses to inland surface waters, and the resulting air and waterborne inputs to the sea.

The COMBINE programme: It quantifies the impacts of nutrients and hazardous substances in the marine environment, also examining trends in the various compartments of the marine environment (water, biota, sediment). The programme also assesses physical forcing.

Monitoring of radioactive substances (MORS) : It quantifies the sources and inputs of artificial radionuclides, as well as the resulting trends in the various compartments of the marine environment (water, biota, sediment).

The coordination of the surveillance of deliberate illegal oil spills around the Baltic Sea, and the assessment of the numbers and distribution of such spills on an annual basis.

HELCOM has developed a suite of monitoring guidelines in support of those programmes (PLC-water guidelines, COMBINE monitoring manual, MORS guidelines) and other monitoring activities (e.g. coastal fish guidelines, seals monitoring guidelines).

The HELCOM monitoring manual integrates the existing HELCOM monitoring activities and requirements and the new monitoring activities/requirements, arising from assessment needs under the BSAP and from monitoring requirements of HELCOM EU Member States under the MSFD, into one manual. Figure 1 illustrates the current system and the structure of the manual. The manual is organised along thematic programmes (summarised in section 6), including human activities. Programme topics (list in section 6) provide details about the monitoring activities and links to

the detailed technical guidelines and standards agreed for coordinated monitoring the data and map service with monitoring-related data products the HELCOM core indicators and Baltic Sea Environment Sheets for which the HELCOM

monitoring system provides the data basis and which contribute to thematic and holistic assessments

Current system Monitoring ManualFigure 1 Current system and Monitoring Manual

The HELCOM monitoring manual provides a detailed and transparent documentation of the monitoring programmes and activities in Baltic Sea region, the associated coordination among Contracting Parties and the state of coherence and consistency of monitoring across borders and

6

regimes. The manual is intended to support HELCOM EU Member States in reporting information about monitoring programmes and activities relevant for the MSFD.

The manual will be revised when there is a need for changes in the Programme content or new technical guidelines. The official version of the manual is available electronically via the HELCOM home page. Users of pdf copies are requested to check against the official online version.

4. Regional cooperation on monitoring The Principles of the HELCOM Joint Coordinated Monitoring System (attachment 1 of the HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy) underline the benefits of coordination and cooperation to optimize monitoring and data sharing in the Baltic Sea region. They also stress the need to harmonize monitoring and ensure quality of data to achieve comparable and region-wide assessment products. HELCOM provides the platform for deciding how, when and where coordinated monitoring should be carried out to meet these requirements.

The HELCOM Assessment System (attachment 3 of the HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy), including the production of thematic and holistic assessments, also requires a high degree of cooperation of Contracting Parties, observer organizations and the scientific community as well as cooperation across HELCOM bodies.

5. Coverage of HELCOM monitoring (Q1a – 1 e, Q3b)

Transboundary impacts and features

According to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, by reason of the transboundary nature of the marine environment, Member States should cooperate to ensure the coordinated development of marine strategies for each marine region or subregion. Since marine regions or subregions are shared both with other Member States and with third countries, Member States should make every effort to ensure close coordination with all Member States and third countries concerned.

According to the HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy, for the purposes of regional monitoring and assessments, the Baltic Sea can be sub-divided into sub-basins as depicted in HELCOM sub-divisions of the Baltic Sea (Attachment 4 of the HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy). Different hierarchical sub-division levels can be used depending on the needs:

the whole Baltic Sea dividing of the Baltic Sea into 17 sub-basins further dividing each of the 17 sub-basins into coastal areas (extending to 1 NM seaward

from the baseline) and off-shore area (waters beyond 1 NM seaward from the baseline) further dividing the coastal areas into water bodies or types according to the WFD. Other

sub-divisions can be agreed and used provided they remain within the boundaries and use the nomenclature of the described hierarchical system. The scale of sub-division to be chosen may differ depending on the monitoring and assessment purpose.

7

To maximise their use for national purposes, regional monitoring and assessment results are also presented in formats (e.g. point/station maps) that allow displaying them within national boundaries (EEZ, 12 nm) and showing hot spots.

Each Contracting Party is responsible for monitoring of their catchments, territorial waters and exclusive economic zones. Coordinated monitoring brings added value to the national monitoring.

Joint monitoring and assessment provides the basis for consideration of transboundary impacts, such as eutrophication, and the state of transboundary features such as mobile species.

BSAP themes and MSFD GES descriptors

Baltic Sea Action Plan Ecological Objectives

The Baltic Sea Action Plan is a programme to restore the good ecological status of the Baltic marine environment by 2021. It was adopted by all the coastal states and the EU in 2007 at the HELCOM ministerial meeting in Krakow. It is a crucial stepping stone for wider and more efficient actions to combat the continuing deterioration of the marine environment resulting from human activities.

Moreover, the Plan provides a concrete basis for HELCOM work by incorporating the latest scientific knowledge and innovative management approaches into strategic policy implementation. It stimulates even closer and goal-oriented multilateral cooperation around the Baltic Sea region.

The Baltic Sea Action Plan is based on a vision, four main goals, and a number of ecological objectives associated to the goals (Figure 2). The overarching visions is: A healthy Baltic Sea environment, with diverse biological components functioning in balance, resulting in a good ecological status and supporting a wide range of sustainable human economic and sustainable activities.

8

Figure 2 HELCOM Vision goals and objectives

MSFD GES descriptors

For those HELCOM Contracting Parties being also EU Member States the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC) establishes a framework within which the Member States shall take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status of the marine environment by the year 2020 at the latest (Article 1). In Annex I of the MSFD there are eleven qualitative descriptors for determining good environmental status (GES):

1. Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions.

2. Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystems.

9

3. Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.

4. All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity.

5. Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters.

6. Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected.

7. Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems.

8. Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects.

9. Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by Community legislation or other relevant standards.

10. Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment.

11. Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment.

Relationship between the BSAP Ecological Objectives and the MSFD Descriptors

On an overarching level, the BSAP can be considered by EU-MS as the HELCOM contribution to the regionally coherent implementation of the MSFD in the Baltic Sea. Its vision and the MSFD definition of GES can be aligned while BSAP goals and objectives are comparable to or at least overlapping with the MSFD descriptors and at times the more detailed criteria outlined in the Commission decision on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (2010/477/EU) (Figure 3).

10

Figure 3 Relationships between BSAP and MSFD.

However, the MSFD GES descriptors cover a wider definition of good environmental status than the BSAP ecological goals and thus there are MSFD descriptors that cannot be assigned to the Baltic Sea goals and objectives. Straightforward links can be established between:

BSAP goal MSFD Descriptor

Baltic Sea unaffected by eutrophication

D5 Eutrophication

Baltic Sea life undisturbed by hazardous substances

D8 Concentrations of contaminantsD9 contaminants in fish and shellfish

Favorable status of Baltic Sea biodiversity

D1 Biological diversityD2 Non-indigenous speciesD4 Marine food websD6 Sea-floor integrity

Maritime activities in the Baltic Sea carried out in an environmentally friendly way

D2 Non-indigenous species

At the level of BSAP objectives and MSFD criteria there are still some differences also where goals and descriptors can be aligned. Biodiversity is for example addressed at three levels in both the BSAP and MSFD but these levels are expressed slightly differently. During the development of core

11

indicators it was however concluded that the same set of biodiversity indicators can serve monitoring and assessment in both frameworks (BSEP 129A)1.

MSFD Descriptors that are also addressed by the BSAP but lack equivalent BSAP goals are:

D3 - Population of commercial fish and shellfish at safe biological levels , D7 - Hydrographical conditions D10 - Properties and quantities of marine litter D11 - Introduction of energy, including noise

Links between different monitoring obligations

As presented previously, the goals and objectives of the Baltic Sea Action Plan do not fully meet with the MSFD descriptors. However, the revised 2013 HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy covers all components of the MSFD descriptors (see section on Aims of HELCOM monitoring). Thus the Strategy provides for alignment of HELCOM coordinated monitoring and MSFD monitoring requirements in the Baltic Sea region. However, there are still gaps in monitoring and a need to further develop the HELCOM coordinated monitoring programs to fulfill both the BSAP and the MSFD. To close this gap, synergies with existing monitoring obligations should be aimed for.

