close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

код для вставкиСкачать
The state of the Gulf of Finlandgaps in our present knowledge
Marine Science for the Society
Tuesday 21 January, Helsinki City Hall, 10.00–12.30
Healthy Baltic Sea
Content
• State of the Baltic Sea as assessed by HELCOM
• Our obligations to protect the GOF
• What do we know about the environmental status of the
marine environment and the pressures to affect it?
• Dream of the healthy Baltic Sea in practice
• What is good status?
• What is needed to assess the status?
• What did we report for the EU MSFD?
• Gaps in information and knowledge based on the results of
the EU-funded GES-REG Project
• Level of coordination
• Possibilities during the GOF Year
State of the Gulf of Finland
“Status of the Gulf on Finland”
244,000 0.22 s
“State of the Gulf of Finland”
156,000 0.15 s
“Environment of the Gulf of Finland”
98,000 0.23 s
Obligations
• Helsinki Convention
• protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sources
of pollution through intergovernmental cooperation
– HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan
• Political commitment by all Contracting Parties
• EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive
• Legally binding for all EU Member State
• Maritime Doctrine of Russian Federation 2020
•
•
•
•
Legal document in Russia
Development and conservation of ocean resources
Integrated marine scientific research
Development of systems for monitoring the marine environment
and coastal areas
What do we know?
HELCOM Assessments
State of the Baltic Sea
Eutrophication
HEAT Hazardous substances
CHASE
BEAT
Biodiversity
Eutrophication
Ecosystem Health
Dream of the healthy Baltic Sea in
practice
Monitoring
environment
and
pressures
Defining
good
status
Assessing
actual
status
Executing
measures
What is “good status”
HELCOM BSAP
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.
BIODIVERSITY
• Natural marine and coastal landscapes
• Thriving and balanced communities of plants
and animals
• Viable populations of species
EUTROPHICATION
• Concentrations of nutrients close to natural
levels
• Clear water
• Natural level of algal blooms
• Natural distribution and occurrence of plants
and animals
• Natural oxygen levels
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
• Concentrations of hazardous substances close
to natural levels
• All fish are safe to eat
• Healthy wildlife
• Radioactivity at the pre-Chernobyl level
MARITIME ACTIVITIES
• Enforcement of international regulations – no
illegal discharges
• Safe maritime traffic without accidental
pollution
• Efficient emergency and response capabilities
• Minimum sewage pollution from ships
• No introductions of alien species from ships
• Minimum air pollution from ships
• Zero discharges from offshore platforms
• Minimum threats from offshore installations
and
MSFD
Good Environmental Status of marine waters provide
ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which
are clean, healthy and productive within their intrinsic
conditions, and the use of the marine environment is at
a level that is sustainable, thus safeguarding the
potential for uses and activities by
current and future generations
Biological diversity is maintained
Non-indigenous species do not adversely alter the
ecosystems
Populations of all commercially exploited fish and
shellfish are within safe biological limits
All elements of the marine food webs occur at normal
abundance and diversity
Sea-floor integrity not adversely affected
Human-induced eutrophication is minimised
Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving
rise to pollution effects
Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human
consumption do not exceed legislative levels
Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does
not adversely affect marine ecosystems
Marine litter do not cause harm
Underwater noise does not adversely affect the marine
environment
What is needed?
• Co-ordination:
– Criteria for GES
– Indicators
– Boundary values
– Assessment tools
– Methods
– Monitoring
– Data
What did we report?
Biodiversity
Aliens
Fish
Food webs
Eutrophication
Benthic integrity
Hydrography
Contaminants
Contaminants in fish
Litter
Noise
Gaps
Data gaps
Descriptors
No
data
Biodiversity
X
X
Alien species
Insufficient
spatial
coverage
X
Insufficient
temporal
coverage
Knowledge gaps
Variable
data
quality
Expert is
not
available
X
Expert
needs
training
X
Methodological gaps
Insufficient
scientific
knowledge
Method
is
not
available
X
X
X
X
Method is
not tested
Method is not
intercalibrated
Data
collection
method
not
efficient
EST
X
X
X
X
Fish
FIN
X
EST
X
FIN
X
Food webbs
X
Eutro
X
X
EST
X
X
FIN
X
X
Benthos
X
X
X
X
HZ
Noise
X
X
FIN
EST
FIN
X
EST
X
X
FIN
X
EST
FIN
X
EST
X
FIN
X
X
X
X
X
Litter
EST
X
X
HZ in fish
X
X
X
Hydrography
FIN
EST
X
X
Member
state
X
X
X
X
EST
X
FIN
X
EST
X
FIN
State of regional coherence – self-assessment by HELCOM
Contracting Parties concerning implementation of
Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the MSFD
Gaps in information and
knowledge
• Major knowledge gaps concerning
–
–
–
–
hydromorphology, underwater noise and marine litter
impacts of alien species
underwater habitat distribution and status
indicators for the food web status
• Knowledge on the hazardous substances is spatially patchy
and especially their biological impacts are poorly
understood
• Set of indicators to assess GES is sparse and varies
• Geographic assessment scales are varying
• Assessment tools are neither fully developed nor agreed
upon and still require more coherence with EU policies
Level of coordination
• No real coordination for the 2012 reporting on the MSFD
implementation
• HELCOM was not used efficiently
• General information exchange on Initial Assessments,
determination of GES and GES/sub-GES boundaries, setting of
environmental targets and establishing indicators for assessment
took place
• GES-REG Project provisions were not used fully
– Practically no general coordination took place in the actual
preparation of the Initial Assessments
– GES determination was not coordinated
– HELCOM CORESET was not used efficiently for indicators and boundary
settings
– Joint HELCOM Assessment and Monitoring Strategy was a success
Possibilities during the GOF Year
• Increased sub-regional cooperation
between Estonia, Finland and
Russia
– planning of joint monitoring manual
and programme
– implementing operational
monitoring
• Co-ordinated, well planned execution of
monitoring (GES and pressures)
• making “new methods” operational
• Sharing/pooling data without
unnecessary delay
• joint preparation of assessment on
environmental status and pressures
– coordinated programme of
measures
Use HELCOM!
• Align national approaches to regional agreements accordingly and
vice versa
– Coordinated and timely planning of activities
• Influence and support the HELCOM’s role in the regional
cooperation process and achieve profits
• Share research and development work on new GOF Year topics in
order to
– Support Baltic-wide planning and execution of operational monitoring
– provide regional baseline information for assessment of the need and
extent of future activities
• Influence the joint documentation of approaches and results to
support HELCOM Contracting Parties in their national and
international reporting obligations
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа