Download 3-1 Review of general section and summaries of monitoring

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission
Monitoring Revision
Tallinn, Estonia, 23-24 April 2014
Document title
Code
Category
Agenda Item
Submission date
Submitted by
Reference
MORE 9-2014
Review of general section and summaries of monitoring programmes
3-1
CMNT
3 – Review of general section and summaries of monitoring programmesReview of
general section and summaries of monitoring programmes
4.4.2014
Secretariat
Background
A draft of the general section of the monitoring manual was presented to MORE 8/2014. The
meeting proposed changes and agreed to submit further comments to the Secretariat by 3 February
which was later extended to 28 February. The Secretariat has compiled the contributions and made
an updated draft based on these changes. Some comments have been kept for discussion at the
meeting.
Action required
The Meeting is invited
-
to discuss the new draft, further revise it as appropriate, and agree on how to finalize the
general section and summaries of the monitoring programmes.
1
HELCOM monitoring manual
General description of monitoring
1. Introduction
Development of HELCOM monitoring and assessment
Monitoring is since long a well-established function of the Helsinki Convention. Monitoring of the
physical, chemical and biological variables of the open sea started in 1979 while monitoring of
radioactive substances started in 1984.
The first assessment report on the effects of pollution on the marine environment was published in
1980. Since 1987 a periodical assessment of the status of the marine environment has been
published every 5 years approximately.
Since the 2000s the occasional production of reports has evolved to a more coordinated and
periodical publication of Baltic Sea thematic and holistic assessments. This development was
supported by the adoption of the Data and Information Strategy (2004) and the first version of the
HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy (2005).
In 2007 the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) was adopted which meant to put in to practice the
ecosystem approach to the management of human activities. The BSAP further emphasizes the need
to monitor and assess the change in the marine environment and progress towards the visions, goals
and objectives of the action plan.
In 2010 the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting decided to establish HELCOM as the regional platform to
coordinate the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) in the Baltic Sea
region. The Meeting also agreed that the common understanding of Good Environmental Status
(GES) should be based on the common visions, goals and objectives of the BSAP as well as on jointly
developed quantitative targets and indicators.
Current Monitoring and Assessment Strategy
The HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy was revised in 2013 with the aim of supporting an
indicator-based assessment approach and monitoring, and to be in line with other international
monitoring and reporting requirements. It is based on shared objectives and a set of common
principles for coordinated monitoring. Specifically, the new Strategy was revised in order to:



Support regionally coordinated activities of the HELCOM Contracting Parties regarding
monitoring and assessment of the Baltic Sea i.e. the implementation of the BSAP and the
requirements of the EU MSFD.
Adjust the cooperation on monitoring to the latest technical and scientific developments.
Enlarge and strengthen the monitoring component of the Strategy.
2

Provide a hierarchy of sub-divisions of the Baltic Sea that should be used in monitoring and
assessment purposes.
The general principles of the Strategy are translated into concrete specifications and requirements
through the ongoing (2014) revision of the HELCOM monitoring programmes, guidelines and
manuals. This will follow European processes such as the MSFD CIS for those Contracting Parties that
are also EU member states.
Aims of HELCOM monitoring
Aims of monitoring
HELCOM monitoring focuses on parameters that are indicative of:




The state of the environment.
The prevailing anthropogenic pressures and their impacts.
The progress towards objectives and targets.
The effectiveness of measures.
The set of parameters monitored enables the production of regional assessment products described
in attachment 3 (HELCOM Assessment System) of the HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy.
HELCOM monitoring is carried out in such a way that an assessment with adequate confidence and
precision is achieved.
The requirement for HELCOM monitoring arises from the BSAP and the MSFD and it is linked to the
commonly agreed and Baltic-Sea-wide applicable set of HELCOM core indicators.
The regional joint coordinated monitoring programme is hence primarily serving, in an integrated
manner, the methodological elements laid out by the core indicators.
The Joint Monitoring System (attachment 1 of the Strategy) has been developed to meet national
needs and facilitate reporting obligations in particular those of the HELCOM EU member states that
report under the MSFD. It enables the assessment of the following components:







Biological diversity: population trends, distribution and condition of species and changes in
quality and quantity of habitats and biotopes
Non-indigenous species: trends in arrival, quantities and impacts
Commercially exploited fish and shellfish: trends in population, age and size structure
Marine food webs: their occurrence at normal abundance and diversity; levels capable of
ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full reproductive
capacity
Human-induced eutrophication: its effects such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem
degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters
Sea-floor integrity: including benthic ecosystems
Contaminants: concentrations and biological effects, including radioactive substances
3


Marine litter: quantities properties and effects
Underwater noise: levels and impacts
In addition, the monitoring system enables the assessment of pressures and impacts, including the
extent and intensity of human activities, in terms of:

Physical loss of, or damage to, habitats, e.g. through smothering, sealing, siltation, abrasion
and selective extraction of living and non-living resources

Inputs of:
o heavy metals and synthetic hazardous substances
o radioactive substances
o nitrogen and phosphorus as well as organic matter

Introductions of:
o non-indigenous species
o microbial pathogens
o marine litter
o energy, including underwater noise

Alteration of hydrological and hydrographical conditions through human activities, including
a change in salinity and temperature, as well as acidification

Selective extraction of species, including incidental non-target catches (e.g. by commercial
and recreational fishing.)

