REFERENCE VALUES

1
REFERENCE VALUES

• experiences from the TMAP
• and QSR 2004

2
TMAP monitoring cycle
Wadden Sea Targets
Monitoring Common Package
Target Assessment (QSR)
3
Reference values

• In Wadden Sea Plan (1997)
• Targets
• Direction of development
• Values mostly non-explicit
• References values
• Explicit (e.g., hazardous substances)
• Non-explicit

4
Some examples

• Nutrients Eutrophication
• Hazardous substances
• Salt marshes
• Zostera fields
• Blue mussel beds
• