1 / 18

Outline

kaycee
Télécharger la présentation

Outline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. From Indicators toMulti-Metric Assessment Tools:A Case Study from the Baltic SeaJesper H. Andersen, DHIProject Manager of the HELCOM project:Towards an integrated assessment of eutrophication in the Baltic SeaThanks to:Juris Aigars, Angel Borja, Uli Claussen, Daniel Conley, Anton Edwards, Jan Ekebom, Anders Erichsen, Peter Henriksen, Bertil Håkansson, Jens Brøgger Jensen, Henning Karup, Pirjo Kuuppo, Maria Laamanen, Ela Łysiak-Pastuszak, Juha-Markku Leppänen, Georg Martin, Ciarán Murray, Bärbel Müller-Karulis, Günter Nausch, Janet Pawlak, Heikki Pitkänen, Camilla Trolle, Fred Wulff & Gunni ÆrtebjergICES SYMPOSIUMEnvironmental Indicators: Utility in Meeting Regulatory Needs20-23 November 2007, London, IK

  2. Outline My objective: • To present how HELCOM is moving from indicators and assessments based on indicators toward multi-metric assessment tools and integrated thematic assessments without compromising with the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive Contents: • The Baltic Sea (in brief) • A few works about HELCOM • Toward a HELCOM integrated thematic assessment on eutrophication in the Baltic Sea • Development of tools for assessment of eutrophication • Generation 1 = principles • Generation 2 = HEAT • Generation 3 = HEAT+ including accuracy assessment • Wrap up

  3. The Baltic Sea – in brief

  4. A few words about HELCOM • HELCOM is the governing body of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention, 1974, 1992) • The Commission (HELCOM) consists of the Contracting Parties • Denmark, Estonia, European Community, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden • HELCOM has 5 permanent Working Groups: • The Land-based Pollution Group (HELCOM LAND) • The Maritime Group (HELCOM MARITIME) • The Response Group (HELCOM RESPONSE) • The Nature Protection and Biodiversity Group (HELCOM HABITAT) • The Monitoring and Assessment Group (HELCOM MONAS) • HELCOM’s Monitoring and Assessment Strategy focuses on 3 types of products: • Indicator Facts Sheets (updated annually) • Thematic Assessment Report • Holistic Periodic Assessments (every 8 year)

  5. HELCOM’s Indicator Fact Sheets • HELCOM has 36 indicator fact sheets, which are updated and published annually • 6 focus on RID inputs and atmospheric deposition of nutrients • 17 focus on hazardous substances, including radioactive substances • 13 focus on eutrophication effects (directly or indirectly)

  6. Toward a HELCOM integrated thematic assessmentof eutrophication in the Baltic Sea Content: Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: What is the eutrophication status? Chapter 3: What are the sources and inputs? Chapter 4: How can we meet the ecological objectives for eutrophication? Chapter 5: Synthesis Annexes Overall objective: • Assess the eutrophication status in the whole Baltic Sea on the basis of a harmonised approach Additional objectives: • Visualise and conceptualise the effects and extent of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea • Describe the causes of eutrophication and quantify the inputs of nutrients to the marine environment • Assess the effectiveness of already taken measures in order to indicate i) to what extent the goals are fulfilled or not, and ii) to what extent supplementary measures are required

  7. A Generation 1 assessment tool • The approach is simple: • Eutrophication quality objective (EutroQO) = • Reference conditions ± an acceptable deviation • EutroQO = RefCon ± AcDev • Eelgrass (OF): 6.00 m ÷ 25% = 4.50 m • Plankton (ÖF): 0.30 mm3/l + 50% = 0.45 mm3/l • Classification (+/÷): • Eelgrass status: 2.8 m, thus EutroQO is exceeded • Plankton: 0.38 mm3/l, thus EutroQO is fulfiled

  8. None or small High Slight Good Prevent degradation Restore Moderate Moderate Poor “Important” “Strong” Bad The EU WFD, RefCon, AcDev and EcoStat Ecological Status Deviation from RefCon: AcDec

  9. Improving existing tools = HEAT • HEAT = the draft HELCOM Eutrophication Assessment Tool • Cat I, Cat II and Cat III are changed to Quality Elementssensu the WFD • Based on RefCon and definition of acceptable deviation (AcDev) sensu the WFD • Is split into 5 classes (high, good, moderate, poor and bad) sensu the WFD • Results are expressed as a Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR = the ratio between RefCon and observed status), [where 1,00 equals RefCon (high) and 0,00 is very bad] • The “One out, all out” principle is used correctly sensu the WFD • Different AcDev‘s can be used, e.g. from 15% to 53% deviation from RefCon

  10. A Generation 2 assessment tool: HEAT • Tested in Danish coastal waters by Andersen et al. (2005) • Pre-requisites: • For each indicator: RefCon and assessment data (synoptic) • At least 4 indicators (distributed between 2 quality elements) • How does it look? How does it work?

  11. Example 1 from Randers Fjord, Denmark

  12. Example 2 from Randers Fjord, Denmark

  13. Example 3 from Randers Fjord, Denmark

  14. How are HEAT results presented? Source: Andersen et al. (2007)

  15. Eutrophication status sensu the EU WFD ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● B, G, Y, O, and R = H, G, M, P, and B Source: Andersen et al. (2007)

  16. Towards a Generation 3 assessment tool • But what about accuracy and precision? • HEAT will estimate the confidence: • Simple score card for RefCon, AcDev and monitoring data • Confidence per indicator • Confidence per quality element • Final confidence rating of the overall assessment • Enables production of confidence rating maps • HEAT+ will include weighting between indicators

  17. Wrap up • Development of tools for assessment of eutrophication: • We have developed an easy-to-use tool • It has been tested by all Baltic Sea States • Next year, it will be used for assessment of eutrophication status in 200+ water bodies (stations and basins) • Next steps: • eMaps (’eutrophication status maps’) • EQR maps (showing ’deviation from reference conditions’) • Temporal trend assessment based on EQR values • Confidence maps (3 categories: OK, take care, no way!) • How does HELCOM’s integrated thematic assessment of eutrophication contribute to better management of eutrophication in the Baltic Sea? Source: Andersen & Pawlak (2006)

  18. Thank you for your attention • There is a immense gap between indicators and assessments • More focus on development of assessment tools is needed in order to bridge this gap

More Related