Lead Country approach to indicator development Lena Avellan HELCOM Project Manager PEG 2016 meeting 28 April 2016 Rostock, Germany Lena Avellan HELCOM

HELCOM has a history of assessments Coordinated monitoing activites since the 1970s Joint assessments for decades Assessments are the basis for applying the ecosystem approach in HELCOM Current assessments used to follow up on HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) oveall goal of achieving Good Environmental Status (GES) by 2021 Lena Avellan HELCOM

HOLAS I (2010) Lena Avellan HELCOM

Ecosystem health of the Baltic Sea Presenting results from the respective assessment of biodiversity, eutrophication, hazardous substances Based on grouping of indicators representing biological features, chemical features, supporting features Lena Avellan HELCOM

HOLAS I conclusions and consecutive work HELCOM concluded based on the HOLAS I that a regionally coherent assessment requires regionally developed core indicators Agreement to develop core indicators CORESET I (2011-2013) CORESET II (2013-2015) Core indicator porposals have been developed for with the aim to cover all assessment elements Lena Avellan HELCOM

Core indicator definitions (HELCOM MONAS 2012) commonly agreed indicator GES boundary allowing follow-up of progress towards reaching GES Build on coordinated monitoring data when possible Pre-core indicator Agreed in principle to be used as a core indicator, however some critical component of the indicator is still under development Candidate indicator Living list of new proposals for core indicators being developed furhter by experts Lena Avellan HELCOM

Core indicators and assessment units Core indicators evaluation results are displayed for assessment units defined in HELCOM Monitoing and Assessment Strategy (2013), four spatial scales; Whole Baltic Sea Sub-basins Sub-basins with coastal area Sub-basins with coastal area split into WFD waterbodies or –types Accounting for ecological differences in different regions may require assessment unit specific GES boundaries Lena Avellan HELCOM

Dual purpose of HOLAS II Follow up on Baltic Sea Action Plan aim to follow up status development from HOLAS I to ensure measures are effective Serve as roof report for HELCOM Contracting Parties that are also EU Member States in MSFD reporting on Article 8 in 2018 Lena Avellan HELCOM

RELEASE OF FIRST RESULTS HOLAS II timeline Project from December 2014 to June 2018. Develop tools and concepts, data flows, core indicators Assess-ment and writing Consul-tation Updates, finalize report Develop and test methods RELEASE OF FIRST RESULTS UPDATED RESULTS Data! 2015 2016 2017 2018 Lena Avellan HELCOM

HOLAS II in the DPSIR framework Drivers Pressures Status of the ecosystem Impacts (ecosystem services) Responses Lena Avellan HELCOM

Overview of HOLAS II outputs at different level of detail ”Chapters in the report” Results by species groups, descriptors, integrated assessments Results by indicator Lena Avellan HELCOM

HOLAS II use of core indicators Core indicators are agreed to be the basis of the assessment Core indicator reports will display the most detailed information in HOLAS II, considered to be relevant especially for expert- and management users Core indicator evaluations need to be delivered in early 2017 in order to be included, thus final adoption of core indicators to be included in HOLAS II is the HOD 51-2016 in December Lena Avellan HELCOM

Core indicators as HELCOM tools Current HELCOM focus of the core indicator development work is to ensure the essential building blocks for HOLAS II Core indicators also go beyond HOLAS II ensuring an on-going development and up-dating process is strived for Indicators not developed timely for HOLAS II are still to be developed for future use if deemed relevant Lena Avellan HELCOM

Pelagic phytoplankton indicators under development of relevance for PEG HOLAS II available as informed by Lead Country Seasonal succession of functional phytoplankton groups (pre-core) Phytoplankton community composition as a food web indicator (candidate) Not HOLAS II available as informed by Lead Country Diatoms/dinoflagellates index (pre-core) Phytoplankton species assemblage clusters based on environmental factors (candidate) Lena Avellan HELCOM