Cumulative and synergetic effects of different pressures and impacts
HELCOM monitoring is mainly driven by indicators and associated parameters for assessment
purposes. The indicator system distinguishes
-
-
Core indicators: An indicator is science-based and reflects a component contained in the
HELCOM system of the vision, goals and ecological objectives and/or MSFD descriptor.
Pre-core indicators: An indicator that that has been identified as necessary by the
Contracting Parties for the BSAP/MSFD purposes and on which there is a common
understanding at the general level but where the content of the indicator is still
underdeveloped and for which there is no coordinated monitoring.
Candidate indicators: A candidate indicator is an issue that is being developed into a core
indicator proposal.
Supplementary indicators: A supplementary indicator is an indicator applied in a subregional basis agreed among the countries of the sub-region.
Supporting parameters: are any parameters that assist in the interpretation of indicator
results but do not measure for example distance to a target such as the GES.
See a detailed description in Annex 3 of MONAS 18/2013 (page 27)
Commitment of Contracting Parties in relation to the indicator system is as follows:
4
Climate change
There is a need to maintain and acquire data and knowledge of climate risks in the Baltic Sea region
and in the marine environment to improve the understanding of climate change. This can enable
assessment of the ability of the marine environment to cope, adapt to or recover from the effects
the changes. There is also a need to increase data collection that serves this purpose.
HELCOM monitoring should be configured also to detect climate change and its impacts on the Baltic
Sea marine ecosystem. Therefore, sites with relevant long-term data records will be sustained, whilst
accommodating improved data collection techniques where appropriate. National long-term data
series should be integrated to this region-wide framework.
The MSFD also recognizes the need to the determination of good environmental status may have to
be adapted over time in view of the impact of climate change.
2. Contracting Parties’ commitments
The Monitoring and Assessment Strategy, adopted by the HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in 2013, sets
out the basis for how the HELCOM Contracting Parties commit themselves to design and carry out
their national monitoring programmes and work together to produce and update joint assessments.
HELCOM joint coordinated monitoring and preparation of the various assessment products require
that the Contracting Parties allocate adequate resources and commit to agreed schedules of
activities. This includes ensuring that needed resources are available nationally, e.g., ships,
laboratories, personnel, data management and analysis capacities and expertise.
The national monitoring is coordinated within and between Contracting Parties in order to use
resources in an efficient way. Shared monitoring stations and activities, information and data are
steps towards this direction.
The aim is to use limited resources as efficiently as possible and to seek the added-value from
HELCOM coordination and collaboration as a return to the Contracting Parties.
HELCOM thus offers a platform for the Contracting Parties to jointly plan and coordinate monitoring
and assessment activities and to share resources to increase cost-efficiency and quality of data and
assessment products as well as to fine-tune and optimise the activities to match national and
international needs and obligations.
Other issues:
Deadlines for reporting
Cruise cooperation
3. Structure of the HELCOM monitoring system
The HELCOM monitoring system has been built over the years including:

The Pollution Load Compilation programmes (PLC-Air and PLC-Water): They quantify
emissions of nutrients and hazardous substances to the air, discharges and losses to inland
surface waters, and the resulting air and waterborne inputs to the sea.
5

The COMBINE programme: It quantifies the impacts of nutrients and hazardous substances
in the marine environment, also examining trends in the various compartments of the
marine environment (water, biota, sediment). The programme also assesses physical forcing.

Monitoring of radioactive substances (MORS): It quantifies the sources and inputs of
artificial radionuclides, as well as the resulting trends in the various compartments of the
marine environment (water, biota, sediment).

The coordination of the surveillance of deliberate illegal oil spills around the Baltic Sea, and
the assessment of the numbers and distribution of such spills on an annual basis.
HELCOM has developed a suite of monitoring guidelines in support of those programmes (PLC-water
guidelines, COMBINE monitoring manual, MORS guidelines) and other monitoring activities (e.g.
coastal fish guidelines, seals monitoring guidelines).
The HELCOM monitoring manual integrates the existing HELCOM monitoring activities and
requirements and the new monitoring activities/requirements, arising from assessment needs under
the BSAP and from monitoring requirements of HELCOM EU Member States under the MSFD, into
one manual. Figure 1 illustrates the current system and the structure of the manual. The manual is
organised along thematic programmes (summarised in section 6), including human activities.
Programme topics (list in section 6) provide details about the monitoring activities and links to



the detailed technical guidelines and standards agreed for coordinated monitoring
the data and map service with monitoring-related data products
the HELCOM core indicators and Baltic Sea Environment Sheets for which the HELCOM
monitoring system provides the data basis and which contribute to thematic and holistic
assessments
Current system
Monitoring Manual
Figure 1 Current system and Monitoring Manual
The HELCOM monitoring manual provides a detailed and transparent documentation of the
monitoring programmes and activities in Baltic Sea region, the associated coordination among
Contracting Parties and the state of coherence and consistency of monitoring across borders and
regimes. The manual is intended to support HELCOM EU Member States in reporting information
about monitoring programmes and activities relevant for the MSFD.
The manual will be revised when there is a need for changes in the Programme content or new
technical guidelines. The official version of the manual is available electronically via the HELCOM
home page. Users of pdf copies are requested to check against the official online version.
6
4. Regional cooperation on monitoring
The Principles of the HELCOM Joint Coordinated Monitoring System (attachment 1 of the HELCOM
Monitoring and Assessment Strategy) underline the benefits of coordination and cooperation to
optimize monitoring and data sharing in the Baltic Sea region. They also stress the need to harmonize
monitoring and ensure quality of data to achieve comparable and region-wide assessment products.
HELCOM provides the platform for deciding how, when and where coordinated monitoring should be
carried out to meet these requirements.
The HELCOM Assessment System (attachment 3 of the HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment
Strategy), including the production of thematic and holistic assessments, also requires a high degree
of cooperation of Contracting Parties, observer organizations and the scientific community as well as
cooperation across HELCOM bodies.
5. Coverage of HELCOM monitoring (Q1a – 1 e, Q3b)
Transboundary impacts and features
According to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, by reason of the transboundary nature of the
marine environment, Member States should cooperate to ensure the coordinated development of
marine strategies for each marine region or subregion. Since marine regions or subregions are shared
both with other Member States and with third countries, Member States should make every effort to
ensure close coordination with all Member States and third countries concerned.
According to the HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy, for the purposes of regional
monitoring and assessments, the Baltic Sea can be sub-divided into sub-basins as depicted in
HELCOM sub-divisions of the Baltic Sea (Attachment 4 of the HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment
Strategy). Different hierarchical sub-division levels can be used depending on the needs:




the whole Baltic Sea
dividing of the Baltic Sea into 17 sub-basins
further dividing each of the 17 sub-basins into coastal areas (extending to 1 NM seaward
from the baseline) and off-shore area (waters beyond 1 NM seaward from the baseline)
further dividing the coastal areas into water bodies or types according to the WFD. Other
sub-divisions can be agreed and used provided they remain within the boundaries and use
the nomenclature of the described hierarchical system. The scale of sub-division to be
chosen may differ depending on the monitoring and assessment purpose.
To maximise their use for national purposes, regional monitoring and assessment results are also
presented in formats (e.g. point/station maps) that allow displaying them within national boundaries
(EEZ, 12 nm) and showing hot spots.
Each Contracting Party is responsible for monitoring of their catchments, territorial waters and
exclusive economic zones. Coordinated monitoring brings added value to the national monitoring.
7
Joint monitoring and assessment provides the basis for consideration of transboundary impacts, such
as eutrophication, and the state of transboundary features such as mobile species.
BSAP themes and MSFD GES descriptors
Baltic Sea Action Plan Ecological Objectives
The Baltic Sea Action Plan is a programme to restore the good ecological status of the Baltic marine
environment by 2021. It was adopted by all the coastal states and the EU in 2007 at the HELCOM
ministerial meeting in Krakow. It is a crucial stepping stone for wider and more efficient actions to
combat the continuing deterioration of the marine environment resulting from human activities.
Moreover, the Plan provides a concrete basis for HELCOM work by incorporating the latest scientific
knowledge and innovative management approaches into strategic policy implementation. It
stimulates even closer and goal-oriented multilateral cooperation around the Baltic Sea region.
The Baltic Sea Action Plan is based on a vision, four main goals, and a number of ecological objectives
associated to the goals (Figure 2). The overarching visions is: A healthy Baltic Sea environment, with
diverse biological components functioning in balance, resulting in a good ecological status and
supporting a wide range of sustainable human economic and sustainable activities.
8
Figure 2 HELCOM Vision goals and objectives
MSFD GES descriptors
For those HELCOM Contracting Parties being also EU Member States the EU Marine Strategy
Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008/56/EC) establishes a framework within which the Member States
shall take the necessary measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status of the marine
environment by the year 2020 at the latest (Article 1). In Annex I of the MSFD there are eleven
qualitative descriptors for determining good environmental status (GES):
1. Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution
and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic
conditions.
2. Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely
alter the ecosystems.
9
3. Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits,
exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.
4. All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal
abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the
species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity.
5. Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as
losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in
bottom waters.
6. Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the
ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely
affected.
7. Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine
ecosystems.
8. Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects.
9. Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels
established by Community legislation or other relevant standards.
10. Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine
environment.
11. Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect
the marine environment.
Relationship between the BSAP Ecological Objectives and the MSFD Descriptors
On an overarching level, the BSAP can be considered by EU-MS as the HELCOM contribution to the
regionally coherent implementation of the MSFD in the Baltic Sea. Its vision and the MSFD definition
of GES can be aligned while BSAP goals and objectives are comparable to or at least overlapping with
the MSFD descriptors and at times the more detailed criteria outlined in the Commission decision on
criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters
(2010/477/EU) (Figure 3).
10
Figure 3 Relationships between BSAP and MSFD.
However, the MSFD GES descriptors cover a wider definition of good environmental status than the
BSAP ecological goals and thus there are MSFD descriptors that cannot be assigned to the Baltic Sea
goals and objectives. Straightforward links can be established between:
BSAP goal
MSFD Descriptor
Baltic Sea unaffected by
eutrophication
D5 Eutrophication
Baltic Sea life undisturbed by
hazardous substances
D8 Concentrations of contaminants
D9 contaminants in fish and shellfish
Favorable status of Baltic Sea
biodiversity
D1 Biological diversity
D2 Non-indigenous species
D4 Marine food webs
D6 Sea-floor integrity
Maritime activities in the Baltic Sea
carried out in an environmentally
friendly way
D2 Non-indigenous species
At the level of BSAP objectives and MSFD criteria there are still some differences also where goals
and descriptors can be aligned. Biodiversity is for example addressed at three levels in both the BSAP
and MSFD but these levels are expressed slightly differently. During the development of core
indicators it was however concluded that the same set of biodiversity indicators can serve
monitoring and assessment in both frameworks (BSEP 129A)1.
1
http://helcom.fi/Lists/Publications/BSEP129A.pdf
11
MSFD Descriptors that are also addressed by the BSAP but lack equivalent BSAP goals are:




