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

2. 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

3. HOLAS I (2010)
Lena Avellan HELCOM

4. 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

5. 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 ( ) CORESET II ( )
Core indicator porposals have been developed for with the aim to cover all assessment elements
Lena Avellan HELCOM

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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!
Lena Avellan HELCOM

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

11. 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

12. 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 in December
Lena Avellan HELCOM

13. 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

14. 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

15. HELCOM HOD 48-2015 agreed Lead Country approach to development of core indicators
HELCOM HOD (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 (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

16. 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 with a second update in 2018 to include 2016 data
Lena Avellan HELCOM

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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
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 by submission dead line 17 October 2016, and further to HOD in December
Lena Avellan HELCOM

20. 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 by submission dead line 17 October 2016, and further to HOD in December
Lena Avellan HELCOM

21. 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

22. 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 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