The overlap in monitoring requirements of different directives and policies related to the marine environment are briefly described while they have been outlined in detail in published reports (see e.g. JRC 20122, Commission staff working paper 20123).

Habitat Directive and Birds Directive

The Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) requires EU MSs to monitor the conservation status of habitats and species, and report an assessment of conservation status every six year (Article 17). The monitoring requirements are however restricted to the species (Annex II, IV, V) and habitats (Annex I) listed in the HD. For habitats this overlaps with the MSFD requirement to map special habitat types recognized under the HD. However, the MSFD also requires consideration of predominant seabed and water column habitats i.e. common habitat types that are not listed in the HD. The requirement to assess common habitats has also been considered by the HELCOM CORESET project (BSEP 129a). Thus, the HD article 17 assessment contributes to, but is not sufficient for, the assessment of habitats as regards MSFD descriptor 1 and the intended scope of the HELCOM development of core indicators for biodiversity. For some habitat types and protected species there are opportunities for synergies in monitoring, e. g. streamlining monitoring requirements related to the Habitats Directive and to HELCOM will also be beneficial for implementing MSFD monitoring needs as regards relevant habitat types and protected species.

1 http://helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP129A.pdf2 http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/23169/1/lbna25187enn.pdf3 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/FAQ%20final%202012-07-27.pdf

12

The Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) requires EU MSs to report, starting in 2013, every six years on Bird Species Status and Trends (implementation status?). The reporting requires individual assessments for “all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member States” and includes information on species, population size, population trend, breeding distribution map and range size, breeding range trend.

Water Framework Directive

Several of the characteristics that should be considered according to the BSAP objectives and MSFD Annex III overlap with monitoring requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD, 2000/60/EC) e.g. angiosperms, macro-algae and invertebrate bottom fauna, phytoplankton, and chemical features of the water column.

In addition the WFD requires monitoring of priority substances. In the coastal areas where there is a geographical overlap between the two Directives, monitoring of characteristics and features related to these particular substances are thus covered by the WFD in the water body. Other relevant matrices, such as sediments and biota, are not covered by the WFD. Additionally, good Environmental Status of the MSFD has a much broader take of ecosystem components than the WFD e.g. by including fish, birds, mammals, benthic habitats, zooplankton and additional pressures in terms of marine litter and underwater noise which are not included in the assessment of coastal water bodies under the WFD. MSFD should apply to coastal waters in those aspects of GES that are not already covered by the WFD. Thus streamlining the HELCOM and WFD monitoring would again be beneficial for the implementation of the MSFD in terms of monitoring.

Common Fisheries Policy

The Data Collection Framework (DCF) for the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) requires MS to collect data related to fisheries activities. The CFP requires reporting on e.g. age, length, weight, sex and maturity of species caught in fisheries as well as in fisheries independent research surveys. Reporting requirements are restricted to fish species listed in Annex VII of the policy. A revised Data Collection Framework regulation is scheduled for publication in spring 2014.

Overview of monitoring relevant for HELCOM core indicators

At present (2014) HELCOM has agreed 30 core indicators and additional 5 pre-core indicators that have been identified as necessary to meet assessment needs but are not sufficiently developed to be adopted yet. This indicator set gives emphasis to state and impact aspects and is being further developed to close gaps, including on pressure aspects. Table 1 outlines overlapping monitoring requirements for parameters needed to support the HELCOM core and pre-core indicators.Current coordinated monitoring under HELCOM COMBINE is also included in the table.Note that although other policies have similar monitoring requirements as the BSAP and the MSFD, this does not necessarily mean that these obligations are met by all Contracting Parties.

13

Table1: Overview of relevant monitoring parameters for HELCOM core indicators required under existing agreements, directives and policies. Note that this does not mean that the monitoring is implemented by all Contracting Parties or adequate to assess HELCOM core indicators.

CORE INDICATORS HELCOM COMBINE

WFD (coastal waters)

HD BD CFP

Population growth rate, abundance and distribution of marine mammals

Status of conservation, population dynamics, presence of habitat, and natural range of animal species of community interest (HD Annex II, IV, V)

Pregnancy rates of the marine mammalsNutritional status of sealsNumber of drowned mammals and waterbirds in fishing gears

Incidental capture and killing of animals of community interest in need of strict protection (Annex IV)

(X)

White-tailed eagle productivity Adverse effect of chemical pollution on population levels of bird species

Abundance of waterbirds in the wintering season

Trends and variations in population

Abundance of waterbirds in the breeding season

Trends and variations in population

Abundance of key fish species Coastal areas: Abundance (length, weight, disease)

Abundance(length, weight, sex and maturity)

Abundance of fish key functional groups Coastal areas: Abundance (length, weight, disease)

Abundance, (length, weight, sex and maturity)

Proportion of large fish in the community Abundance, length (weight, sex and maturity)

Abundance of sea trout spawners and parr ?Abundance of salmon spawners and smolt Abundance of smolt, parr and

ascending individuals in wild salmon stocks in index rivers running to the Baltic Sea III b-d

Zooplankton mean size and total abundance

Composition, abundance, biomass

State of the soft-bottom macrofauna communities

Composition, abundance, biomass

Coastal areas: Benthic invertebrate abundance, composition, diversity, presence of sensitive taxa

14

CORE INDICATORS HELCOM COMBINE

WFD (coastal waters)

HD BD CFP

Population structure of long-lived macrozoobenthic species

Parameters as above – but size classes not recorded by all countries

Trends in arrival of new non-indigenous species

(Indirect through other monitoring programmes)

(Indirect through other monitoring programmes)

Red-listed benthic biotopesPolybrominated biphenyl ethers (PBDE): BDE-28, 47, 99,100, 153 and 154

Priority substance in the field of water policy

Hexabromocyclodocecane (HBCD)(WFD variable to be applied as of 22.12.2018)

Priority substance in the field of water policy

Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS)(WFD variable to be applied as of 22.12.2018)

Priority substance in the field of water policy

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and dioxins and furans: CB-28, 52, 101, 118, 138, 153 and 180.WHO-TEQ of dioxins, furans –dl-PCBs (WFD variable to be applied as of 22.12.2018)

In biota Priority substance in the field of water policy

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons and their metabolites: US EPA 16 PAHs / selected metabolites (WFD: only 5 PAH components selected as priority substances.)

Priority substance in the field of water policy

Metals (lead, cadmium and mercury) In biota, seawater (dissolved and particulate)

Priority substance in the field of water policy

Radioactive substances: Caesium-137 in fish and surface waters

X

Tributyltin (TBT) and imposex (WFD: not included.)

Priority substance in the field of water policy

Water transparency (Secchi depth) Water transparency (Secchi depth)

Transparency

Concentrations of dissolved inorganic nitrogen

Concentrations of dissolved inorganic nitrogen

Nutrient conditions

Concentrations of dissolved inorganic phosphorus

Concentrations of dissolved inorganic phosphorus

Nutrient conditions

Concentrations of chlorophyll a Concentrations of Not required but often

15

CORE INDICATORS HELCOM COMBINE

WFD (coastal waters)

HD BD CFP

chlorophyll a usedOxygen concentration Oxygen concentration OxygenationPRE CORENumber of waterbirds being oiled annuallyLower depth distribution limit of macrophyte species

Depth distribution, composition, % coverage, loose plants, substrate

Abundance, composition, cover, depth distribution of angiosperms and macro-algae

Cumulative impact on benthic habitatsExtent of benthic biotopes Natural range, area covered,

functions, and conservation status of habitat types of community interest (Annex I)

Distribution of benthic biotopes Natural range, area covered, functions, and conservation status of habitat types of community interest (Annex I)

Pharmaceuticals: Diclofenac, EEA2 (+E1, E2, E3 + in vitro yeast essay)Lysosomal Membrane Stability – a toxic stress indicatorFish Disease Index – a fish stress indicatorMicronuclus test – a genotoxicity indicatorReproductive disorders: Malformed eelpout and amphipod embryos

16

Baltic Marine Environment Protection CommissionMonitoring RevisionTallinn, Estonia, 23-24 April 2014

MORE 9-2014

Regional / Environmental targets

In the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), the Contracting Parties to the Helsinki Convention agreed to periodically evaluate whether the targets of the Action Plan have been met by using indicator-based assessments.

Core indicators form the critical set of indicators which are needed to regularly assess the status of the Baltic Sea marine environment against a definition of Good Environmental Status (GES) and progress towards GES against a set of environmental targets.

The selection of core indicators was a process guided by predefined HELCOM common principles for core indicators starting that core indicators (BSEP 129A) should:

be monitored by all Contracting Parties wherever ecologically relevant cover the entire convention area reflect or directly measure anthropogenic pressures be scientifically sound; have quantitative targets for good environmental status (GES) enable assessments under the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) and the EU Marine Strategy

Framework Directive (MSFD) be regularly updated with new data and be publicly available.

For core indicators that reflect the status of the environment, a tentative/preliminary quantitative boundary distinguishes between a state within GES and a state not meeting GES.

For core indicators that reflect pressures on the environment, tentative/preliminary quantitative targets are established to define the maximum level of pressure that is acceptable to achieve or maintain GES. At this time (2014), the goal of having quantitative GES-boundaries or targets is not fully met and trends are also used to define GES.

Other characteristics, pressures and impacts

One of the objectives of the Monitoring and Assessment Strategy is to enable the provision of data and information that links pressures to their impacts on the marine environment.

HELCOM joint monitoring provides the necessary data for regular assessment of the state of the Baltic Sea, the human pressures and their impacts affecting the state. It also enables evaluations of the extent to which measures are being effective, as well as the consideration of a need for action and evaluation of the degree of implementation of jointly agreed measures.

According to the Joint Monitoring System (attachment 1 of the Monitoring and Assessment Strategy) a common approach to differentiate monitoring efforts should be developed depending on the intensity and extent of pressures and environmental problems in areas with environmental problems requiring more intensified monitoring and the purpose of monitoring (in relation to good environmental status;

Page 17 of 26

MORE 9-2014, 3-2

environmental targets; characteristics, pressures and impacts; acute events; knowledge gaps and investigations).

The HELCOM holistic assessments follow the needs of the ecosystem approach which requires the integrated management of human activities based on the best available scientific knowledge about ecosystems and their dynamics. This requires assessments of the wider implications of human activities, including their cumulative and synergistic effects, on the quality, structure and functioning of marine ecosystems.

Page 18 of 26

MORE 9-2014, 3-2

6. Overview of MONITORING PROGRAMMEs

List of monitoring programmes, programme topics and sub-programmes

Monitoring programme Programme topics MORE sub-programmes -

D1-4 Water column habitats(D5 Eutrophication)

Hydrography Temperature, salinity, transparency, turbidity

Waves, currents (sealevel)

Ice

D1-4 Water column habitats, D5 Eutrophication

Hydrochemistry O2, pH, pCO2 (H2S)

D1-4 Water column habitats, D5 Eutrophication

Nutrients

D1-4 Water column habitats, D5 Eutrophication

Phytoplankton Phytoplankton - Pigments

D1-4 Water column habitats Phytoplankton - Species composition, abundance and biomass

D1-4 Water column habitats Zooplankton Zooplankton - Species composition, abundance and biomass

D1-4 Fish and cephalopods, D3 Commercial fish and shellfish

Fish shellfish and fisheries Fish - Coastal fish

D1-4 Fish and cephalopods, D3 Commercial fish and shellfish

Fish - Migratory fish

D1-4 Fish and cephalopods, D3 Commercial fish and shellfish

Fish - Offshore fish

D1-4 Fish and cephalopodss, D3 Commercial fish and shellfish

Commercial shellfish

D1-4 Fish and cephalopods, D3 Commercial fish and shellfish

Fisheries bycatch

D1-4 Biodiversity-Birds Birds Birds - Marine breeding birds abundance and distribution