D3 - Population of commercial fish and shellfish at safe biological levels ,
D7 - Hydrographical conditions
D10 - Properties and quantities of marine litter
D11 - Introduction of energy, including noise
Links between different monitoring obligations
As presented previously, the goals and objectives of the Baltic Sea Action Plan do not fully meet with
the MSFD descriptors. However, the revised 2013 HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy
covers all components of the MSFD descriptors (see section on Aims of HELCOM monitoring). Thus
the Strategy provides for alignment of HELCOM coordinated monitoring and MSFD monitoring
requirements in the Baltic Sea region. However, there are still gaps in monitoring and a need to
further develop the HELCOM coordinated monitoring programs to fulfill both the BSAP and the
MSFD. To close this gap, synergies with existing monitoring obligations should be aimed for.
The overlap in monitoring requirements of different directives and policies related to the marine
environment are briefly described while they have been outlined in detail in published reports (see
e.g. JRC 20122, Commission staff working paper 20123).
Habitat Directive and Birds Directive
The Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) requires EU MSs to monitor the conservation status of habitats
and species, and report an assessment of conservation status every six year (Article 17). The
monitoring requirements are however restricted to the species (Annex II, IV, V) and habitats (Annex I)
listed in the HD. For habitats this overlaps with the MSFD requirement to map special habitat types
recognized under the HD. However, the MSFD also requires consideration of predominant seabed
and water column habitats i.e. common habitat types that are not listed in the HD. The requirement
to assess common habitats has also been considered by the HELCOM CORESET project (BSEP 129a).
Thus, the HD article 17 assessment contributes to, but is not sufficient for, the assessment of habitats
as regards MSFD descriptor 1 and the intended scope of the HELCOM development of core indicators
for biodiversity. For some habitat types and protected species there are opportunities for synergies
in monitoring, e. g. streamlining monitoring requirements related to the Habitats Directive and to
HELCOM will also be beneficial for implementing MSFD monitoring needs as regards relevant habitat
types and protected species.
2
3
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/23169/1/lbna25187enn.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/FAQ%20final%202012-07-27.pdf
12
The Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) requires EU MSs to report, starting in 2013, every six years on Bird
Species Status and Trends (implementation status?). The reporting requires individual assessments
for “all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state in the European territory of the Member
States” and includes information on species, population size, population trend, breeding distribution
map and range size, breeding range trend.
Water Framework Directive
Several of the characteristics that should be considered according to the BSAP objectives and MSFD
Annex III overlap with monitoring requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD,
2000/60/EC) e.g. angiosperms, macro-algae and invertebrate bottom fauna, phytoplankton, and
chemical features of the water column.
In addition the WFD requires monitoring of priority substances. In the coastal areas where there is a
geographical overlap between the two Directives, monitoring of characteristics and features related
to these particular substances are thus covered by the WFD in the water body. Other relevant
matrices, such as sediments and biota, are not covered by the WFD. Additionally, good
Environmental Status of the MSFD has a much broader take of ecosystem components than the WFD
e.g. by including fish, birds, mammals, benthic habitats, zooplankton and additional pressures in
terms of marine litter and underwater noise which are not included in the assessment of coastal
water bodies under the WFD. MSFD should apply to coastal waters in those aspects of GES that are
not already covered by the WFD. Thus streamlining the HELCOM and WFD monitoring would again
be beneficial for the implementation of the MSFD in terms of monitoring.
Common Fisheries Policy
The Data Collection Framework (DCF) for the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) requires MS to collect
data related to fisheries activities. The CFP requires reporting on e.g. age, length, weight, sex and
maturity of species caught in fisheries as well as in fisheries independent research surveys. Reporting
requirements are restricted to fish species listed in Annex VII of the policy. A revised Data Collection
Framework regulation is scheduled for publication in spring 2014.
Overview of monitoring relevant for HELCOM core indicators
At present (2014) HELCOM has agreed 30 core indicators and additional 5 pre-core indicators that
have been identified as necessary to meet assessment needs but are not sufficiently developed to be
adopted yet. This indicator set gives emphasis to state and impact aspects and is being further
developed to close gaps, including on pressure aspects. Table 1 outlines overlapping monitoring
requirements for parameters needed to support the HELCOM core and pre-core indicators.Current
coordinated monitoring under HELCOM COMBINE is also included in the table.Note that although
other policies have similar monitoring requirements as the BSAP and the MSFD, this does not
necessarily mean that these obligations are met by all Contracting Parties.
13
Table1: Overview of relevant monitoring parameters for HELCOM core indicators required under existing agreements, directives and policies. Note that this
does not mean that the monitoring is implemented by all Contracting Parties or adequate to assess HELCOM core indicators.
CORE INDICATORS
HELCOM
COMBINE
WFD
(coastal waters)
Population growth rate, abundance and
distribution of marine mammals
Incidental capture and killing of
animals of community interest in
need of strict protection (Annex
IV)
White-tailed eagle productivity
Abundance of fish key functional groups
CFP
(X)
Adverse effect of chemical
pollution on population levels
of bird species
Trends and variations in
population
Trends and variations in
population
Coastal areas:
Abundance (length,
weight, disease)
Coastal areas:
Abundance (length,
weight, disease)
Abundance
(length, weight, sex and
maturity)
Abundance, (length, weight,
sex and maturity)
Proportion of large fish in the community
Abundance, length (weight, sex
and maturity)
?
Abundance of smolt, parr and
ascending individuals in wild
salmon stocks in index rivers
running to the Baltic Sea III b-d
Abundance of sea trout spawners and parr
Abundance of salmon spawners and smolt
Zooplankton mean size and total
abundance
State of the soft-bottom macrofauna
communities
BD
Status of conservation,
population dynamics, presence
of habitat, and natural range of
animal species of community
interest (HD Annex II, IV, V)
Pregnancy rates of the marine mammals
Nutritional status of seals
Number of drowned mammals and
waterbirds in fishing gears
Abundance of waterbirds in the wintering
season
Abundance of waterbirds in the breeding
season
Abundance of key fish species
HD
Composition, abundance,
biomass
Composition, abundance,
biomass
Coastal areas: Benthic
invertebrate
abundance,
composition, diversity,
presence of sensitive
taxa
14
CORE INDICATORS
HELCOM
COMBINE
Population structure of long-lived
macrozoobenthic species
Trends in arrival of new non-indigenous
species
(Indirect through other
monitoring programmes)
Red-listed benthic biotopes
Polybrominated biphenyl ethers (PBDE):
BDE-28, 47, 99,100, 153 and 154
Hexabromocyclodocecane (HBCD)
(WFD variable to be applied as of
22.12.2018)
Perfluorooctane sulphonate (PFOS)
(WFD variable to be applied as of
22.12.2018)
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) and
dioxins and furans: CB-28, 52, 101, 118,
138, 153 and 180.
WHO-TEQ of dioxins, furans –dl-PCBs (WFD
variable to be applied as of 22.12.2018)
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons and their
metabolites: US EPA 16 PAHs / selected
metabolites (WFD: only 5 PAH components
selected as priority substances.)
Metals (lead, cadmium and mercury)
Radioactive substances: Caesium-137 in
fish and surface waters
Tributyltin (TBT) and imposex (WFD: not
included.)
Water transparency (Secchi depth)
Concentrations of dissolved inorganic
nitrogen
Concentrations of dissolved inorganic
phosphorus
Concentrations of chlorophyll a
In biota
WFD
(coastal waters)
HD
BD
CFP
Parameters as above –
but size classes not
recorded by all
countries
(Indirect through
other monitoring
programmes)
Priority substance in
the field of water
policy
Priority substance in
the field of water
policy
Priority substance in
the field of water
policy
Priority substance in
the field of water
policy
Priority substance in
the field of water
policy
In biota, seawater
(dissolved and
particulate)
X
Water transparency
(Secchi depth)
Concentrations of
dissolved inorganic
nitrogen
Concentrations of
dissolved inorganic
phosphorus
Concentrations of
Priority substance in
the field of water
policy
Priority substance in
the field of water
policy
Transparency
Nutrient conditions
Nutrient conditions
Not required but often
15
CORE INDICATORS
Oxygen concentration
PRE CORE
Number of waterbirds being oiled annually
Lower depth distribution limit of
macrophyte species
Cumulative impact on benthic habitats
Extent of benthic biotopes
Distribution of benthic biotopes
HELCOM
COMBINE
WFD
(coastal waters)
chlorophyll a
Oxygen concentration
used
Oxygenation
Depth distribution,
composition, % coverage,
loose plants, substrate
Abundance,
composition, cover,
depth distribution of
angiosperms and
macro-algae
HD
BD
CFP
Natural range, area covered,
functions, and conservation
status of habitat types of
community interest (Annex I)
Natural range, area covered,
functions, and conservation
status of habitat types of
community interest (Annex I)
Pharmaceuticals: Diclofenac, EEA2 (+E1,
E2, E3 + in vitro yeast essay)
Lysosomal Membrane Stability – a toxic
stress indicator
Fish Disease Index – a fish stress indicator
Micronuclus test – a genotoxicity indicator
Reproductive disorders: Malformed
eelpout and amphipod embryos
16
Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission
Monitoring Revision
Tallinn, Estonia, 23-24 April 2014
MORE 9-2014
Regional / Environmental targets
In the Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP), the Contracting Parties to the Helsinki Convention agreed to
periodically evaluate whether the targets of the Action Plan have been met by using indicator-based
assessments.
Core indicators form the critical set of indicators which are needed to regularly assess the status of the
Baltic Sea marine environment against a definition of Good Environmental Status (GES) and progress
towards GES against a set of environmental targets.
The selection of core indicators was a process guided by predefined HELCOM common principles for core
indicators starting that core indicators (BSEP 129A) should:








