HELSINKI COMMISSION HELCOM CORESET BD 5/2012 … Documents/CORESET BD 5-2012… · particularly...

HELSINKI COMMISSION HELCOM CORESET BD 5/2012

CORESET Expert Workshop for Biodiversity Indicators Fifth Meeting Helsinki, Finland, 27.-28.3.2012

Note by Secretariat: FOR REASONS OF ECONOMY, THE DELEGATES ARE KINDLY REQUESTED TO BRING THEIR OWN COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS TO THE MEETING of 1

Agenda Item 3 Recent development with the HELCOM core indicators

Document code: 3/1

Date: 2.3.2012

Submitted by: Project Manager

OUTCOMES OF THE CORESET EXPERT TEAM MEETINGS

The CORESET project has continued the development of biodiversity indicators in expert teams, which have held their first meetings in January-March 2012. This document presents the outcomes of these preparatory workshops and also the outcome of the second meeting of HELCOM FISH-PRO. The following team meetings were held:

- Meeting of waterbirds experts (CORESET WATERBIRDS 1/2012, 31 January – 1 February 2012),

- Meeting of harbour porpoise experts (CORESET PORPOISE 1/2012, 6 February 2012),

- Meeting of fish experts (CORESET FISH 1/2012, 15-16 February 2012), and - Meeting of zooplankton experts (CORESET ZOOPLANKTON 1/2012, 27-28 February

2012). In addition, a meeting of experts on benthic habitats will be held on 15 March 2012 and the outcome of that meeting will be submitted at a later stage. The Meeting is invited to take note of the outcomes of these preparatory workshops and particularly note the progress in indicator development, summaries of data availability and the planned next steps of the expert teams.

HELSINKI COMMISION HELCOM CORESET WATERBIRDS 1/2012

HELCOM CORESET Team Meeting of Waterbird Experts First Meeting HELCOM Secretariat, 31.1.-1.2.2012

Page 1 of 10

TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF HELCOM CORESET TEAM MEETING OF

WATERBIRD EXPERTS (HELCOM CORESET WATERBIRDS) ............... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2 Agenda Item 1 Adoption of Agenda .................................................................................... 2 Agenda Item 2 Objectives of the Meeting ........................................................................... 2 Agenda Item 3 Indicator for the abundance of waterbirds in the breeding season .............. 2 Agenda Item 4 Indicator for the abundance of waterbirds in the winter season .................. 3 Agenda Item 5 Other indicators .......................................................................................... 4 Agenda Item 6 Next steps .................................................................................................. 6 Agenda Item 7 Outcome of the Meeting ............................................................................. 6 Annex 1 List of participants ...................................................................................... 7 Annex 2 Abundance of waterbirds in the breeding season ....................................... 9 Annex 3 Abundance of waterbirds in the non-breeding season ...............................10

MINUTES OF HELCOM CORESET WATERBIRDS 1/2012

Page 2 of 10

MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF HELCOM CORESET TEAM MEETING OF WATERBIRD EXPERTS

(HELCOM CORESET WATERBIRDS)

INTRODUCTION

0.1 With reference to the minutes of the fifth meeting of the Joint Advisory Board of the HELCOM CORESET and TARGREV projects (paragraph 5.9), the preparatory meeting of the HELCOM CORESET expert team on waterbirds was held in Helsinki, Finland, at the premises of the HELCOM Secretariat in 31 January – 1 February 2012.

0.2 The Meeting had participants from all the Contracting Parties except Estonia, Poland and Russia. The list of participants is given in Annex 1.

0.3 Professional Secretary Ms. Maria Laamanen welcomed the meeting and introduced the participants to the concept of Baltic core indicators.

0.4 The Project Manager of the HELCOM CORESET Mr. Samuli Korpinen acted as the chair of the meeting.

Agenda Item 1 Adoption of Agenda

Documents: None

1.1 The Meeting adopted the provisional agenda presented by the Project Manager (Presentation 1).

Agenda Item 2 Objectives of the Meeting

Documents: None

2.1 The Meeting agreed on the objectives for the meeting, as presented by the Project Manager:

to discuss and agree on core indicators and supplementary indicators for waterbirds,

to select indicator species for selected indicators, and

to agree on principles for setting boundaries for good environmental status (GES) for the selected indicators.

2.2 The Meeting was of the opinion that even though principles for GES boundaries can be agreed in this meeting, the actual levels should be decided only after seeing the indicators computed.

2.3 The Meeting noted that the Project Manager had circulated relevant extracts from the HELCOM CORESET interim report which contained the proposed waterbird indicators, welcomed the information that the participants would present other possible indicators during the workshop and decided to go through all proposed indicators one by one.

Agenda Item 3 Indicator for the abundance of waterbirds in the breeding season

Documents: None

3.1 The meeting welcomed the presentation by Mr. Stefan Garthe, Germany, of the development of the OSPAR EcoQO for breeding birds in the North Sea based on the ICES WGSE working group report 2011 and ICES WKSEQUIN workshop report 2008.

3.2 The Meeting took note that the indicator consists of a TRIM analysis of 16 species, their abundance estimates and deviation of abundance from a baseline year. A 30% increase and 30% decrease (or 20% for some species) is considered acceptable for a population. In the OSPAR Region II, the baseline year 2000 was chosen for the sake of simplicity as no true


Page 3 of 10

reference year can yet be set for bird species in that region. The EcoQO follows how many species meet the target range. Changes in breeding waterbird abundance should be within target levels for 75% of species monitored in any of the assessment areas. If the trends of one quarter of these species exceed the respective target levels in any given year, action will be triggered.

3.3 The Meeting discussed the assumptions behind the EcoQO, e.g. the setting of baseline year and species-specific baselines or deviations, and agreed that as the first step the indicator should be computed in the Baltic Sea following simple assumptions and species-specific revisions can be made when more knowledge has been gathered.

3.4 The Meeting was of the opinion that the indicator could be used to indicate good environmental status and discussed whether the 75% target could be applied also in the Baltic Sea.

3.5 The Meeting discussed the anthropogenic pressures behind the proposed indicator and noted that several pressures affect the waterbird population abundance. Therefore the determination of the GES boundary will require further discussion and presentation of species-specific abundance trends.

3.6 The Meeting discussed the assessment units for the breeding bird indicator and provisionally suggested to firstly compute a Baltic wide assessment and secondly divide it to circa 4-5 assessment units, built of the sub-basin units which have been used in the HELCOM thematic assessments. The Meeting, however, concluded that before deciding over assessment units, the data should be seen and computed in order to support the decision.

3.7 The Meeting agreed that the abundance of waterbirds in the breeding season should be a core indicator.

3.8 The Meeting took note of the information of the monitoring programmes in the Contracting Parties, as presented by the participants, and noticed that in some countries the gaps in the time series and disorder of databases may jeopardize the indicator computation unless the databases are harmonized in near future. The Meeting recommended that countries organize their databases according to guidelines given in Annex 2.

3.9 The Meeting agreed on a roadmap for the finalization of this indicator, including also guidelines for data preparation. The roadmap and guidelines are presented in Annex 2.

3.10 The Meeting noted that the data for a core indicator is not in a shape for a Baltic-wide analysis and agreed, as a first step, to compile a textual report of the indicator based on national assessments. The report will show temporal abundance trends of the selected indicator species (cf. Annex 2) and will discuss the data gaps and possibilities for a joint analysis. The Meeting decided to submit the relevant data, assessment texts and graphs to the Project Manager ([email protected]) by 15 March 2012, who compiles the reports and submits it to the fifth meeting of the HELCOM CORESET Expert Group on Biodiversity (27-28 March 2012, Helsinki, Finland).

3.11 The Meeting agreed that the Contracting Parties will report to the Secretariat ([email protected]) by 29 February 2012 of the state of the data and expected steps in its re-organization to a correct format for a core indicator.

Agenda Item 4 Indicator for the abundance of waterbirds in the winter season

Documents: None

4.1 The Meeting welcomed the introduction to the recent assessment of the abundance of waterbirds at inshore and offshore waters in the winter season (SOWBAS project) by Mr. Henrik Skov, DHI, and the summary of available data in the Baltic Sea.

4.2 The Meeting noted that there is much more data available for inshore than offshore waterbirds and that an indicator for inshore waterbirds in the non-breeding season could be

mailto:[email protected]



Page 4 of 10

developed relatively quickly if a lead country can be found and resources targeted for such a work. However, as the availability of the data is concentrated on the winter season and data from other non-breeding periods is scarcer, the indicator should first be called “the abundance of waterbirds in the winter season”.

4.3 The Meeting agreed that the abundance of waterbirds in the winter season should be a core indicator

4.4 The Meeting discussed the distribution aspects of waterbirds and was of the opinion that presentation of the distribution would provide essential supplementary information for the indicator.

4.5 The Meeting agreed that the assessment unit for the winter/non-breeding indicator should be the entire Baltic, as the birds use different parts of the sea depending on ice conditions and smaller units would give misleading information of the abundances. The Meeting however decided to compute the indicator also in the same 4-5 sub-units as in the breeding bird indicator in order to see spatial differences in the Baltic Sea.

4.6 The Meeting agreed that a similar approach as in the OSPAR EcoQO for the abundance of breeding birds could be used for the abundance of birds in the winter/non-breeding season.

4.7 The Meeting decided to stratify the indicator to functional groups.

4.8 The Meeting made a roadmap and guidelines for its finalization (Annex 3).

4.9 The Meeting decided to start the work by computing the indicator first for inshore waterbirds according to the guidelines given in Annex 3.

4.10 The Meeting thanked the project LIFE09NAT/LV/000238 MARMONI (Mr. Ainars Aunins, Latvia) for taking the lead in the computing of the 1st draft of the indicator.

4.11 The Meeting decided to submit the data to the Lead by 31 May 2012 and invited Mr. Aunins to compute the core indicator by 15 August 2012. Mr. Aunins will circulate the results in as early stage as possible by email to the working group who compiles the draft report for the core indicator.

4.12 The Meeting decided to aim at submitting the core indicator report to the 17th meeting of HELCOM MONAS for review.

Agenda Item 5 Other indicators

Documents: None Indicator for the proportion of oiled waterbirds

5.1 The Meeting welcomed the presentation by Mr. Kjell Larsson, Sweden, of the monitoring of oiled long-tailed ducks in Gotland, Sweden (Presentation 2). Mr. Larsson showed that about 11.8 % of by-caught birds between year 2000 and 2004 in the Natura-2000 site Hoburgs bank also had oil in their plumage. . He also showed that only in that observation site the annual toll of oiled individuals varied between a few thousand to 100 000 birds. Oiled birds were observed visually from the shore (counting nearby oiled individuals) and identified within samples of by-caught individuals.

