1 / 21

Policy context

Draft improved specification for the EEA candidate core set indicator on ’Hazardous substances in marine organisms’. Policy context. Achieve good ” ecological ” (WFD) or ” environmental ” (MSFD) status by the year 2015, and 2020, respectively. This includes chemical status.

jara
Télécharger la présentation

Policy context

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. Draft improved specification for the EEA candidate core set indicator on ’Hazardous substances in marine organisms’

  2. Policy context Achieve good ”ecological” (WFD) or ”environmental” (MSFD) status by the year 2015, and 2020, respectively. This includes chemical status. • Water Framework Directive(WFD – 2000/60/EC), Dangerous substances directive (DSD – 76/464/EEC >> COM(2006)397 by 2013) • Marine Strategy Framework Directive(MSFD – . . . 2005/0211(COD)) • Proposed WFD ’daughter directive’, COM(2006)397 • Relevant for WFD Annex X • 33 priority substances • Including 13 priority hazardous substances • 8 other substances (inter alia DDT) added • Environmental Quality Standards (cf. WFD Article 4, 11, and Annex V; time frame: 2015) • EU regulation on pollutants in foodstuffs

  3. CSI040 – Hazardous substances in marine organisms • Objective: to convey the levels and trends of hazardous substances found in European seas • 2002-2006: Candidate indicator WHS6 • 2007: Proposed Core indicator CSI040 • Interpretation in relation to policy action

  4. Priority substances (33): progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses Alachlor Fluoranthene Simazine EQS defined for ”prey tissue” (biota) Tributyltin compounds Anthracene Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Atrazine Hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) Trichlorobenzenes Trichloromethane(chloroform) Benzene Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) Priority hazardous substances (13): cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions and losses, with the ultimate aim of achieving concentrations in the marineenvironment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances. (WFD Article 1) Isoproturon PBDE Trifluralin Cadmium and its compounds Lead and its compounds Mercury and its compounds Chloroalkanes, C10-13 DDT total, p,p DDT Naphthalene Chlofenvinphos Aldrin Nickel and its compounds Chlorpyrifos Dieldrin 1,2-dichloroethane Nonylphenols Endrin Dichloromethane Isodrin Octylphenols DEHP Carbontetrachloride Pentachlorobenzene Both WFD and MSFD call for no further ”deterioration” of the environment Diuron Tetrachloroethylene Pentachlorophenol Endosulfan Trichloroethylene Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),BAP, BBF, BghiP, BKF, ICDP PCB List of 33 Priority Substances + 8 other pollutants:Proposed WFD ‘daughter directive’ COM(2006)397, with EQS for WFD Annex X

  5. Cadmium, mercury, lead, HCB, lindane, DDT, PCB Can collectively effect(cf. EPER website): Risk for cancer Pre-/neonatal stages Reproductive system Nervous system Immune system Digestive system Cellular processes Growth • Persistent • Bioaccumulating • Toxic

  6. LRT - Grasshopper effect(Wania and McKay (1996) ref. AMAP 2004)

  7. Time integration • Bioaccumulation • Ecological importance

  8. Station by station analysis:Classification of levels and time trends • Data from EIONET, Conventions or separately via ICES (earliest data from 1987) • Conversion of basis (i.e. wet/dry/fat-weights), data-specific for time trends, or, for classification, general conversion factor if needed • Current/recent level of pollutants: • Average of annual medians for each time seriesfor latest 8 years (next: 2000-2007) • Classification based on literature, EU regulation, OSPAR BRCs, where appropriate • Monotonic trend analysis (testing that underlying trend is unidirectional), minimum 5 years, earliest end-year 2000, tested by non-parametric Mann-Kendall statistics • Consideration for values below detection / quantification limit

  9. Classification example - Mercury

  10. Data availability (2005)

  11. Regional trend summary • Regional trend assessment: General Linear Model (GLM) on log10-transformed data • Diminishes the effect of changing geographical coverage between years • Accounts for differences in concentration/basis between stations • Data gaps: In GLM, if time series that extends over only a small part of the time span deviate from the average for more complete time series, this will be adjusted through the station factors without disturbing the average time series extracted by the analysis. Spurious trends created by changing stations over time will be avoided or reduced

  12. Analysis for regional trend – ΣPCB7 in Atlantic mussels Log10(Conc) • GLM (General Linear Model)with Station and Year as factors: • Summary trend as “average” regional change over time. • Changes over time well-defined, levels to some extent an arbitrarily weighted mean • GLM handles missing combinations; to a large extent avoids false trends due to changes of locations between years. • Only aggregate summary, not assessment.

  13. Brown test; the dots indicate the estimated mean concentration and the bold bars indicate the lower confidence limit. We conclude that concentrations at site 2 are above background and that concentrations at site 1 and 3 are at background. Green test. We conclude that concentrations are above background at all three sites. Modified green test. We conclude that concentrations are above background at sites 2 and 3 and near background at site 1. ”Background” or Near ”zero”? Brown and green tests(OSPAR CEMP manual – cf. ASMO 08/4/5)

  14. Recent improvements • More background information: Specification document • Better geographic representation: more countries have contributed • New substance: HCB • New limits: Foodstuffs regulation • Better presentation: Maps, indication of uncertainty

  15. Further improvements • Consistent and reliable data • Local knowledge (http://www.eionet.europa.eu/seris) • Better geographic representation • New substances? • New limits? • Relate to WFD targets • Assess ”No deterioration”

  16. Specific needs for development • Regional trends: Show annual actual levels • Incorporate ”prey tissue” mercury and HCB limits • Take more account of environmental/statistical variability • Improve maps/presentations • Supplement with other European classification schemes? • Categorisation of stations • Account for imbalance in geographical coverage • Use IMPOSEX data • Take into regard developments of MSFD

  17. Questions for EIONET Marine and Coastal NRCs (1/2) 1. Do you think that the seven substances tracked in WHS6 are the most relevant for the European Environment? If not, what would you add? 2. Do you agree that the improvements of WHS6 has made the indicator stronger by better reflecting environmental state and being in line with convention agreements and EU policy requirements?

  18. Questions for EIONET Marine and Coastal NRCs (2/2) 3. Do you think that EEA should pursue developing a pan-European indicator on hazardous substances in sediment? 4. Do you provide adequate geographical and temporal data for the seven substances in relevant tissues described in CSI040 so that the indicator will reflect conditions in your country? Will you endeavour to make such data available to the EEA? 5. Do you agree with the improved specification for CSI040 and will keep on providing data to support it, so that this indicator can be made part of the EEA Core Set of Indicators?

  19. Thank you for your attentionnog@niva.nobbj@niva.no

More Related