D1-4 Biodiversity-Birds Birds - Marine bird health

D1-4 Biodiversity-Birds Birds - Marine wintering birds abundance and distribution

D1-4 Biodiversity – mammals and reptiles

Mammals Mammals - Seal abundance

D1-4 Biodiversity – mammals and reptiles

Mammals - Health status

D1-4 Biodiversity – mammals and reptiles

Mammals - Harbor porpoise abundance

Page 19 of 26

MORE 9-2014, 3-2

Monitoring programme Programme topics MORE sub-programmes -

D8 Contaminants Concentrations of contaminants

Contaminants in water

D8 Contaminants Contaminants in sediment

D8 Contaminants Contaminants in biota

D9 Contaminants in seafood Contaminants in seafood Contaminants in seafood

D5 Eutrophication Inputs Nutrient inputs from atmosphere

D8 Contaminants Contaminant inputs from atmosphere

D5 Eutrophication Nutrient inputs from landbased sources

D8 Contaminants Contaminant inputs from landbased sources

D5 Eutrophication Nutrient inputs from seabased sources

D8 Contaminants Contaminant inputs from seabased sources

D8 Contaminants Acute pollution

D8 Contaminants Biological effects of contaminants

TBT /imposex

Other biological effects montoring to be developed

D10 Litter Litter Macrolitter characteristics and abundance/volume

Litter microparticle abundance/volume

D11 Energy, including underwater noise

Underwater noise

D 2 Non-indigenous species Non indigenous species

D1-4-6 Biodiversity-Seabed habitats Seabed habitat distribution and extent

Habitat-forming species and substrates

Seabed habitat physical characteristics

D1-4-6 Biodiversity-Seabed habitats Species distribution and abundance / Benthic community

Hardbottom Species

Softbottom fauna

Softbottom flora

D1-4-6 Biodiversity-Seabed habitats, D1-4 Fish and cephalopods, D3 Commercial fish and shellfish

Benthic physical loss and damage (In future maybe included in "Seabed habitat distribution and extent)

Page 20 of 26

MORE 9-2014, 3-2

6.1 Biodiversity6.2 Eutrophication6.3 …

BACKGROUND (Q4c)

Describe how the programme addresses assessment needs for the BSAP ecological objectives, core indicators and targets(?), relevant MSFD Descriptor(s) and targets, and other related policies (directives/conventions).

The rationale for your balance between monitoring of state/impact, pressures, activities and measures

How it responds to risks of not achieving GES How it adapts to new and emerging environmental problems (pressures and impacts) in relation to

the relevant Descriptor(s). How well/fully the programme meets the needs of providing data/ information to support

assessment of the Descriptor(s) (or particular biodiversity component programme for D1, 4, 6).

Which existing monitoring programmes already established under Community legislation or international agreements contribute to and are compatible with the HELCOM programme (Q8)?

Select the relevant instrument and monitoring programme from list:

Bathing Water Directive Common Fisheries Policy - Data Collection Framework (DC-MAP) Habitats Directive Birds Directive Nitrates Directive Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Water Framework Directive Other (specify)

Include references/web-links

BSAP Ecological Objectives and (Core) indicators

Which BSAP ecological objectives are addressed by the programme?

For which core indicators data is collected?

MSFD DESCRIPTORS AND CRITERIA (Q5)

Page 21 of 26

MORE 9-2014, 3-2

Which GES Descriptor(s) is addressed by the programme? List the relevant ones (D1-D11) with headline and give a link to the exact description of each of them

Which GES criteria may be addressed by the programme?

Select all relevant from list in Decision (filtered to show only those relevant to previously chosen descriptors).

Which GES characteristics is addressed by the programme?

Select all relevant from list in Decision (filtered to show only those relevant to previously chosen criteria).

Which elements of MSFD Annex III (ecosystem components, pressures/impacts) are addressed by the programme?

List here all relevant features and pressures from (It can be linked to the relevant programme topics (database):

List of functional groups List of predominant habitats List of physical and chemical features List of pressures

Short description of obstacles caused by natural variability, and what should be taken into consideration in the implementation of the programme topic file to address this question

BSAP and MSFD TARGETS (Q6)

BSAP targets (if available) and MSFD targets (if available and different from/additional to BSAP targets)

List the target(s) which the programme addresses.

MEASURES (Q7)

List of activities and/or pressures to be monitored (e.g. BSAP measures for nutrient input reduction, HELCOM recommendations; from MSFD Annex III Table 2 list)

Describe the nature of each activity and/or pressure monitoring

PROGRAMME TOPICS

Links to relevant programme topics (Hydrography, Hydrochemistry, Phytoplankton etc.)

Page 22 of 26

MORE 9-2014, 3-2

Annex 1 - Glossary of terms

Biotope

A habitat and its associated community.

Candidate indicators

A candidate indicator is an issue that is being developed into a core indicator proposal. Candidate indicators include indicators on which there is not yet a common understanding on the concept but in general a need for the theme to be addressed by a core indicator has been identified (MONAS 18/2013).

‘Characteristics’

For the purpose of the Marine Directive, the term 'characteristics' is used in the meaning of:

a. Ecosystem components (physical and chemical features, habitat types, biological features and other features) relevant for analysing the environmental state as described in Annex III, Table 1 MSFD

b. Considerations to be taken into account for the setting of environmental targets as described in Annex IV MSFD

c. Elements describing GES as set out in Art. 9(1) MSFD (characteristics of GES).

Core indicators

Core indicators have been adopted by HELCOM Contracting Parties. They are science-based and reflect a component contained in the HELCOM system of the vision, goals and ecological objectives and/or MSFD descriptor. The core indicators for status are linked to anthropogenic pressures and reflect them directly or indirectly.

An indicator measures part of or fully an ecological objective and/or a descriptor of good environmental status and provides a measure of the distance to the target/GES. Whenever ecologically relevant, an indicator is Baltic-wide and the area of applicability is expressed on the indicator report.

The ultimate aim is that the set of core indicators will be measured by all Contracting Parties with coordinated monitoring according to the HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy. Core indicators are presented as core indicator reports on the HELCOM web page. They will also be used for integrated thematic and holistic assessments. The ultimate aim is that those Contracting Parties that are also EU Member States will use the core indicators for the MSFD implementation.

‘GES criteria/criterion’

Page 23 of 26

MORE 9-2014, 3-2

According to the definitions in Art. 3(6) MSFD, “criteria” mean "distinctive technical features that are closely linked to qualitative descriptors”. Specific criteria are listed for each GES Descriptor in Part B of Annex 2 in COM Decision 2010/477/EU. For this reason GES criteria refer to those aspects which are to be assessed, through the application of appropriate indicators, to determine whether GES is being achieved.

‘Descriptor’

Annex I MSFD provides a list of eleven qualitative 'Descriptors' which constitute the basis for the assessment of GES, and provide a further refinement of aspects of the definition of GES in Art. 3(5) MSFD. These descriptors are substantiated and further specified in the COM Decision 2010/477/EU through a set of 29 criteria and 56 indicators.

‘Ecosystem component’

Ecosystem components comprise abiotic and biotic components of the marine environment, including those described in Annex III, Table 1MSFD. Abiotic components include non-living physical, hydrological and chemical factors. Biotic components include species, functional groups and habitat types.

‘Environmental Target’

‘Environmental target’ is defined in Art. 3 MSFD as qualitative or quantitative statement on the desired condition of the marine ecosystem and its components and the pressures and impacts on them. They are inter alia a specific requirement to describe progress towards GES. MSFD Annex IV contains a list of characteristics to be considered if environmental targets are established and distinguishes four categories of environmental targets such as establishing desired conditions, being measurable with associated indicators allowing for monitoring and assessment and being operational relating to concrete implementation of measures to support their achievement and move towards GES.