5.2 The Meeting acknowledged that this indicator gives a strong message of the existing oil pollution in the region and of a severe threat to offshore birds.

5.3 The meeting was of the opinion that the indicator should reflect the pressure from oil in the sea on waterbirds. The indicator can be based on the methodology used in the OSPAR EcoQO or on observations of oiled birds at selected shore lines or on proportions of oiled birds in by-caught birds.


Page 5 of 10

5.4 The Meeting recommended Contracting Parties to consider establishing a few sites around the region to follow the oiling problem. The Meeting agreed that investigations of by-caught birds could be used to support this indicator.

5.5 The Meeting noted that there is beach survey data of stranded oiled birds from time period 1992-2004 in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Germany and Denmark.

5.6 The Meeting noted that the indicator would show a way towards GES when a declining trend is seen and the total number of oiled birds is below a certain threshold that should be estimated at a later stage.

5.7 The Meeting agreed that the indicator should be re-addressed in the next workshop and the data should be studied before that. The meeting welcomed the offer by Mr. Larsson, assisted by Mr. Skov and Mr. Dagys, to study the data.

5.8 The Meeting considered that the ‘proportion of oiled waterbirds’ indicator is a very good indicator for giving information of the pressures affecting waterbird abundance and the significance of small-scale oil spills in the Baltic Sea.

Indicator for the by-caught seabirds in fisheries

5.9 The Meeting discussed the indicator for the number of waterbirds being drowned as by-catch in various fishing gear and was of the opinion that such an indicator would give essential information of the fishing pressure affecting the abundance of the waterbirds in the region.

5.10 The Meeting noted that because majority of the by-catch occurs in shallow waters in gill nets and effort data is not available from that form of fishery, reliable data on by-caught waterbirds is not available in the databases under the European Union Data Collection Framework and, hence, other data sources should be considered.

5.11 The Meeting noted that it would be possible to estimate the fishing effort of small-scale fishing boats from aerial surveys in shallow areas where waterbirds occur and then include VMS data from larger vessels to supplement the database.

5.12 The Meeting concluded that this indicator proposal requires more work and possibly a modelling project.

Indicator for the breeding success of waterbirds

5.13 The Meeting thanked Mr. Larsson, Sweden, of a proposal for the indicator for waterbird breeding success (Presentation 2).

5.14 The Meeting discussed that a breeding success indicator would be a quickly-responding indicator to changes in the environment, supplementing the information of the abundance indicators, and agreed that the set of core indicators should have such an early-warning indicator for waterbirds.

5.15 The Meeting discussed that juvenile production of at least eider, Caspian tern, common guillemot, black guillemot and razorbill in selected areas (study areas) would be monitored for the indicator. Parameter is defined as ‘number of juveniles per breeding females’. The indicator responds mainly to the availability of prey for the population but may also respond to disturbance and other pressures.

5.16 The Meeting discussed that the proportion of juvenile individuals in the wintering population of long-tailed ducks could be assessed from photographs. The proportion of juveniles in this case would depend on prey availability and prey quality in the Baltic in preceding winter and spring before the breeding season.

5.17 The Meeting noted that data from several species of waterbirds (e.g. common eider fledging result) are available from Finland (Gulf of Finland, 3 areas), Sweden


Page 6 of 10

(Hanöbukten, Gotland) and perhaps Denmark and considered that the surveys for this indicator could be targeted to Special Protected Areas (SPA) of the Natura 2000 network.

5.18 The Meeting invited the Contracting Parties to consider taking the lead role in this indicator and report of that by the HELCOM CORESET BD 5/2012 (27-28 March 2012).

Indicator for the condition of waterbirds

5.19 The Meeting appreciated the proposal by Germany for an indicator of the condition of waterbirds, measuring the weight of the bird, weight of the sternal muscle and fat condition of an individual. The Meeting recalled that a condition aspect of individuals is required by the EU MSFD Descriptor 1.

5.20 The Meeting discussed the current data gathered in Germany and concluded that there is a need to further analyse the data in order to find its responsiveness to environmental changes. The Meeting invited Germany to submit further information of the indicator to the HELCOM CORESET BD 5/2012 (27-28 March 2012) or, if too early, to the next meeting of the waterbird group.

Agenda Item 6 Next steps

Documents: None

6.1 The Meeting agreed that the working group for Baltic waterbirds should meet regularly and decided to hold a meeting in 23-24 October 2012, which would focus on, inter alia:

possible revision of the core indicator report “the abundance of waterbirds in the non-breeding season” (depending on the outcome of MONAS 17/2012),

analysis of the indicator for the breeding success of waterbirds with the aim to develop a core indicator report,

check of data availability for computing the abundance indicator of waterbirds in the breeding season,

readdress the indicator for the proportion of oiled waterbirds with the aim to develop an indicator fact sheet.

Agenda Item 7 Outcome of the Meeting

Documents: 7/1

7.1 The Meeting provisionally adopted the draft Minutes of the Meeting (document 7/1) and agreed to finalize them by email correspondence after the Meeting. The Minutes have been finalised by the Chair and been made available in the HELCOM Meeting Portal.


Page 7 of 10

Annex 1

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

DENMARK

Mr. Ib Krag Petersen

National Environmental Research Institute, University of Aarhus

Dept. of Wildlife Ecology and Biodiversity

Grenaavej 12

DK-8410 Roende

Dir.Phone: +45 89201518

Fax: +45 89201514

Email: [email protected]

FINLAND

Mr. Martti Hario

Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute

P.O. Box 2

00791 Helsinki, Finland

Dir.Phone: +358 205 751 273

Fax: +358 205 751 201


GERMANY

Mr. Stefan Garthe

Research and Technology Centre (FTZ)

Hafentörn 1

Büsum

Dir.Phone:

Fax:


LATVIA

Mr. Ainars Aunins

Latvian Fund for Nature,

project LIFE09NAT/LV/000238 MARMONI,

Dzirnavu iela 73 – 2,

Riga, LV-1011

Dir.Phone: +371-67509988

Fax: +371-67830291


Ms. Antra Stipniece

Institute of Biology

University of Latvia

3 Miera Str.

LV-2169 Salaspils

Dir.Phone:

Fax:


LITHUANIA

Mr. Mindaugas Dagys

Institute of Ecology of Vilnius University

2 Akademijos Street

LT-08412, Vilnius-21

Dir.Phone:

Fax:


SWEDEN

Mr. Kjell Larsson

Gotland University

Dept. of Biology

SE-621 67 Visby

Dir.Phone: +46 (0) 498 299839

Fax:


Mr. Leif Nilsson

Ecology Building

SE-223 62 Lund

Dir.Phone: +46 705255709

Fax: +46 462224716


INVITED GUESTS


Page 8 of 10

Mr. Henrik Skov

DHI Water & Environment

Agern Allé 5

DK-2970 Hoersholm

Dir.Phone: +45 45169220

Fax: +45 45169292


SECRETARIAT

Mr. Samuli Korpinen

(Chair of the Meeting)

HELCOM Secretariat

Katajanokanlaituri 6B

FIN-00160 Helsinki

Dir.Phone: +358-400-329157

Fax:



Page 9 of 10

Annex 2 Abundance of waterbirds in the breeding season

Data format:

- Fit to the TRIM software.

- Site, year, species, abundance

- Site information: (1) geographical position of the central point + polygon shapefile; (2)

the area could be included in order to estimate densities (can be included at a later

stage); (3) specify the method of counting.

- If no data, abundance should be ‘-1’.

Data exploration: - the data should be explored carefully in order to find data gaps, the indicator species,

assessment units, etc.

Assessment area: - Expert judgment which colonies are included and how far inland counts are included.

- Contracting Parties to determine the monitoring sites and provide a shapefile of them

to the Lead person.

- The Secretariat to provide shapefiles of the assessment areas to the Lead.

- Compute for the whole area and then to 4-5 assessment units.

-

Time frame: - to be decided after looking at the data

- The software requires either annual data or data at regular intervals

Species list: Somateria mollissima, Sterna caspia, S. sandivicensis, S. albifrons, Phalacrocorax

carbo, Cepphus grylle, Uria aalge, Arenaria interpres, Melanitta fusca, Larus fuscus

fuscus, L. argentatus, L. canus, Alca torda.

Lead person for the indicator: - No lead person yet. Information from CPs by JAB 6/2012.

Working group: - Denmark: Ib Krag Pedersen, Thomas Bregnballe

- Estonia: Leho Luigujoe, Andres Kuresoo

- Finland: Martti Hario, Jukka Rintala

- Germany: Stefan Garthe, Christof Herrmann

- Latvia: Ainars Aunins, Antra Stipniece

- Lithuania: Mindaugas Dagys

- Poland:

- Russia:

- Sweden: Leif Nilsson, Kjell Larsson

Time table: - Investigate the data availability and possibilities for data management and report to

the Secretariat by the end of February.

- The Secretariat report to the CORESET Biodiversity workshop and HELCOM

JAB/MONAS.

- Next check of the indicator in the workshop on 23-24 October.


Page 10 of 10

Annex 3 Abundance of waterbirds in the non-breeding season

Data format: - Fit to the TRIM software.

- Site, year, species, abundance

- Site information: (1) geographical position of the central point + polygon shapefile; (2)

the area could be included in order to estimate densities (can be included at a later

stage).

- Abundance in January, ok if other winter month.

- If no data, abundance should be ‘-1’.

- Weather conditions (e.g. ice cover) are used to interpret the results. It can be included

in the database as a separate column.

Time frame: - 1991-2010

- Annual data

Species list: Cygnus olor, Fulica atra, Clangula hyemalis, Melanitta nigra, M. fusca, Somateria

mollissima, Aythya marila, A. fuligula, A. ferina, Bucephala clangula, Mergus albellus,

Gavia stellata, G. arctica, Mergus merganser, M. serrator, Podiceps cristatus, Alca

torda, Uria aalge, Cepphus grylle, Phalacrocorax carbo, Larus minutus, L. canus, L.

argentatus, L. marinus.

Assessment units: - Compute for the whole area and then divide to 4-5 assessment units

- The Secretariat to provide s hapefiles of the assessment units to the Lead.