be monitored by all Contracting Parties wherever ecologically relevant
cover the entire convention area
reflect or directly measure anthropogenic pressures
be scientifically sound;
have quantitative targets for good environmental status (GES)
enable assessments under the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) and the EU Marine Strategy
Framework Directive (MSFD)
be regularly updated with new data
and be publicly available.
For core indicators that reflect the status of the environment, a tentative/preliminary quantitative
boundary distinguishes between a state within GES and a state not meeting GES.
For core indicators that reflect pressures on the environment, tentative/preliminary quantitative targets
are established to define the maximum level of pressure that is acceptable to achieve or maintain GES. At
this time (2014), the goal of having quantitative GES-boundaries or targets is not fully met and trends are
also used to define GES.
Other characteristics, pressures and impacts
One of the objectives of the Monitoring and Assessment Strategy is to enable the provision of data and
information that links pressures to their impacts on the marine environment.
HELCOM joint monitoring provides the necessary data for regular assessment of the state of the Baltic Sea,
the human pressures and their impacts affecting the state. It also enables evaluations of the extent to
which measures are being effective, as well as the consideration of a need for action and evaluation of the
degree of implementation of jointly agreed measures.
According to the Joint Monitoring System (attachment 1 of the Monitoring and Assessment Strategy) a
common approach to differentiate monitoring efforts should be developed depending on the intensity and
extent of pressures and environmental problems in areas with environmental problems requiring more
intensified monitoring and the purpose of monitoring (in relation to good environmental status;
Page 17 of 26
MORE 9-2014, 3-2
environmental targets; characteristics, pressures and impacts; acute events; knowledge gaps and
investigations).
The HELCOM holistic assessments follow the needs of the ecosystem approach which requires the
integrated management of human activities based on the best available scientific knowledge about
ecosystems and their dynamics. This requires assessments of the wider implications of human activities,
including their cumulative and synergistic effects, on the quality, structure and functioning of marine
ecosystems.
Page 18 of 26
MORE 9-2014, 3-2
6. Overview of MONITORING PROGRAMMEs
List of monitoring programmes, programme topics and sub-programmes
Monitoring programme
Programme topics
MORE sub-programmes -
D1-4 Water column habitats
(D5 Eutrophication)
Hydrography
Temperature, salinity, transparency, turbidity
Waves, currents (sealevel)
Ice
D1-4 Water column habitats, D5
Eutrophication
Hydrochemistry
O2, pH, pCO2 (H2S)
D1-4 Water column habitats, D5
Eutrophication
D1-4 Water column habitats, D5
Eutrophication
Nutrients
Phytoplankton
Phytoplankton - Pigments
D1-4 Water column habitats
Phytoplankton - Species composition, abundance and
biomass
D1-4 Water column habitats
Zooplankton
Zooplankton - Species composition, abundance and
biomass
D1-4 Fish and cephalopods, D3
Commercial fish and shellfish
Fish shellfish and fisheries
Fish - Coastal fish
D1-4 Fish and cephalopods, D3
Commercial fish and shellfish
Fish - Migratory fish
D1-4 Fish and cephalopods, D3
Commercial fish and shellfish
Fish - Offshore fish
D1-4 Fish and cephalopodss, D3
Commercial fish and shellfish
Commercial shellfish
D1-4 Fish and cephalopods, D3
Commercial fish and shellfish
Fisheries bycatch
D1-4 Biodiversity-Birds
Birds
Birds - Marine breeding birds abundance and
distribution
D1-4 Biodiversity-Birds
Birds - Marine bird health
D1-4 Biodiversity-Birds
Birds - Marine wintering birds abundance and
distribution
D1-4 Biodiversity – mammals and
reptiles
Mammals
Mammals - Seal abundance
D1-4 Biodiversity – mammals and
reptiles
Mammals - Health status
D1-4 Biodiversity – mammals and
reptiles
Mammals - Harbor porpoise abundance
D8 Contaminants
Concentrations of
contaminants
Page 19 of 26
Contaminants in water
MORE 9-2014, 3-2
Monitoring programme
Programme topics
MORE sub-programmes -
D8 Contaminants
Contaminants in sediment
D8 Contaminants
Contaminants in biota
D9 Contaminants in seafood
Contaminants in seafood
Contaminants in seafood
D5 Eutrophication
Inputs
Nutrient inputs from atmosphere
D8 Contaminants
Contaminant inputs from atmosphere
D5 Eutrophication
Nutrient inputs from landbased sources
D8 Contaminants
Contaminant inputs from landbased sources
D5 Eutrophication
Nutrient inputs from seabased sources
D8 Contaminants
Contaminant inputs from seabased sources
D8 Contaminants
Acute pollution
D8 Contaminants
Biological effects of
contaminants
TBT /imposex
Other biological effects montoring to be developed
D10 Litter
Litter
Macrolitter characteristics and abundance/volume
Litter microparticle abundance/volume
D11 Energy, including underwater
noise
Underwater noise
D 2 Non-indigenous species
Non indigenous species
D1-4-6 Biodiversity-Seabed habitats Seabed habitat distribution
and extent
Habitat-forming species and substrates
Seabed habitat physical characteristics
D1-4-6 Biodiversity-Seabed habitats Species distribution and
abundance / Benthic
community
Hardbottom Species
Softbottom fauna
Softbottom flora
D1-4-6 Biodiversity-Seabed
habitats, D1-4 Fish and
cephalopods, D3 Commercial fish
and shellfish
Benthic physical loss and
damage (In future maybe
included in "Seabed habitat
distribution and extent)
Page 20 of 26
MORE 9-2014, 3-2
6.1 Biodiversity
6.2 Eutrophication
6.3 …
BACKGROUND (Q4c)
Describe how the programme addresses assessment needs for the BSAP ecological objectives, core
indicators and targets(?), relevant MSFD Descriptor(s) and targets, and other related policies
(directives/conventions).
The rationale for your balance between monitoring of state/impact, pressures, activities and measures



