Transcript The Helsinki Commission

The need for better integration
between science and management
MARE workshop 1-3 December 2004
Kaj Forsius
HELCOM
Helsinki Commission
(HELCOM)
• Governing body of the Helsinki Convention
• International co-operation for the protection of
the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area
since 1974
• 1992 the new Convention on the Protection of
the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area
was signed (entered into force Jan 2000)
Aim of the Convention
• to protect the marine environment of
the Baltic Sea from all sources of
pollution
• to restore the ecosystem and preserve
its balance
• to ensure sustainable use of the natural
resources
Role of HELCOM
• An environmental policy maker developing common
objectives and actions;
• An environmental focal point providing information
which can form the basis for decision-making in other
international fora;
• A body for developing Recommendations (own and
supplementary)
• A supervisory body ensuring that HELCOM
requirements are fully implemented throughout the
catchment area; and
• A co-ordinating body ascertaining multilateral
response in case of major maritime incidents.
HELCOM’s priority areas of work
HELCOM work including assessments, as well
as the supporting monitoring, should be
targeted at identified threats
• Nature conservation and biodiversity;
• Eutrophication;
• Hazardous substances relevant for the Baltic
Sea;
• Maritime safety and shipping, including
response activities
Principles for HELCOM’s assessment
products
Backbone of HELCOM’s work since its beginning in cooperation
with scientific network
Aim:
• to provide policy relevant information for targeted users at
national, regional and international level
• link assessments on pressures with state and impacts
In order to:
• make sound decisions to restore the Baltic Sea ecosystem
• reach good ecological status
• support the implementation of the HELCOM objectives and
actions
• to raise general public awareness
Information pyramid
Ecosystem Approach to management of
human activities
• Adopted by HELCOM Ministerial Meeting in 2003
• Integrated approach to manage human activities
affecting the marine ecosystems
• Sustainable use of the marine resources and
maintenance of ecosystem integrity
• Include political, economic and social values,
• Should propose solutions which are socially
acceptable,
• Management to be based on sound scientific advice
Ecosystem approach
Ecological quality objectives (EcoQOs) play
an integral role
• can allow for the setting of future policy goals
• evaluation of management outcomes
• EcoQOs should address both
– the critical ecosystem components and
– the most significant anthropogenic threats
• Effective tool to gain public support and guide
the decisions of managers
From Visions…
“Prevent and
eliminate pollution
in order to
promote the
ecological
restoration of the
Baltic Sea Area
and the
preservation of its
ecological
balance”
to Actions!
Ecological
Quality
Objectives &
Performance
Indicators
are assessment
tools
to show how the
ecosystem
visions and goals
have been met
to set future
policy goals
Scope of the EcoQO project
EcoQOs - Eutrophication
Protect, allow recovery and restore the function of marine ecosystems in order to
achieve and maintain good ecological status
Restored water clarity
Reduce
eutrophication
in order to restore
ecological balance
within the Baltic Sea
and to ensure
a functioning
marine ecosystem
Restored depth range of
perennial water plants and algae
No exceptional massive algal blooms.
No excessive growth of opportunistic or
nuisance species
Target levels
• WFD reports (e.g. national & CHARM) (Coastal)
• HELCOM Background value Workshop 2000 documents
• Historical data: e.g. Laamanen, Fleming & Olsonen
2004 (secchi) and many others
• Modelling: e.g. Wulff and Schernewski & Neumann 2004
Target level
Reference level
1900
2000
2050
Ecological Balance?
Is it possible to
achieve the
agreed target
values in
combination or
do they
contradict?
I
SUPPORTING
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
physical and hydrodynamic
aspects, and climatic/weather
conditions (e.g. flushing, wind,
temperature, light availability),
TRANSBOUNDARY
TRANSPORT
I
NUTRIENT INPUTS
TRANSBOUNDARY
NUTRIENT FLUXES
(+)
I
INCREASED NUTRIENT
CONCENTRATIONS &
NUTRIENT RATIOS
(+)
(during growing season)
II (+)
II
nuisance / toxic
algal species and
changes in species
composition
increase in
phytoplankton
biomass (chl-a)
(+)
(-)
(+)
macrophytobenthos biomass
and primary production
(+)
increase in
turbidity
decrease in
light
penetration
increase in primary
production
(+)
II
shift from long-lived to short-lived
nuisance macrophyte species and
reduced depth distribution
(-)
III
III
(+)
organic
matter
(+)
IV
(+)
algal
toxins
Ecosystem
structure
(-)
(-)
Increase
in
bacteria
III
zoobenthos / fish kills &
benthic community
structure
Release of nutrients from
sediment
(+)
(+)
(-)
degree of oxygen
deficiency
foam
Do the set
of target
values
reflect a
Baltic Sea
in ecological
balance?
Use of models to combine pressures
with effects
So far mostly ecological models related to the
assessment on the effect in the sea
HELCOM has decided to:
• use models to assess the implications of different
policy scenarios on nutrient inputs and the resulting
eutrophication status in the different sub areas of the
Baltic Sea.
• to assess the possible impacts of agricultural policies,
including the implementation of the reform of the EU
CAP
Project for “Assessment of implication
of different policy scenarios on nutrient
inputs”
• The basis of the effect models are the scenarios of
activities at Land
• Link management scenario models with ecological
models
• Aim is to:
– to assess the impact of different agricultural policy
scenarios on the eutrophication status of the Baltic
Sea.
– identify cost-effective measures in the future in the
different sub basins of the Baltic Sea
Steps in the project
• To develop scenarios for measures to reduce nutrient
losses from agriculture for the chosen years (e.g.
2005-2010-2015).
• MARE to evaluate the effectiveness regarding inputs
to, concentrations of nutrients and selected biological
quality parameters reflecting the good ecological
status
– Costs, timelag
• Assessment of impacts
• Identification of cost-effective measures
Building a foundation of
understanding:
the “top-down” and “bottom-up” process…
A.
Top-Down
B.
C.
Top-Down
Top-Down
Stakeholder
understanding/
participation
Bottom-up
Bottom-up
Bottom-up
For more information
Please contact:
Helsinki Commission
Secretariat
Katajanokanlaituri 6 B
FI-00160 Helsinki
Finland
http://www.helcom.fi