Lead person for the indicator: Mr. Ainars Aunins - receives pre-processed data sets

- combines data sets and runs the TRIM analysis

Working group: - Denmark: Ib Krag Pedersen

- Estonia: Leho Luigujoe, Andres Kuresoo

- Finland: Martti Hario, Markku Mikkola-Roos

- Germany: Stefan Garthe

- Latvia: Ainars Aunins, Antra Stipniece

- Lithuania: Mindaugas Dagys

- Poland:

- Russia:

- Sweden: Leif Nilsson

Time table: - Data submitted to the Lead by the end of May

- The Lead to compute the indicator by the mid-August

- Working group to comment the results and finalize the report the by mid-September

HELSINKI COMMISION HELCOM CORESET HARBOUR PORPOISES 1/2012

HELCOM CORESET Team Meeting of Harbour Porpoise Experts First Meeting Hamburg, Germany, 6.2.2012

Page 1 of 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF HELCOM CORESET TEAM MEETING OF

HARBOUR PORPOISE EXPERTS (HELCOM CORESET HARBOUR PORPOISES) ............................................................................................. 2

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2 Agenda Item 1 Adoption of Agenda .................................................................................... 2 Agenda Item 2 Objectives of the Meeting ........................................................................... 2 Agenda Item 3 Indicators for harbour porpoise populations in the Baltic Sea ..................... 2 Agenda Item 4 Next steps .................................................................................................. 5 Agenda Item 5 Outcome of the Meeting ............................................................................. 5

MINUTES OF HELCOM CORESET HARBOUR PORPOISES 1/2012

Page 2 of 5

MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF HELCOM CORESET TEAM MEETING OF

HARBOUR PORPOISE EXPERTS (HELCOM CORESET HARBOUR PORPOISES)

INTRODUCTION

0.1 With reference to the outcome of the fifth meeting of the HELCOM JAB (paragraph 5.9), the team meeting of the harbor porpoise experts was held in 6 February 2012 in Hamburg, Germany, at the premises of the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH) and hosted jointly by BSH and the Institute of Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Research (ITAW) of the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover.

0.2 The Meeting had participants from Denmark (Mr. Anders Galatius, NERI), Germany (Ms. Ursula Siebert, Ms. Anita Gilles and Ms. Ilka Hasselmeier, ITAW, and Mr. Jens Koblitz, Meeresmuseum) and Poland (Mr. Krzysztof Skora, Hel Marine Station) and a Sweden (Mr. Erland Lettevall, SWAM) through phone.

0.3 Representative of BSH, Ms. Barbara Frank welcomed the meeting.

0.4 The Project Manager of the HELCOM CORESET Mr. Samuli Korpinen acted as the chair of the meeting.


Documents: None

1.1 The Meeting agreed that the Meeting will concentrate on reviewing the indicators identified in the interim report of the HELCOM CORESET project and suggest other potential core and supplementary indicators for harbour porpoises in the Baltic Sea.

Agenda Item 2 Objectives of the Meeting

Documents: None

2.1 The Meeting agreed on the objectives for the meeting, as presented by the Project Manager:

Select potential indicators for harbour porpoise to fulfill relevant qualitative descriptors of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Baltic Sea Action Plan.

Review data availability for the selected indicators.

Make a roadmap for finalization of the selected indicators.

Consider GES for the selected indicators.

Consider linkages to the hazardous substances indicators, presented in the project’s interim report.

2.2 The Meeting noted, however, that the short duration of the meeting might limit the discussions on all the objectives.

2.3 The Meeting noted that the Project Manager had circulated relevant extracts from the HELCOM CORESET interim report which contained the proposed indicators for the marine mammals, welcomed the information that the participants would present other possible indicators during the workshop and decided to go through all proposed indicators one by one.

Agenda Item 3 Indicators for harbour porpoise populations in the Baltic Sea

Documents: None


Page 3 of 5

3.1 The meeting took note of the presentation by the Project Manager of the objectives and structure of the CORESET project and the concept of core indicators (Presentation 1).

3.2 The Meeting recalled that the Baltic Proper population of harbour porpoise is critically endangered and noted that more supplementary information of genetic structure of the populations is required in order to understand their spatial distributions and to support the establishment of all the indicators.

Indicator for the distribution of harbour porpoise populations in the Baltic Sea

3.3 The Meeting welcomed the presentations by Mr. Krzysztof Skora, Mr. Anders Galatius, Mr. Jens Koblitz and Ms. Anita Gilles of the population surveys carried out in the Baltic Sea.

3.4 The Meeting agreed that the distribution of both the populations of harbour porpoise should be assessed and that could be a core indicator.

3.5 The Meeting noted that the indicator should be based on a criterion of a minimum population density or frequency of sightings.

3.6 The Meeting noted that the available data for occurrences might give already now an indication of the distribution, particularly in the Belt Sea (i.e. ASCOBANS-HELCOM database, German and Danish monitoring programmes and SCANS surveys), but a clearer picture of the Baltic Proper population would be available only via the SAMBAH project within 1-2 years.

Indicator for the drowned harbour porpoises in fishing gears

3.7 The Meeting agreed that the information of the amount of harbour porpoises being drowned as a by-catch in fishing gears should be a core indicator for both the populations in the Baltic Sea, because that is assumed to be the primary human pressure affecting the population decline in the region.

3.8 The Meeting noted that there is very little data on the number of by-caught harbour porpoises and recommended that there should be column in the fisheries reporting formats (log books) for by-caught marine mammals and seabirds. The Meeting invited the HELCOM FISH/ENV forum to consider that in the Baltic Sea.

3.9 The Meeting discussed whether the HELCOM-ICES BALTFIMPA project could estimate the fishing effort based by-catch rates of marine mammals and seabirds within the marine protected areas and invited the project to consider this.

3.10 The Meeting also discussed whether the CCTV surveillance on board of fishing vessels could provide the required by-catch data and noted that in Denmark such has been tested on a voluntary basis.

3.11 The Meeting also recalled the Article 12 of the EU Habitats Directive “Member States shall establish a system to monitor the incidential capture and killing of the animal species listed in Annex IV (a)”, which refers also to harbour porpoise.

3.12 The Meeting regretted that there is little known of the age structure of the by-caught individuals and expressed a recommendation that the gap in scientific understanding should be filled in the region.

Indicator for the abundance of harbour porpoise populations

3.13 The Meeting agreed that an indicator for the abundance of harbour porpoise populations should be developed and considered it as a possible core indicator. The Meeting discussed whether the indicator should be computed as a number of individuals in an


Page 4 of 5

assessment area (based on standardized monitoring methods) or as a density in the assessment area.

3.14 The Meeting noted that there is recent (acoustic and visual) abundance monitoring data from Germany and from Danish Natura 2000 sites and SCANS I and II survey data from the western population and a new international survey will be made in the summer 2012. The Meeting also noted that the results of the SAMBAH project will contribute significantly to the information gap in the Baltic Proper.

3.15 The Meeting concluded that a Baltic-wide core indicator cannot be computed before seeing the results from the SAMBAH project, but a draft indicator for the western population could be made already in the autumn 2012.

Indicator for the population growth rate and other reproductive parameters

3.16 The Meeting agreed that population growth rate, reproductive success, pregnancy rate and other related parameters respond to environmental changes relatively quickly compared to, inter alia, population abundance or population distribution.

3.17 The Meeting agreed that population growth rate is a core indicator which should be computed for the Baltic populations.

3.18 The Meeting discussed what data would be needed in order to compute an indicator the population growth rate and agreed that age determination, reproductive maturity, seasonality, pregnancy rate, survival rate and longevity should be determined. These parameters could be analysed by one effort from the existing samples, but it requires a project of its own with specific funding.

Stress-generated ‘condition indicators’:

3.19 The Meeting welcomed the presentation by Ms. Ursula Siebert of specific indicators for health/condition of harbour porpoise individuals.

3.20 The Meeting agreed that health/condition related indicators address a specific MSFD GES criterion and data from by-caught and stranded individuals is more or less regularly brought to nominated institutions which secure a professional internationally agreed investigation of carcasses.

3.21 The Meeting noted that there are several possible parameters to follow but Ms. Siebert already now has narrowed them down to specific organs and parameters. The Meeting took note that analyses to develop a core indicator would require a specific project with extra resources and that the project should also solve the cause-effect relationships behind the selected parameters.

Indicator for the impacts of noise on harbour porpoise

3.22 The Meeting discussed the impacts of noise on harbour porpoises and noted that Ms. Siebert has found morphological changes in inner and middle ears caused by noise and other noxes. Behavioural reactions were observed near noise sources.

3.23 The Meeting took note of the information by Germany that there are projects to estimate the noise levels in the German waters and impacts of noise, e.g. the determination of the temporary threshold shift. The results should be available within two years.

Data for the concentrations of hazardous substances in marine mammals

3.24 The Meeting agreed that concentrations of hazardous substances in marine mammals serve as supplementary information for core indicators on hazardous substances.


Page 5 of 5

3.25 The Meeting noted that there are partly analyzed samples of PCBs, DDTs, PBDEs, PFCs, Pb, Hg, Cd, HBCD and dioxins in Germany, published results of PFCs in Denmark and published data on PCBs, heavy metals and possibly PFCs and PBDEs in Poland.

3.26 The Meeting noted that the Project Manager will contact the relevant data holders to ask for marine mammal contamination data at the time when the hazardous substances core indicators will be computed and the reports drafted. The data owners will become authors of the core indicators.

Indicator for the impacts of marine litter

3.27 The Meeting discussed the impacts of marine litter on harbour porpoise and also seals and noted that microplastics can cause contamination as they dissolve in the animals and that they also adhere other hazardous substances and can, thus, act as vectors for them to biota.

3.28 The Meeting did not conclude how to develop an indicator for impacts of marine litter but emphasized that the issue should be studied more.

Indicator for impacts of non-indigenous species (NIS) on harbor porpoise

3.29 The Meeting discussed impacts of NIS on mammals and particularly harbour porpoise and noted that some NIS, e.g. harmful algae, have been found to cause mortality or severe health impacts on mammals.


Documents: None

4.1 The Meeting took note of the information by the Project Manager that

o the outcome of this Meeting will be reported to the sixth meeting of the HELCOM JAB in 13-14 February 2012 and that the focus of that meeting is to steer the indicator development work of the project.

o the indicator proposals from this meeting will be reported to the fifth HELCOM CORESET Expert Workshop on Biodiversity Indicators in 27-28 March 2012 in Helsinki, Finland, and that harbour porpoise experts are welcome to that workshop.

o the harbour porpoise team should meet together with the seal experts in the autumn 2012 at the latest to scrutinize the new monitoring results, make a draft indicator for the harbour porpoise (e.g. the distribution and abundance of the western population) and agree on concrete steps towards international project for example to make an indicator for the population growth rate or health/condition of harbour porpoise.


Documents: 5/1

5.1 The Meeting provisionally adopted the draft Minutes of the Meeting (document 5/1) and agreed to finalize them by email correspondence after the Meeting. The Minutes have been finalised by the Chair and been made available in the HELCOM Meeting Portal.

HELSINKI COMMISSION HELCOM CORESET FISH 1/2012

HELCOM CORESET Team Meeting of fish Experts First Meeting Helsinki, Finland, 16-17 February 2012

Page 1 of 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF HELCOM CORESET FISH EXPERTS (HELCOM

CORESET FISH) ....................................................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2 Agenda Item 1 Adoption of the objectives of the meeting ................................................... 2 Agenda Item 2 Information by the Project Manager ........................................................... 2 Agenda Item 3 General indicator discussion ...................................................................... 3 Agenda Item 4 Salmonid indicators .................................................................................... 3 Agenda Item 5 Large Fish Indicator ................................................................................... 4 Agenda Item 6 Abundance indicators for key species and key functional groups ............... 5 Agenda Item 7 Other indicator work ................................................................................... 5 Agenda Item 8 Outcome of the Meeting ............................................................................. 5 Annex 1 ................................................................................................................... 6 Annex 2 ................................................................................................................... 8

MINUTES OF HELCOM CORESET FISH 1/2012

Page 2 of 8

MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF HELCOM CORESET FISH EXPERTS (HELCOM CORESET FISH)

INTRODUCTION

0.1 With reference to the minutes of the fifth meeting of the Joint Advisory Board of the HELCOM CORESET and TARGREV Projects (paragraph 5.9), the first team meeting of the HELCOM CORESET fish experts(HELCOM CORESET FISH 1/2012) was held on 16-17 February 2012 in Helsinki, Finland. The Meeting was held at the premises of the HELCOM Secretariat and held back to back with the second meeting of the HELCOM FISH-PRO project.

0.2 The Meeting was attended by participants from Finland, Germany, Latvia, Poland and Sweden. The List of Participants is contained in Annex 1.

0.3 The Project Manager of the HELCOM CORESET project, Mr. Samuli Korpinen, acted as Chair of the Meeting

Agenda Item 1 Adoption of the objectives of the meeting

Documents: None

1.1 The Meeting took note of the objectives of the meeting as presented by the Project Manager:

Find common indicators to all Contracting Parties, addressing MSFD GES criteria,

Select species/functional groups for the indicators;

Agree on working groups and schedule to test indicators:

1.2 The Meeting agreed on the objectives of the meeting.

Agenda Item 2 Information by the Project Manager

Documents: None

2.1 The Meeting took note of the introduction by the HELCOM CORESET Project Manager, Mr. Samuli Korpinen, of the basis of the core indicator activity in the Baltic Sea (Presentation 1) and particularly noted that:

the project is no longer aiming at coordination of the first products of the implementation of the MSFD (initial assessments, indicators and targets), but aims to coordinate the establishment of monitoring programmes and programme of measures as well as the next assessment round in 2018 (including amendment of indicators and targets);

the CORESET expert team on fish will not do overlapping work with ICES as regards indicator development for fish and impacts of fisheries;

the set of core indicators will be reviewed by HELCOM JAB 7/2012 in 4-5 June 2012 and the decision on the set will be made by HELCOM MONAS 17/2012 in 27-28 September 2012;

the set of core indicators can also include indicators which do not have full monitoring in the Baltic Sea, but a monitoring is being proposed in the core indicator report and the need is also reported to the HELCOM MORE project (project on monitoring revision);


Page 3 of 8

the set of core indicators is a limited set of indicators which have a linkage to management measures of anthropogenic pressures but also address the state aspects of the EU MSFD, EC Decision 477/2010 and Baltic Sea Action Plan.

Agenda Item 3 General indicator discussion

Documents: None

3.1 The Meeting took note that ICES will calculate a wide range of indicators related to fishery, inter alia, the primary and secondary indicators under the MSFD Descriptor 3 and the addition by Mr. Eero Aro, Finland, that this applies only those species which are under the international management control.

3.2 The Meeting noted the species/stocks in the Baltic which are internationally regulated: Baltic cod (Western and Eastern), Baltic sprat, Baltic salmon (main basin and Gulf of Finland) and Baltic herring (Bothnian Bay, Bothnian Sea, Gulf of Finland, Gulf of Riga, Main basin and Western) and was of the opinion that these species/stocks should not be assessed twice (i.e. also under Descriptor 1 or 4), but that biodiversity or food web core indicators capturing aspects of communities or functional groups could contain also the above-mentioned species/stocks.

3.3 The Meeting welcomed the presentation by Mr. Eero Aro of the outcome of the ICES workshop on MSFD Descriptor 3 (Presentation 2).

3.4 The Meeting took note of the opinion of Mr. Aro that D3 indicators can be reliably assessed by indicators under the GES criteria 3.1 and 3.2, while the data for indicators (the GES criterion 3.3) are already included in an assessment by the former criteria.

3.5 The Meeting recommended that, as a result of the strong salinity gradient, some indicators sensitive to that could be defined to at least three areas which could be synchronized with the HELCOM sub-basin divisions – western Baltic, main Baltic and Northern Baltic – and more detailed assessment units could be defined once the indicator development is in a more advanced stage (cf. paragraph 5.4).

3.6 The Meeting took note of the species monitored in the CPs and listed them to the Annex 2.

3.7 The Meeting noted that there are different approaches in the CPs in the placement of indicators under the MSFD descriptors; for example, Finland is planning to place the indicator “Abundance of a key species (perch)” under Descriptor 3, whereas Sweden, Estonia, Lithuania and possibly Latvia, will place that indicator under Descriptor 1.

3.8 The Meeting agreed that this will not likely cause inconsistencies in the assessments of GES in case of species with local populations like perch, whereas for species with a wider distribution range this can cause MS to assess various GES criteria differently using the same data

3.9 The Meeting, however, noted the view of the Project Manager that although the core indicators can be assessed despite the above-mentioned differences, the assessment of environmental status on the descriptor level or higher will generally differ if indicators will be placed differently under the descriptors in the Contracting Parties and that the idea of regional coordination is to avoid such discrepancy if possible.

Agenda Item 4 Salmonid indicators

Documents: None

4.1 The Meeting welcomed the presentation by Mr. Tapani Pakarinen, Finland, of the indicators for salmon and sea trout which have been developed within the ICES WGBAST (Presentation 3) and noted that there exists a database for salmon smolt abundance estimates and parr densities (sea trout) in rivers of wild populations and that for salmon the potential smolt production capacity (PSPC) can be estimated already now, while for sea trout


Page 4 of 8

it can be made at earliest during 2012 when the theoretical potential parr densities has been estimated for rivers.

4.2 The Meeting considered the assessment units for the salmon PSPC indicator and noted that the abundance of spawners is affected by fishing. Salmon spawner abundance is affected by the coastal and offshore fishery and could be assessed on sub-basin scale. When assessing indicator for sea trout stocks more restricted assessment unit could be considered, e.g. coastal area adjacent to the spawning river. For sea trout, however, ICES doesn’t assess the fishing mortality estimates.

4.3 The Meeting discussed the boundary for Good Environmental Status (GES) for the PSPC indicators, noted the European Council and ICES proposal for a reference point (75% threshold) and the HELCOM proposal for 80% threshold and decided not to conclude this at this stage.

4.4 The Meeting emphasized that the salmonid species should be considered in the set of core indicators but expressed concern of the applicability of the smolt production based indicators in assessments of marine environment while noted that ICES is using this indicator as a reference point for stock assessments.

4.5 The Meeting decided that the abundance of spawners in their ascendance to the river is an indicator which reflects fishing pressure more directly than the smolt abundance and welcomed the offer by Mr. Pakarinen to provide that information to the CORESET BD 5/2012 in association with the other documentation of the indicator.

4.6 The Meeting decided to review the indicator which has both the smolt and spawner abundance and invited Mr. Pakarinen to circulate the draft by 16 March 2012 within the group and the HELCOM CORESET BD 5/2012 to decide whether it could be considered as a core indicator.

Agenda Item 5 Large Fish Indicator

Documents: None

5.1 The Meeting welcomed the presentation by Mr. Daniel Oesterwind, Germany, of the size distribution of the demersal fish community and a proposal of an indicator for that (Presentation 4). Mr. Oesterwind showed how Large Fish Indicator (LFI) with a 30 cm threshold correlated with recruitment and fishing mortality and therefore he recommended using this threshold in the western Baltic demersal community. Mr. Oesterwind considered the LFI a robust indicator for Descriptor 4.

5.2 The Meeting discussed that the LFI could be also placed under descriptor 1 and discussed the threshold of 30cm (minimum landing size for cod is 38 cm). The Meeting considered that the indicator is conveying a message of the structure of the food web and welcomed more research on the indicator, especially effects of cod recruitment on LFI fluctuation.

5.3 The Meeting welcomed the presentation by Mr. Adam Lejk, Poland, of the Polish approach to assess fish communities and exploration of various indicators with the Polish and Danish data (Presentation 5).

5.4 The Meeting noted that BITS datasets extend to ICES Sub-division 28 (Gotland basin), considered that the main basin could be analyzed separately and agreed that the LFI should be tested in the main basin before agreeing on the core indicator status of LFI.

5.5 The Meeting appreciated the initiative by Germany and Poland to establish a drafting group for core indicators which can be derived from the BITS database (particularly the large fish indicator) and the aim of Sweden to participate in the work later in the year or in 2013 and the intention to have Denmark in the group too. The Meeting invited the drafting group to start its work already in March in order to report of the progress to the fifth HELCOM CORESET Biodiversity Expert Workshop (27-28 March 2012).


Page 5 of 8

Agenda Item 6 Abundance indicators for key species and key functional groups

Documents: None

6.1 The Meeting appreciated the work of the HELCOM FISH-PRO project and noted that the second meeting of the project (14-16 February 2012) had proposed two core indicators for coastal fish species and communities: abundance of a key species (such as perch in the northern and eastern areas and possibly flounder in the southern and western areas) and abundance of key functional groups (such as piscivores, non-piscivores and cyprinids).

6.2 The Meeting noted that the abundance indicators will be based on various data sources/methods.

6.3 The Meeting noted that perch are being planned to be used by Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Latvia and possibly Lithuania and flounder by Poland and possibly Denmark for the indicator “abundance of key species”, but that other species will also be assessed under this indicator in the CPs.

Agenda Item 7 Other indicator work

Documents: None

7.1 The Meeting noted that in Finland and Estonia there is data for pikeperch and in Finland for whitefish which could be used to assess population structure of the species and invited Sweden to investigate whether they could include monitoring of pikeperch and whitefish in their monitoring programme.


Documents: 8/1

8.1 The Meeting adopted the Minutes of the Meeting in principle (document 8/1) but invited the participants to comment on them by 21 February 2012 to the Secretariat ([email protected]) in order to be made available in the HELCOM Meeting Portal.



Page 6 of 8

Annex 1

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

CHAIR

Mr. Samuli Korpinen

Project Manager (CORESET)

Helsinki Commission

Katajanokanlaituri 6 B

FI-00160 Helsinki

Dir.Phone: +358 400329157

Fax: +358 207412645


FINLAND

Mr. Eero Aro


P.O.Box 2

Viikinkaari 4

Helsinki

Dir.Phone:

Fax:

Email:[email protected]

Ms. Outi Heikinheimo


P.O.Box 2

Viikinkaari 4

Helsinki

Dir.Phone: +358 400143046

Fax:


Mr. Antti Lappalainen


P.O.Box 2

Viikinkaari 4

Helsinki

Dir.Phone:

Fax:


Mr. Tapani Pakarinen


P.O.Box 2

Viikinkaari 4

Helsinki

Dir.Phone:

Fax:


Mr. Lauri Urho


P.O.Box 2

Viikinkaari 4

Helsinki

Dir.Phone:

Fax:


GERMANY

Mr. Daniel Oesterwind

Institute of Baltic Sea Fisheries (OSF)

Alter Hafen Süd 2

Rostock

Dir.Phone: +49 (0) 381-8116 133

Fax: +49 (0) 381-8116 199


POLAND

Mr. Adam Lejk

Sea Fisheries Institute in Gdynia

Kollataja 1

Gdynia

Dir.Phone: +48 (58) 73 56 218

Fax: +48 (58) 73 56 110


SWEDEN

Ms. Lena Bergström

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Department of Aquatic Resources (SLU-Aqua)

Institute of Coastal Research

Dir.Phone: +46 104784116

Fax:



Page 7 of 8

Skolgatan 6

SE-74242 Öregrund

Mr. Jens Olsson


Department of Aquatic Resources (SLU-Aqua)

Institute of Coastal Research

Skolgatan 6

SE-74242 Öregrund

Dir.Phone: +46 104784144

Fax: +46 17346490


Mr. Håkan Wennhage


Department of Aquatic Resources

Institute of Marine Research

P. O. Box 4

SE- 453 21 Lysekil

Dir.Phone: +46104784051

Fax:


SECRETARIAT

Ms. Johanna Karhu

Helsinki Commission

Katajanokanlaituri 6 B

FI-00160 Helsinki

Dir.Phone:

Fax:



Page 8 of 8

Annex 2

Availability of fish monitoring data in the Contracting Parties.

Species (99.9% of biomass)

Assessed by ICES DEN EST FIN GER LAT LIT POL RUS SWE

Baltic sprat A X X X X X X X X X

Baltic herring A

Western X X X X X X X X X

Main basin X X X X X X X X X

Gulf of Riga X X X X X X X X X

Bothnian Sea X X X X X X X X X

Bothnian Bay X X X X X X X X X

Baltic cod A

Western X X X X X X X X X

Eastern X X X X X X X X X

Flounder A X X X X X X X X X

Blue mussel NA

Perch A X X X X X

Bream NA X X X X X

Roach NA X X X X X

Plaice NA X X

Northern pike NA X

European whitefish NA X X

pikeperch A X X

Common dab NA X X

Vendace A X

Smelt NA X

European eel NA X X

Whiting NA X

Atlantic horse mackerel NA

Baltic salmon A

Main basin X X X X X X X X X

Gulf of Finland X X X

Garfish NA

Sea trout A X X X X X X X X X

HELSINKI COMMISSION HELCOM FISH-PRO 2/2012 Project on Baltic-wide assessment of coastal fish communities in support of an ecosystem-based management Second Meeting Helsinki, 14-16 February 2012

Page 1 of 11

TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING OF PROJECT ON BALTIC-WIDE ASSESSMENT

OF COASTAL FISH COMMUNITIES IN SUPPORT OF AN ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT (HELCOM FISH-PRO)

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2 Agenda Item 1 Adoption of the Agenda .............................................................................. 2 Agenda Item 2 Information by the Secretariat on HELCOM activities of relevance to

HELCOM FISH-PRO .................................................................................. 2 Agenda Item 3 Assessment on conservation status of non-commercial fish species .......... 3 Agenda Item 4 Indicators of coastal fish within the HELCOM CORESET project ............... 4 Agenda Item 5 Annual update of HELCOM Indicator Fact Sheets on coastal fish .............. 7 Agenda Item 6 Future work ................................................................................................ 7 Agenda Item 7 Any other business..................................................................................... 9 Agenda Item 8 Outcome of the Meeting ............................................................................. 9 Annex 1 List of Participants .....................................................................................10

MINUTES OF HELCOM FISH-PRO 2/2012

Page 2 of 11

MINUTES OF THE SECOND MEETING OF PROJECT ON BALTIC-WIDE ASSESSMENT OF COASTAL FISH COMMUNITIES IN

SUPPORT OF AN ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT (HELCOM FISH-PRO)

INTRODUCTION 0.1 The Second Meeting of the HELCOM Project on Baltic-wide assessment of coastal fish communities in support of an ecosystem-based management (HELCOM FISH-PRO 2/2012) was held at the premises of Helsinki Commission in Helsinki, Finland, Katajanokanlaituri 6B, from 14 to 16 February 2012.

0.2 The Meeting was attended by representatives from Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden.

0.3 The Meeting was chaired by Mr. Jens Olsson, Sweden, the new Project Manager of HELCOM FISH-PRO. Mr. Mikhail Durkin, Professional Secretary of HELCOM, acted as Secretary, assisted by Ms. Johanna Karhu, Assisting Professional Secretary of HELCOM.

0.4 The Meeting thanked Mr. Magnus Appelberg, Sweden, for his dedicated work as the Project Manager since the establishment of the HELCOM network of experts for coastal fish monitoring and welcomed Mr. Jens Olsson, Sweden, as the new Project Manager.

0.5 The List of Participants is contained in Annex 1 to these Minutes.

Agenda Item 1 Adoption of the Agenda

Documents: 1/1

1.1 The Meeting adopted the Agenda, as contained in document 1/1.

Agenda Item 2 Information by the Secretariat on HELCOM activities of relevance to HELCOM FISH-PRO

Documents: 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4

2.1 The Meeting took note of the outcome of the First Meeting of the HELCOM FISH-PRO project (HELCOM FISH-PRO 1/2011) as contained in document 2/1.

2.2 The Meeting also took note of the outcomes of Seventh Baltic Fisheries/ Environmental Forum Meeting (FISH/ENV FORUM 7/2012) and the Kick-off Meeting of the HELCOM project on Managing Fisheries in Baltic Marine Protected Areas (BALTFIMPA 1/2012) as contained in document 2/3.

2.3 The Meeting noted the current status of the HELCOM CORESET and the HELCOM RED LIST projects as contained in Annexes I and II of document 2/2 respectively, welcomed the progress and that the data and results collected in coastal fish monitoring have been important for these projects.

2.4 The Meeting further noted the project description of the HELCOM MORE “Revision of the HELCOM monitoring programmes” project, which was approved by HELCOM HOD 36/2011, as contained in document 2/3. The Meeting agreed to come back to specific inputs from the HELCOM FISH-PRO to the revision of HELCOM monitoring programmes, e.g. revision of Annex C-10 (Guidelines for coastal fish monitoring) of HELCOM COMBINE Manual, under Agenda Item 6 .

2.5 The Meeting also agreed to discuss specific issues related to fisheries-related actions within the HELCOM BSAP and the inputs from the HELCOM FISH-PRO to the preparation of 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting under Agenda Item 6 .

http://www.helcom.fi/stc/files/CombineManual/PartC/AnnexC10.pdf


Page 3 of 11

2.6 The Meeting took note of the upcoming informal CORESET meeting on D3 indicators for commercial fish and shellfish to be held the 16-17 February 2012 at the premises of HELCOM Secretariat back-to-back with the Meeting.

Agenda Item 3 Assessment on conservation status of non-commercial fish species

Documents: 3/1

3.1 The Meeting welcomed the finalisation and approval for publication of the Indicator-based assessment of coastal fish community status in the Baltic Sea 2005-2009 as presented by Project Manager Jens Olsson, Sweden (Presentation 1) and thanked Sweden for the dedicated work on coordination of this task.

3.2 The Meeting took note of the draft layout of the final report, especially the designed tables and figures and requested the Contracting Parties to provide their comments to the layout by 24 February 2012 latest ([email protected]) with a view to submit the electronic publication for the 33rd Meeting of the Helsinki Commission on 6-7 March 2012.

3.3 The Meeting welcomed the suggestion from the Secretariat on producing a leaflet briefly describing the HELCOM FISH-PRO group and the main results of the assessment report to be finalized and published by the HABITAT 14 meeting during spring 2012. The Meeting invited the Contracting Parties to provide images that could be of relevance for the publication of the assessment and the short leaflet by 30 March 2012 ([email protected]).

3.4 The Meeting noted the comments by Finland to the Assessment that

− seal consumption is currently categorised as ‘anthropogenic’ pressure factor and suggesting to consider categorising it under ‘manageable pressures’;

− it should be checked and cleared in the summary/initial chapter of the report that it is stated that the assessment is based on gill-net monitoring not targeting all species equally.

3.5 The Meeting discussed the recommendations of the assessment and, based on current status of coastal fish monitoring and specifically pointed on the importance of continuation of these monitoring activities based on jointly agreed methods (including gill-nets) particularly in relation to the EU MSFD work and the need to secure appropriate funding for such activities on regular basis, e.g. in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland.

3.6 The Meeting noted the information presented by the Contracting Parties on the current status of coastal fish monitoring (on regular/project-basis or mixed):

− Denmark: since 2005 Denmark has hired recreational fisherman for monitoring by using commercial gillnets (flounder) and fyke nets to fish three days per month in approximately 30 sites along the whole coast of Denmark. Some problems have occurred with indentification of certain species. Denmark is also engaged in ICES work on recreational fishing data, which might serve as a complement to other indicators.

− Estonia: the coastal fish monitoring will be continued but other data sources will also be important.

− Finland: will try to keep existing three monitoring areas, but will base the assessment of fish within the MSFD on other data sources

− Åland: will continue the coastal monitoring as before. − Latvia: there is a shortage of money, but BIOR finds it important to continue the

coastal fish monitoring

http://meeting.helcom.fi/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=16324&folderId=1718916&name=DLFE-49098.pdf



Page 4 of 11

− Lithuania: The monitoring in the Curonian Lagoon will be continued and data might also be collected on a coastal site. Russia is also carrying out trawl surveys in the Curonian Lagoon and in the Vistula lagoon.

− Poland: there is some uncertainty if the monitoring will continue, for sure not in 2012, perhaps in 2013 and onwards.

3.7 The Meeting stressed the importance of engagement of all the Contracting Parties in the work of the HELCOM FISH-PRO and in this respect welcomed Danish participation in the Meeting as well as urged Russian Federation and Germany to nominate their national experts to participate in HELCOM’s coastal fish monitoring network.

3.8 The Meeting considered the need for harmonizing the assessment methods around the Baltic in line with conclusions and recommendations of the Coastal Fish assessment and discussed that it will evolve both through development of national monitoring programmes under the EU MSFD (to be in place by 2014), as well as in the course of the HELCOM MORE Project (cf. 2.3). The Meeting further agreed to come back to this issue when discussing the future work and status of the project, having in mind a possibility to convert it into a permanent Expert Group (cf. Agenda Item 6).

3.9 The Meeting also discussed how to address the issue of indigenous species being observed within coastal fish monitoring and suggested that reporting on national observations could be compiled annually by HELCOM FISH-PRO and forwarded to relevant HELCOM Groups (HELCOM MARITIME/HABITAT) upon request e.g. as an input to implementation of the HELCOM Ballast Water Roadmap adopted in the Baltic Sea Action Plan.

Agenda Item 4 Indicators of coastal fish within the HELCOM CORESET project

Documents: 4/1, 4/2

4.1 The Meeting took note of the presentation by the Project Manager Samuli Korpinen, HELCOM (Presentation 2, document 4/2) on indicators for coastal fish within the HELCOM CORESET project that have been developed by the FISH-PRO project, and the template for web-based core indicator (document 4/1).

4.2 The Meeting noted that the HELCOM FISH-PRO is invited to propose one or several Core indicators and that the draft Core Indicator(-s) report/template should be delivered in line with the overall timeline of the CORESET project, as follows:

− the first draft is expected for the CORESET biodiversity experts meeting on 27-28 March 2012 and then at HELCOM MONAS in April 2012,

− further elaborated draft – during summer 2012, and

− more advanced/final draft for adoption of HELCOM MONAS in late September 2012.

4.3 The Meeting discussed the procedure for the adoption of the final set of Core indicators within HELCOM and linking it to national processes on MSFD implementation and clarified that adopted set of indicators will have a ‘recommendation/commitment’ function rather than an obligation. The Meeting also discussed possibility to use same CORE indicator for different descriptors however it could be further discussed, taking into account that national processes for development of indicators are at different stage in different countries.

4.4 The Meeting took note of the presentation by Ms. Lena Bergström, Sweden, (Presentation 3) on the proposal for Core Indicators for coastal fish and specifically considered the following proposed indicators:

1. Fish population abundance,

2. Fish Community Size indicator (Proportion of large fish in the community),

http://www.helcom.fi/BSAP/ActionPlan/otherDocs/en_GB/roadmap/




Page 5 of 11

3. Fish Community Diversity Indicator (Fish community diversity),

4. Fish Community Abundance Indicator (Abundance of fish key trophic groups),

5. Metric mean length of key fish species,

6. Fish Community Trophic State Indicator (Fish Community Trophic State Index)

4.5 The Meeting welcomed the presentation by Mr. Antti Lappalainen, Finland (Presentation 4) on EU MSFD and coastal fish indicators – preliminary ideas from Finland. The Meeting noted that Finland is not going to rely only on fisheries independent gillnet-based data collection. The Meeting also noted that the following indicators will be proposed by Finland:

D1. Biodiversity

1.1. Species level

• State of wild Sea trout stocks based on smolt production in remaining rivers

1.2 Habitat level (spawning areas mentioned as an example)

• Abundance of whitefish larvae and juvenile flounder

D3. Fishery and commercial species

• Fishing mortality of pike-perch, whitefish and perch based onin commercial catches and DCF data

• Biomass indices of pike-perch, whitefish and perch stocks based on commercial catches

• Mean size at first sexual maturation and proportion of sexually mature females of pikeperch and whitefish stocks using DCF and trawl surveys

D4. Marine food webs

4.3 Abundance/distribution of key trophic groups/species

• Abundance of Cyprinids (bream and roach) CPUE and Biomass(From gill-net monitoring, commercial catch statistics and perhaps also echo sounding).

4.6 The Meeting took note of the information by the Contracting Parties on the views regarding coastal fish indicator for the EU MSFD and the status of initial assessment, as follows

− Denmark reporting that necessary scientific advise on initial assessment and indicators was already provided to the Government and that most probably HELCOM indicators will be used only as a recommendation, while national proposals for indicators will be based on domestic priorities;

− Estonia stressing that HELCOM work on core indicators may be utilised at national level for development of indicators;

− Finland highlighting that the work is already in a very advanced phase and that national proposals for indicators will be elaborated irrespective of the outcome of the CORESET/FISH-PRO work on coastal fish (cf. 4.5);

− Latvia informing that the work on initial assessment is led by the Institute of Aquatic Ecology and that evaluation of coastal fish communities based on the CORESET/FISH-PRO data will be utilised in this work;

− Lithuania indicating that at national level the status of coastal fish in marine waters (and not in the Curonian Lagoon) will be prioritised and that the work of CORESET project and HELCOM FISH-PRO is of relevance, also pointing at the need of better spatial coverage of current monitoring;



Page 6 of 11

− Poland in general agreeing to utilise the joint proposals of FISH-PRO, but commenting on the need to modify proposed indicators to suit the purposes of all the Contracting Parties (e.g. key species to be area-specific);

− Sweden reporting that the work on the initial assessment is on-going and that it utilises not only HELCOM, but also ICES and other relevant data sources, at the same time stressing that national selection of indicators intend to follow those proposed to CORESET/FISH-PRO.

4.7 The Meeting discussed how to proceed with selection of most suitable indicators and suggested that methods for data collection should include fishery independent gill-net as most commonly applied/recommended in joint coastal fish monitoring, but other alternative methods of data collection (e.g. fyke nets, etc.) could be allowed/described in the CORESET Indicator Report.

4.8 The Meeting also took note that the Core indicators should be linked to management and anthropogenic pressures and if possible also reflect the status/impact on a wider perspective as suggested by HELCOM JAB.

4.9 Based on initial proposed set of indicators (cf. 4.4), presented national priorities, (cf. 4.6) and consequent discussions, the Meeting suggested the following renamed indicators (original name cf 4.4, ## 1.4) as Core indicators that will be developed further within in the HELCOM CORESET project:

1. Key Species Abundance Index,

2. Abundance of fish key functional groups,

and suggested the following indicators as candidate (to be further elaborated):

3. Fish Size Index (Fish Community Size indicator (Proportion of large fish in the community))

4. Fish Community Diversity Indicator (Fish community diversity),

5. Demographic Index of Key Fish species (Metric mean length of key fish species),

6. Fish Community Trophic State Indicator (Fish Community Trophic State Index)

7. Fish Reproduction Area Index

4.10 The Meeting agreed that candidate indicators could be applied at national level to support the information reflected in Core Indicators and that each Contracting Party is free to choose any/all of the candidate indicators in their national work. The Meeting further agreed to keep working on further development of candidate indicators, e.g. through possible application for a research funding from the BONUS 2012 Call (cf. 6.9) and to come back to this issue at the next meeting of the Project (cf.7.2).

4.11 The Meeting discussed and commented the preliminary description of proposed Core indicators contained in document 2/2. The Meeting invited the Project Manager to circulate the commented version of the description to the Contracting Parties and requested Contracting Parties to submit comments to the preliminary description to the Project Manager ([email protected]) with a copy to the Secretariat ([email protected]) by 19 March 2012.

4.12 The Meeting took note of the first draft outline of the Core Indicator Report/Template for coastal fish based on data from the Thematic Assessment and invited the Project Manager to circulate it to the Contracting Parties for comments with a view to follow the agreed timetable for development of the Core Indicator Report (cf. 4.2). The Meeting agreed that comments should be submitted to the Project Manager ([email protected]) with a copy to the Secretariat ([email protected]) by 19 March 2012.

4.13 The Meeting took note of the presentation by Ms. Lena Bergström, Sweden, (Presentation 3) on Assessment of Good Environmental Status (GES) for coastal fish within







Page 7 of 11

the EU MSFD. The Meeting suggested this as the background for further discussion on the assessment of GES boundaries and invited the Contracting Parties to submit comments to the Project Manager ([email protected]) with a copy to the Secretariat ([email protected]) by 19 March 2012.

Agenda Item 5 Annual update of HELCOM Indicator Fact Sheets on coastal fish

Documents: None

5.1 The Meeting took note of the presentation by the Project Manager, Mr. Jens Olsson, Sweden (Presentation 5) on analysis of significant shifts in community composition from the monitoring areas.

5.2 The Meeting also took note of the information by the Project Manager Mr. Jens Olsson, Sweden on suggested outline for the fact sheets, using the indicators applied for the Thematic Assessment and agreed to use the outline as suggested by the Project Manager.

5.3 The Meeting discussed how analysis of significant shifts in community composition could be used for the update of the HELCOM Indicator Fact Sheet (IFS) “Temporal development of Baltic coastal fish communities and key species” and considered that it could be included in the fact sheets as an additional information before the 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting, taking also into account possible limitations of the presented method, e.g. due to natural variations.

5.4 The Meeting agreed that the IFS should be updated with new information, based on the Indicator-based Assessment data and results (cf. Agenda Item 3 ) and preferably covering the period until 2011.

5.5 The Meeting also noted the information of Estonian and Latvian experts on lacking national funding for delivering relevant data for the IFS update and invited these Contracting Parties to investigate possibilities to support this work nationally.

5.6 The Meeting also invited Poland and Denmark to provide inputs to drafting of the IFS, e.g. based on information submitted to the Indicator-based Assessment.

5.7 The Meeting also agreed that the IFS update should be done within 2012 with a view to discuss the final draft of the IFS at the next meeting of the HELCOM FISH-PRO and present it for approval by the HELCOM MONAS during spring 2013, also taking into account the schedule and content for the CORESET Indicator work.

5.8 The Meeting requested the Contracting Parties to update their indicators, update their IFS and to submit their updated time-series for the IFS update by 31 October 2012 to the Project Manager ([email protected]) with a copy to the Secretariat ([email protected]) with a view to circulate the draft before the next meeting (cf. 7.1).