HELCOM HOD 48-2015 agreed Lead Country approach to development of core indicators HELCOM HOD 48-2015 (para 3.64) agreed that continued development of core indicators should be made using a Lead Country approach and invited Contracting Parties to inform hte Secretariat on their willingess to take the Lead HELCOM HOD 48-2015 (para 3.54) requested all HELCOM expert groups/network/projects to prioritize their role as platform for development of indicators and as support for HELCOM assesments and to make arrangements for the future work as necessary HELCOM Secretariat is available to support work of Lead Countries as needed by e.g. setting up online meetings Lena Avellan HELCOM

HELCOM HOD 48-2016 request as it concerns PEG Lead Country and Co-Lead Country representatives to inform on development of phytoplankton indicators Discuss development in order to reach an expert level consensus on the indicator proposals Ensure that all CPs have an understanding of the indicator Prepare to support the indicator up-dates as an input to HOLAS II in early 2017, i.e. feeding the developed indicators with data for the HOLAS II assessment period 2011-2015 with a second update in 2018 to include 2016 data Lena Avellan HELCOM

Phytoplankton core indicators and COMBINE Def. ”core indicators to build on common monitoring data when available” Aim for long-term data-arrangements allowing for semi-automated updates of the core indicators HELCOM COMBINE monitoring programme of phytoplankton Documented in on-line HELCOM Monitoring Manual including guidelines HELCOM COMBINE monitoring data to be reported to HELCOM COMBINE database hosted by ICES If COMBINE data formats and data extractions are not suited for the indicator then COMBINE formats are to be changed to accomodate the indicator needs Lena Avellan HELCOM

Overall aim of todays discussions Ensure that all CPs though PEG are aware of current indicator development by Lead Countries Lead Countries to communicate development plans for the indicators Discuss and agree on adjustments needed to COMBINE database to suit the indicators Lena Avellan HELCOM

Seasonal succession of functional phytoplankton groups Lead Country: Estonia (Andres Jaanus) Co-Lead Country: Finland (Harri Kuosa, Sirpa Lehtinen), Latvia (Iveta Jurgensone), Sweden (Marie Johansen) Pre-core indicator presented to State and Conservation 2-2015 Main task remaining to define GES boundary in other assessment units than Gulf of Riga Aim to submit indicator report for endorsement to State and Conservation 5-2016 by submission dead line 17 October 2016, and further to HOD 51-2016 in December Lena Avellan HELCOM

Phytoplankton community composition as a food web indicator Lead Country: Finland (Sirpa Lehtinen, Harri Kuosa) Co-Lead Country: Lithuania (Irina Olenina), Sweden (Chatarina Karlsson, Siv Huseby), Latvia (Iveta Jurgensone), Estonia (Andres Jaanus), Poland (Janina Kownacka) Candidate core indicator agreed by PEG experts to develop furhter Main task to develop an indicator concept and GES boundary Aim to submit indicator report for endorsement to State and Conservation 5-2016 by submission dead line 17 October 2016, and further to HOD 51-2016 in December Lena Avellan HELCOM

Diatoms/dinoflagellates index Lead Country: none Co-Lead Country: Estonia (Andres Jaanus), Finland (Harri Kuosa, Sirpa Lehtinen), Germany (Norbert Wasmund), Latvia (Iveta Jurgensone), Poland (Janina Kownacka), Sweden (Marie Johansen) Pre-core indicator indicated not to be available for HOLAS II by experts developing phytoplankton indicators due to lack of Lead Country Main task remaining to test indicator approach and verify GES boundary Lena Avellan HELCOM

Phytoplankton species assemblage clusters based on environmental factors Lead Country: none Co-Lead Country: Finland (Harri Kuosa, Sirpa Lehtinen), Latvia (Iveta Jurgensone), Sweden (Marie Johansen), Estonia (Andres Jaanus) Candidate indicator presented to State and Conservation 2-2015 that was not endorsed for change to pre-core status Experts developing phytoplankton indicators agreed to prioritize work on the other indicators and not work further on this candidate (1 Feb 2016 online meeting) Lena Avellan HELCOM