How it responds to risks of not achieving GES
How it adapts to new and emerging environmental problems (pressures and impacts) in relation to
the relevant Descriptor(s).
How well/fully the programme meets the needs of providing data/ information to support
assessment of the Descriptor(s) (or particular biodiversity component programme for D1, 4, 6).
Which existing monitoring programmes already established under Community legislation or international
agreements contribute to and are compatible with the HELCOM programme (Q8)?
Select the relevant instrument and monitoring programme from list:

Bathing Water Directive

Common Fisheries Policy - Data Collection Framework (DC-MAP)
Habitats Directive
Birds Directive
Nitrates Directive
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
Water Framework Directive
Other (specify)






Include references/web-links
BSAP Ecological Objectives and (Core) indicators
Which BSAP ecological objectives are addressed by the programme?
For which core indicators data is collected?
MSFD DESCRIPTORS AND CRITERIA (Q5)
Page 21 of 26
MORE 9-2014, 3-2
Which GES Descriptor(s) is addressed by the programme? List the relevant ones (D1-D11) with headline and
give a link to the exact description of each of them
Which GES criteria may be addressed by the programme?
Select all relevant from list in Decision (filtered to show only those relevant to previously chosen
descriptors).
Which GES characteristics is addressed by the programme?
Select all relevant from list in Decision (filtered to show only those relevant to previously chosen criteria).
Which elements of MSFD Annex III (ecosystem components, pressures/impacts) are addressed by the
programme?
List here all relevant features and pressures from (It can be linked to the relevant programme topics
(database):