Agenda Item 6 Future work

Documents: None

6.1 The Meeting took note of the discussion by HELCOM FISH/ENV Forum on how impacts of seals and cormorants on coastal fish communities are addressed by HELCOM FISH-PRO and suggested that an input (in a form of compilation of scientific articles, examples or evidence of impacts) could be submitted to relevant HELCOM (SEAL EG and to be established CORMORANT EG) and ICES Groups upon detailed request in case such an input would be needed. The Meeting also pointed that some information on these pressures is contained in the Thematic Assessment (cf. Agenda Item 3 )

6.2 Based on the discussion under Agenda Item 2 , (cf. 2.5), the Meeting agreed on the following proposed deliverables from HELCOM FISH-PRO to the preparations for 2013 HELCOM Ministerial Meeting:




http://www.helcom.fi/BSAP_assessment/ifs/archive/ifs2008/CoastalFish/en_GB/coastalfish/




Page 8 of 11

− Indicator-based assessment of coastal fish community status in the Baltic Sea 2005-2009 (cf. Agenda Item 3)

− CORE Indicators on Coastal Fish Communities in the Baltic Sea (cf.4.10)

− Updated Indicator Fact Sheet “Temporal development of Baltic coastal fish communities and key species” (cf. Agenda Item 5 ).

− Proposals for revision of HELCOM monitoring of coastal fish communities, based on the above and in line with development of HELCOM CORESET and HELCOM MORE work.

6.3 The Meeting welcomed the presentation by Mr. Markus Vetemaa, Estonia, on the work on development and testing of fish indicators within the Project on “Innovative approaches for marine biodiversity monitoring and assessment of conservation status of nature values in the Baltic Sea (MARMONI)” (Presentation 6). The Meeting discussed how the findings of the Project could be integrated into the work of HELCOM FISH-PRO, including the work on development of alternative monitoring methods, e.g. application of other fishing gears (trawl) and evaluation of the results.

6.4 The Meeting also welcomed the presentation by Mr. Antti Lappalainen, Finland, on common scientific ground for developing methodologies for mapping of reproduction areas (Presentation 7), complemented by presentation of Ms Lena Bergström, Sweden on plans for developing coastal fish recruitment habitat indicator (Presentation 8).

6.5 The Meeting discussed how to integrate issues related to mapping of reproduction areas (including spawning and nursery areas) and considered information on existing national experiences with this respect.

6.6 The Meeting noted the information by Sweden on possibility to apply for funding from e.g. Nordic Council of Ministers for assistance in arranging a workshop for sharing knowledge on existing monitoring areas and producing a report on mapping of important recruitment areas for coastal fish in the Contracting Parties. The Meeting invited Sweden to investigate this issue further and report to the Group as soon as any new information on such application will become available.

6.7 The Meeting agreed that one of the future and long term goals of the HELCOM FISH-PRO could be to produce a guideline for how to map recruitment areas for coastal fish species and also to consider development of a relevant candidate indicator (cf.4.10).

6.8 The Meeting agreed that introduction of new aspects for joint HELCOM coastal fish monitoring should be considered in line with implementation of fisheries-related actions of the HELCOM BSAP as well as upcoming revision of HELCOM MORE (cf. 2.3).

6.9 The Meeting discussed that further development of joint monitoring of coastal fish, including methodology and indicators, could be considered for the next BONUS Call in 2012 (launch is expected in first half 2012 with tentative application deadline by the end of summer 2012). The Meeting noted information by Sweden that draft application will be further developed and it will require some work, e.g. through web-conference among the Project experts.

6.10 The Meeting further noted that in the HELCOM BSAP Contracting Parties agreed to develop a suite of indicators with region-specific reference values and targets for coastal fish as well as tools for assessment and sustainable management of coastal fish by 2012.

6.11 The Meeting was of the opinion that development of tools for assessment and sustainable management of coastal fish is a priority issue for the future work of the project and that national support is crucial for successful implementation of these activities.

6.12 The Meeting considered the future status of the HELCOM FISH-PRO including possibility of applying for a permanent Expert Group status under the HELCOM MONAS. The Meeting noted that permanent status may help to secure continuity of regular coastal fish monitoring by the Contracting Parties, taking into account the importance of this monitoring component for the progress of EU MSFD implementation. The Meeting invited the Project Manager in coordination with the Secretariat to investigate this issue further and to

http://marmoni.balticseaportal.net/wp/




http://www.bonusportal.org/bonus_2010-2016/bonus_calls/thematic_call_2012/

http://www.bonusportal.org/bonus_2010-2016/bonus_calls/thematic_call_2012/


Page 9 of 11

present the proposals for the continuation of HELCOM FISH-PRO to the next meeting of the Project (cf. 7.1).

6.13 The Meeting discussed possibilities for scientific publications based on the outcomes of work on the Thematic Assessment and the development of Core Indicators and agreed that it could be a good idea. The Meeting welcomed the proposal by Ms. Lena Bergström, Sweden, to initiate drafting of an article and circulate it to the Project Group for collaboration.

6.14 Text begins here

Agenda Item 7 Any other business

Documents: None

7.1 The Meeting welcomed of the presentation by Mr Håkan Wennhage, Sweden on MSFD work within OSPAR (Presentation 9).

7.2 The Meeting agreed to arrange the next meeting of HELCOM FISH-PRO on 5-7 or 12-14 February 2013. The Meeting welcomed the information from Lithuania to seek for possibilities of hosting HELCOM FISH-PRO 3/2013 and to inform the Secretariat about their intentions before the 37th Meeting of HELCOM Heads of Delegation in June 2012.


Documents: 8/1

8.1 The Meeting adopted the draft Minutes of the Meeting as contained in document 8/1. Documents of the Meeting are also available in the HELCOM Meeting Portal, which may be accessed either via http://meeting.helcom.fi or via HELCOM web site under “Meetings and documents” / “Meeting Portal” / Monitoring and Assessment Group / FISH / FISH-PRO 2, 2012”.



Page 10 of 11

ANNEX 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

PARTICIPANTS

CHAIR Mr. Jens Olsson

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Department of Aquatic Resources (SLU-Aqua) Institute of Coastal Research Skolgatan 6 SE-74242 Öregrund

Dir.Phone: +46 104784144 Fax: Email: [email protected]

DENMARK Mr. Claus Sparrevohn

DTU Aqua (Technical University of Denmark Jaergersborg alle 1, Charlottenlund

Dir.Phone: +4521318986 Fax: Email: [email protected]

ESTONIA Mr. Lauri Saks

Estonian Marine Institute University of Tartu Vanemuise 46 A EE-51014 Tartu

Dir.Phone: +372 (5566) 0908 Fax: +372 (737) 5830 Email: [email protected]

Mr. Roland Svirgsden

Estonian Marine Institute University of Tartu 46A Vanemuise Street Tartu

Dir.Phone: +372 (5621) 1363 Fax: +372 (737) 5830 Email: [email protected]

Mr. Markus Vetemaa

Estonian Marine Institute University of Tartu Vanemuise 46 EE-51014 Tartu

Dir.Phone: +372 5153269 Fax: +372 7375830 Email: [email protected]

FINLAND Mr. Kaj Ådjers

Provincial Government of Åland Islands Fisheries Division P.O. Box 1060 AX-22111 Mariehamn, Åland


Ms. Outi Heikinheimo

Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute P.O.Box 2 Viikinkaari 4 Helsinki

Dir.Phone: +358 400143046 Fax: Email: [email protected]

Mr. Antti Lappalainen

Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute P.O. Box 2 FI-00791 Helsinki


Mr. Lauri Urho

Finnish Game and Fisheries Research Institute P.O. Box 2 FI-00791 Helsinki


LATVIA Mr. Atis Minde

BIOR Fish Resources Department Daugavgrivas Str. 8 LV-1048 Riga



Page 11 of 11

LITHUANIA Mr. Linas Lozys

Nature Research Center Institute of Ecology Akademijos Str. 2 Vilnius 21


POLAND Mr. Adam Lejk

National Marine Fisheries Research Institute Kollataja Str.1 PL- 81 332 Gdynia

Dir.Phone: +48 (58) 73 56 218 Fax: +48 (58) 73 56 110 Email: [email protected]

Ms. Iwona Psuty

National Marine Fisheries Research Institute Kollataja Str.1 PL- 81 332 Gdynia


SWEDEN Mr. Håkan Wennhage

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Department of Aquatic Resources Institute of Marine Research P. O. Box 4 Lysekil

Dir.Phone: +46104784051 Fax: Email: [email protected]

Ms. Lena Bergström

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Department of Aquatic Resources (SLU-Aqua)

Dir.Phone: +46 (10) 478 4116 Fax: Email: [email protected]

HELCOM SECRETARIAT Mr. Mikhail Durkin Professional Secretary

Helsinki Commission Katajanokanlaituri 6 B FI-00160 Helsinki


Ms. Johanna Karhu Assisting Professional Secretary

Helsinki Commisssion Katajanokanlaituri 6 B Helsinki, Finland

Dir.Phone: +358 46 8509204 Fax: +358 207412645 Email: [email protected]

Mr. Samuli Korpinen Project Manager (CORESET)

Helsinki Commission Katajanokanlaituri 6 B FI-00160 Helsinki


HELSINKI COMMISSION HELCOM CORESET ZOOPLANKTON 1/2012

HELCOM CORESET Team Meeting of Zooplankton Experts First Meeting Helsinki, Finland, 27-28 February 2012

Page 1 of 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF HELCOM CORESET ZOOPLANKTON EXPERTs

(HELCOM CORESET ZOOPLANKTON) ................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2 Agenda Item 1 Adoption of Agenda .................................................................................... 2 Agenda Item 2 Information by the Secretariat and the Project Manager ............................. 2 Agenda Item 3 General discussion on zooplankton indicators ............................................ 2 Agenda Item 4 Testing of the zooplankton indicators ......................................................... 2 Agenda Item 5 Next steps .................................................................................................. 4 Agenda Item 6 Outcome of the Meeting ............................................................................. 4 ANNEX 1: Agenda and objectives of the meeting .................................................................. 5 ANNEX 2: Scheme of the zooplankton food web indicator ‘ ................................................... 6

MINUTES OF HELCOM CORESET ZOOPLANKTON 1/2012

Page 2 of 6

MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING OF HELCOM CORESET ZOOPLANKTON EXPERTS (HELCOM CORESET ZOOPLANKTON)

INTRODUCTION

0.1 With reference to the minutes of the fifth meeting of the Joint Advisory Board of the HELCOM CORESET and TARGREV Projects (paragraph 5.9), the first team meeting of the HELCOM CORESET Zooplankton Experts (HELCOM CORESET ZOOPLANKTON 1/2012) was held on 27-28 February 2012 in Helsinki, Finland at the premises of the HELCOM Secretariat.

0.2 The Meeting was attended by Ms. Elena Gorokhova (Sweden), Ms. Solvita Strake (Latvia), Ms. Jurate Lesutiene (Lithuania), Ms. Maiju Lehtiniemi (Finland), Ms. Laura Uusitalo (Finland) and the Project Manager of the HELCOM CORESET, Mr. Samuli Korpinen.