‘Functional groups of species’

As a way of simplifying and categorising biodiversity, species can be assigned to functional groups. Such groups comprise species with similar structural and functional characteristics, such as how they acquire their nutrients, their state of mobility or their mode of feeding.

Each functional group represents a predominant ecological role (e.g. offshore surface-feeding birds, demersal fish) within the marine environment or within a habitat. For MSFD purposes, the term is particularly applied to birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods to provide focus for the assessment of status of these often highly mobile or widely-dispersed species groups. The term is also useful in the context of assessing communities condition (in the water column or seabed) through assessment of the range of functional groups present.

‘Good Environmental Status’

Page 24 of 26

MORE 9-2014, 3-2

GES is defined in Art. 3 MSFD and describes the desired status of the marine environment and its components. The determination is based on the list of eleven Descriptors laid down in Annex I MSFD and on the criteria and associated indicators in COM Decision 2010/477/EU.

Habitat

The physical and environmental conditions (e.g. the seabed substratum and associated hydrological and chemical condition) that support a particular biological community or communities (Cochrane et al. 2010).

‘Hydrographical conditions’

Hydrographical conditions refer to the depth, tidal, current and wave characteristics of marine waters, including the topography and morphology of the seabed.

‘Hydrological processes’

Hydrological processes refer to the movement, distribution and quality of water. Interference with hydrological processes can encompass changes in the thermal or salinity regime, in the tidal regime, in sediment and freshwater transport, in current or wave action and in turbidity.

Hydrographical conditions can be influenced by (changing) hydrological processes.

‘Impact’

‘Indicator’

An indicator is based on one or several parameters chosen to represent (indicate) a certain situation or aspect and to simplify a complex reality. Indicators are intended to help simplify a complex reality. In the context of the implementation of the MSFD, indicators are specific attributes of each GES criterion that can be measured to make such criteria operational and which allow subsequent change in the attribute to be followed over time.

‘Listed features’*

Listed features are species or habitat types which are listed under Community legislation (e.g. Birds and Habitats Directive) or regional conventions (e.g. OSPAR & HELCOM). Table 1 of Annex

III MSFD refers to these habitat types as ‘special’.

‘Parameter’ / ‘metric’

A parameter or metric is a measureable single characteristic e.g. number of individuals, biomass in g/dry weight, sediment particle diameter size in mm, concentration of nutrients in µg/l etc. An indicator can be based on a single parameter.

Page 25 of 26

MORE 9-2014, 3-2

pre-CORE INDICATOR

An indicator that that has been identified as necessary by the Contracting Parties for the BSAP/MSFD purposes and on which there is a common understanding at the general level but where the content of the indicator is still underdeveloped and for which there is no coordinated monitoring. A pre-core indicator will be under further development such as testing, validation, development of coordinated monitoring as well as methods by HELCOM experts. Meanwhile, each Contracting Party should aim to monitor the parameters relevant for the pre-core indicators. However, with the understanding that some of the pre-core indicators can be based on compilations of data from sources other than monitoring data (MONAS18/2013).

‘Pressure’

‘State/status’

The word ‘state’, as used in the context of the MSFD, refers to the quality/condition of specific aspects of the environment, such as ecosystem components. This can be determined through measurements in the environment of relevant parameters for such components; such measurements, by definition, will reflect any impacts (individual and cumulative) to which the component has been subjected.

The word ‘status’, as used in the context of Good Environmental Status or Environmental Quality Status, draws together the determination of the ‘state’ of individual ecosystem components, typically through use of particular criteria, threshold values and indicators, to assign a 'status' classification (e.g. at GES, below GES). ‘Status’ can either be applied to the overall quality/condition of the marine environment, at the level of the individual descriptors of GES or at the level of individual functional groups, habitats, species or populations.

A further distinction is necessary when referring to the term ‘state target’. In this context, the meaning is limited specifically to targets which articulate the desired quality/condition of specific ecosystem components or characteristics.

Page 26 of 26