List of functional groups
List of predominant habitats
List of physical and chemical features
List of pressures
Short description of obstacles caused by natural variability, and what should be taken into consideration in
the implementation of the programme topic file to address this question
BSAP and MSFD TARGETS (Q6)
BSAP targets (if available) and MSFD targets (if available and different from/additional to BSAP targets)
List the target(s) which the programme addresses.
MEASURES (Q7)
List of activities and/or pressures to be monitored (e.g. BSAP measures for nutrient input reduction,
HELCOM recommendations; from MSFD Annex III Table 2 list)
Describe the nature of each activity and/or pressure monitoring
PROGRAMME TOPICS
Links to relevant programme topics (Hydrography, Hydrochemistry, Phytoplankton etc.)
Page 22 of 26
MORE 9-2014, 3-2
Annex 1 - Glossary of terms
Biotope
A habitat and its associated community.
Candidate indicators
A candidate indicator is an issue that is being developed into a core indicator proposal. Candidate indicators
include indicators on which there is not yet a common understanding on the concept but in general a need
for the theme to be addressed by a core indicator has been identified (MONAS 18/2013).
‘Characteristics’
For the purpose of the Marine Directive, the term 'characteristics' is used in the meaning of:
a. Ecosystem components (physical and chemical features, habitat types, biological features and
other features) relevant for analysing the environmental state as described in Annex III, Table 1
MSFD
b. Considerations to be taken into account for the setting of environmental targets as described in
Annex IV MSFD
c. Elements describing GES as set out in Art. 9(1) MSFD (characteristics of GES).
Core indicators
Core indicators have been adopted by HELCOM Contracting Parties. They are science-based and reflect a
component contained in the HELCOM system of the vision, goals and ecological objectives and/or MSFD
descriptor. The core indicators for status are linked to anthropogenic pressures and reflect them directly or
indirectly.
An indicator measures part of or fully an ecological objective and/or a descriptor of good environmental
status and provides a measure of the distance to the target/GES. Whenever ecologically relevant, an
indicator is Baltic-wide and the area of applicability is expressed on the indicator report.
The ultimate aim is that the set of core indicators will be measured by all Contracting Parties with
coordinated monitoring according to the HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy. Core indicators are
presented as core indicator reports on the HELCOM web page. They will also be used for integrated
thematic and holistic assessments. The ultimate aim is that those Contracting Parties that are also EU
Member States will use the core indicators for the MSFD implementation.
‘GES criteria/criterion’
Page 23 of 26
MORE 9-2014, 3-2
According to the definitions in Art. 3(6) MSFD, “criteria” mean "distinctive technical features that are
closely linked to qualitative descriptors”. Specific criteria are listed for each GES Descriptor in Part B of
Annex 2 in COM Decision 2010/477/EU. For this reason GES criteria refer to those aspects which are to be
assessed, through the application of appropriate indicators, to determine whether GES is being achieved.
‘Descriptor’
Annex I MSFD provides a list of eleven qualitative 'Descriptors' which constitute the basis for the
assessment of GES, and provide a further refinement of aspects of the definition of GES in Art. 3(5) MSFD.
These descriptors are substantiated and further specified in the COM Decision 2010/477/EU through a set
of 29 criteria and 56 indicators.
‘Ecosystem component’
Ecosystem components comprise abiotic and biotic components of the marine environment, including
those described in Annex III, Table 1MSFD. Abiotic components include non-living physical, hydrological and
chemical factors. Biotic components include species, functional groups and habitat types.
‘Environmental Target’
‘Environmental target’ is defined in Art. 3 MSFD as qualitative or quantitative statement on the desired
condition of the marine ecosystem and its components and the pressures and impacts on them. They are
inter alia a specific requirement to describe progress towards GES. MSFD Annex IV contains a list of
characteristics to be considered if environmental targets are established and distinguishes four categories
of environmental targets such as establishing desired conditions, being measurable with associated
indicators allowing for monitoring and assessment and being operational relating to concrete
implementation of measures to support their achievement and move towards GES.
‘Functional groups of species’
As a way of simplifying and categorising biodiversity, species can be assigned to functional groups. Such
groups comprise species with similar structural and functional characteristics, such as how they acquire
their nutrients, their state of mobility or their mode of feeding.
Each functional group represents a predominant ecological role (e.g. offshore surface-feeding birds,
demersal fish) within the marine environment or within a habitat. For MSFD purposes, the term is
particularly applied to birds, mammals, reptiles, fish and cephalopods to provide focus for the assessment
of status of these often highly mobile or widely-dispersed species groups. The term is also useful in the
context of assessing communities condition (in the water column or seabed) through assessment of the
range of functional groups present.
‘Good Environmental Status’
Page 24 of 26
MORE 9-2014, 3-2
GES is defined in Art. 3 MSFD and describes the desired status of the marine environment and its
components. The determination is based on the list of eleven Descriptors laid down in Annex I MSFD and
on the criteria and associated indicators in COM Decision 2010/477/EU.
Habitat
The physical and environmental conditions (e.g. the seabed substratum and associated hydrological and
chemical condition) that support a particular biological community or communities (Cochrane et al. 2010).
‘Hydrographical conditions’
Hydrographical conditions refer to the depth, tidal, current and wave characteristics of marine waters,
including the topography and morphology of the seabed.
‘Hydrological processes’
Hydrological processes refer to the movement, distribution and quality of water. Interference with
hydrological processes can encompass changes in the thermal or salinity regime, in the tidal regime, in
sediment and freshwater transport, in current or wave action and in turbidity.
Hydrographical conditions can be influenced by (changing) hydrological processes.
‘Impact’
‘Indicator’
An indicator is based on one or several parameters chosen to represent (indicate) a certain situation or
aspect and to simplify a complex reality. Indicators are intended to help simplify a complex reality. In the
context of the implementation of the MSFD, indicators are specific attributes of each GES criterion that can
be measured to make such criteria operational and which allow subsequent change in the attribute to be
followed over time.
‘Listed features’*
Listed features are species or habitat types which are listed under Community legislation (e.g. Birds and
Habitats Directive) or regional conventions (e.g. OSPAR & HELCOM). Table 1 of Annex
III MSFD refers to these habitat types as ‘special’.
‘Parameter’ / ‘metric’
A parameter or metric is a measureable single characteristic e.g. number of individuals, biomass in g/dry
weight, sediment particle diameter size in mm, concentration of nutrients in µg/l etc. An indicator can be
based on a single parameter.
Page 25 of 26
MORE 9-2014, 3-2
pre-CORE INDICATOR
An indicator that that has been identified as necessary by the Contracting Parties for the BSAP/MSFD
purposes and on which there is a common understanding at the general level but where the content of the
indicator is still underdeveloped and for which there is no coordinated monitoring. A pre-core indicator will
be under further development such as testing, validation, development of coordinated monitoring as well
as methods by HELCOM experts. Meanwhile, each Contracting Party should aim to monitor the parameters
relevant for the pre-core indicators. However, with the understanding that some of the pre-core indicators
can be based on compilations of data from sources other than monitoring data (MONAS18/2013).
‘Pressure’
‘State/status’
The word ‘state’, as used in the context of the MSFD, refers to the quality/condition of specific aspects of
the environment, such as ecosystem components. This can be determined through measurements in the
environment of relevant parameters for such components; such measurements, by definition, will reflect
any impacts (individual and cumulative) to which the component has been subjected.
The word ‘status’, as used in the context of Good Environmental Status or Environmental Quality Status,
draws together the determination of the ‘state’ of individual ecosystem components, typically through use
of particular criteria, threshold values and indicators, to assign a 'status' classification (e.g. at GES, below
GES). ‘Status’ can either be applied to the overall quality/condition of the marine environment, at the level
of the individual descriptors of GES or at the level of individual functional groups, habitats, species or
populations.
A further distinction is necessary when referring to the term ‘state target’. In this context, the meaning is
limited specifically to targets which articulate the desired quality/condition of specific ecosystem
components or characteristics.
Page 26 of 26