0.3 Ms. Elena Gorokhova, Sweden, and Mr. Samuli Korpinen co-chaired the Meeting.

0.4 The Meeting was welcomed to the HELCOM Secretariat by the Professional Secretary, Ms. Maria Laamanen.


Documents: None

1.1 The Meeting took note of the provisional agenda and objectives of the meeting as presented by the Project Manager and adopted them as presented in Annex 1.

Agenda Item 2 Information by the Secretariat and the Project Manager

Documents: None

2.1 The Meeting took note of the current state and progress of the HELCOM CORESET project as presented by the Project Manager (Presentation 1) and discussed the advices given by the sixth meeting of the HELCOM Joint Advisory Board (HELCOM JAB 6/2012).

Agenda Item 3 General discussion on zooplankton indicators

Documents: None

3.1 The Meeting agreed that the available zooplankton data for the Baltic Sea are sufficient for a Baltic-wide evaluation of the indicators and assessment proposed in the interim report of the CORESET project.

3.2 The Meeting agreed that the focus of the meeting should be on the proposed indicators – biomass of copepods, biomass of microphageous mesozooplankton and mean size of zooplankters – but that other indicators could be also evaluated as core indicators.

3.3 The Meeting noted that there are several high quality scientific publications addressing trophic cascades from top predatory fish to zooplankton, and – to some extent – phytoplankton, and that the anthropogenic pressures affecting the abundance of copepods and microphageous mesozooplankton are well documented in scientific literature. The former is mainly driven by fish predation and thus affected by fishing, but also influenced by eutrophication, and the latter is mainly driven by eutrophication, but also influenced by temperature.

3.4 The Meeting decided to focus on the development of 1-2 core indicators for the assessment of the Baltic marine food web, noting that there are very few core indicators being proposed by the project at the moment for that purpose and agreeing that zooplankton


Page 3 of 6

are an essential functional group in the marine food web and that there are good published indicator examples of zooplankton in freshwater food webs.

Agenda Item 4 Testing zooplankton indicators

Documents: 4/1

4.1 The Meeting took note of the presentation by Ms. Elena Gorokhova of the preparatory work for HELCOM zooplankton core indicators (presentation 2). Based on the initial results by Ms. Gorokhova, the Meeting agreed that the diversity of zooplankton assemblage cannot be used as an indicator, at least not in its current form, and decided to concentrate on other indicators.

4.2 The Meeting also agreed that the proposed two indicators – biomass of copepods and biomass of microphageous mesozooplankton – are valid in the test area in the Northern Baltic Proper:

The reference period for setting the boundary of Good Environmental Status (GES) for the copepod biomass (CB and CB%) was based on the weight at age (WAA) and spawning stock biomass (SSB) of herring in the area. The high WAA values in combination with relatively high stock abundance (to avoid density-dependent WAA) indicate good growth of the herring stock because of high abundance of high-quality food (CB or CB%) and, thus, a good reference period with regard to the fish-feeding conditions.

The reference period for the biomass of microphageous mesozooplankton (MMB and MMB%) was based on chlorophyll a concentrations above good-moderate boundary in the Northern Baltic Proper to represent pelagic food webs not measurably affected by eutrophication.

4.3 The Meeting took note of test results from Latvia, Finland and Lithuania as presented by Ms. Solvita Strake (presentation 3), Ms. Laura Uusitalo and Ms. Maiju Lehtiniemi (presentation 4) and Ms. Jurate Lesutiene (presentation 5).

4.4 Based on the test results, the Meeting decided that also the mean zooplankter size is a good parameter for the food web indicator because it is generally less variable than the biomass estimates of the zooplankton (CB and MMB) and their percentages (CB% and MMB%) and it summarizes the size structure of the zooplankton community in one variable. However, this variable lacks an estimate of the zooplankton stock in terms of total abundance or biomass.

4.5 The Meeting agreed to develop a core indicator which combines the total abundance (or biomass) of zooplankton and the mean size of the zooplankters. The diagram representing variations in the indicator and their interpretations is given in Annex 2.

4.6 The Meeting noted that the new food web indicator would give two metrics of the food web:

the quality and availability of zooplankton as food for fish, and

the changes in food web structure due to changes on the higher trophic levels and environmental conditions, e.g. eutrophication.

4.7 The Meeting agreed that the GES boundaries for the food web indicator will be based on the same approach as for the CB and MMB indicators and that the GES boundaries will be given for both of the above-mentioned aspects of the indicator, i.e. mean size and total abundance or biomass (cf. paragraph 4.2).

4.8 The Meeting agreed that the proposed food web indicator should be linked also to primary producers and zooplanktivorous fish (weight at age and spawning stock biomass), which would provide essential information to interpret the zooplankton food web indicator.

4.9 The Meeting also agreed that the zooplankton:phytoplankton ratio would provide additional information on the energy transfer efficiency in the food web which decreases with


Page 4 of 6

increasing eutrophication. The Meeting agreed to test this indicator. The GES for the ratio would be based on the reference period when chlorophyll-a is within GES.

4.10 The Meeting agreed on the following details as regards the food web indicators:

The copepod nauplii will be included in the MMB but not in CB.

Cercopagis will not be included in the mean size estimate but will be included in the total abundance of zooplankton.

Meroplankton will be included in the mean size and the total abundance of zooplankton.

The zooplankton numbers and biomass at all stations will be computed from the maximal sampling depth to the surface.

The zooplankton numbers and biomass will be first computed stationwise and then they can be combined within sub-basins following the HELCOM sub-basin borders if the stationwise dynamics is similar.

4.11 The Meeting noted that the proposed zooplankton food web indicator requires testing and hence its applicability cannot be guaranteed until the test results have been analyzed.

4.12 The Meeting also agreed that the testing conducted for the four data sets originating from different areas of the Baltic Sea presented in the meeting support the concepts of the biomass indicators (CB, CB%, MMB and MMB%) and the mean size indicator and, hence, those could be used as core indicators if the proposed food web indicator is judged non-applicable after the test round.

4.13 The Meeting decided to provisionally call the proposed food web indicator as “Zooplankton mean size – total stock indicator” (“MSTS”) because the indicator gives a synthetic representation of zooplankton community size structure and abundance.


Documents: None

5.1 The Meeting welcomed the offer by Ms. Gorokhova to draft a description of the zooplankton food web indicator by the CORESET BD 5/2012 (27-28 March 2012) and the offer by Ms. Uusitalo to present the indicator for the meeting.

5.2 The Meeting decided to test the indicator in March 2012, submitting the test results to Ms. Gorokhova by 30 April 2012 who will finalize the indicator report by the end of May and submit it to the Secretariat ([email protected]) in order to have it presented in the seventh meeting of HELCOM JAB (4-5 June 2012).

5.3 The Meeting also welcomed the intention of Ms. Gorokhova to take a lead in writing a scientific paper on the development and testing zooplankton-based food web indicators and alternative approaches for setting of GES boundary.

5.4 The Meeting decided to have the next meeting on 4 September 2012.


Documents: 6/1

6.1 The Meeting provisionally adopted the outcome but invited the Project Manager to finalize it and circulate among the participants for comments as soon as possible. The finalized outcome will be submitted to the fifth HELCOM CORESET Expert Workshop on Biodiversity Indicators (27-28 March 2012).



Page 5 of 6

ANNEX 1: Agenda and objectives of the meeting

1. Adoption of agenda and objectives of the meeting

2. Information by the Secretariat and the Project Manager.

3. General indicator discussion

– Which MSFD descriptors are aimed at?

– What is the knowledge basis for pressures behind the indicators?

– Objective 1: select indicators which best reflect impacts of anthropogenic

pressures on zooplankton.

4. Test the biomass indicators

– Sensitivity to human activities/anthropogenic pressures?

– How ’GES boundaries’ can be defined? Is the basis similar across the region?

– Objective 2: Agree on the applicability of the indicators: can they be core

indicators?

5. Discussions on other indicators

– How to proceed with the other indicators?

– Objective 3: Agree on a method to test the other indicators.

6. Core indicator reports

– Review what monitoring data is available. Discuss what should be monitored

(a proposal to HELCOM MORE).

– Compilation of existing indicator results,

– Texts drafted for the template (scientific basis, methods, results ),

– Definition of assessment units

– Scientific papers?

– Objective 4: a schedule for the finalization of a report and circulation among

the experts.


Page 6 of 6

ANNEX 2: Scheme of the zooplankton food web indicator ‘

The indicator is tentatively called ‘Zooplankton mean size – total stock indicator’. Schematic figure of the new food web indicator where the GES is met when

- there is a high contribution of large-sized individuals (mostly copepods) in the

zooplankton community that efficiently graze on phytoplankton and provide good-

quality food for zooplanktivorous fish, and

- the abundance of zooplankton is at the level adequate to support fish growth and

exert control over phytoplankton production.

The green area represents GES condition, yellow areas represent sub-GES conditions where only one of the two parameters is adequate and the red area represents sub-GES conditions where both parameters fail.

The GES can be achieved on the basis of the mean zooplankter size indicator, copepod biomass (CB) indicator and the indicator for the biomass of microphageous mesozooplakton (MMB):

- The reference period for the mean size will be defined similarly as for the copepod biomass with the GES boundary is at lower 95% CI of the mean during that time period. The reference period reflects a period when zooplankton is adequate to support high growth of zooplanktivorous fish (see paragraph 4.2 for further definition).

- The reference period for the total zooplankton abundance is taken from both the CB and MMB and applied to the total abundance (or biomass). The reference period for MMB reflects a time period when effects of eutrophication are low, defined as ‘acceptable’ chlorophyll a concentration (i.e. EQR > 1) and hence eutrophication-related food web changes are negligible. The reference period for CB reflects conditions when zooplankton provides best growth for zooplanktivorous fish.

The CORESET interim report, PART B, gives a more thorough description of the CB and MMB indicators which are used as the basis of the ‘Zooplankton mean size - total stock indicator’.

Total abundance (or biomass) of zooplankton

Me

an

siz

e o

f zo

op

lan

kto

n

Zooplankton is depleted and consists of large-sized taxa, which partially satisfies fish

feeding requirements.

Zooplankton is dominated by small-sized taxa. Zooplankton is abundant

and partially satisfies fish feeding requirements as well as exerts grazing on primary producers.

Good food availability and quality for supporting fish growth.

Efficient grazing on primary producers

Zooplankton is depleted and dominated by small-sized taxa

unable to support adequate fish growth. Low energy

transfer efficiency to higher trophic levels.

GES boundary

GE

S b

ou

nd

ary

HELSINKI COMMISSION HELCOM CORESET BD 5/2012 … Documents/CORESET BD 5-2012… · particularly...

Documents

Transcript of HELSINKI COMMISSION HELCOM CORESET BD 5/2012 … Documents/CORESET BD 5-2012… · particularly...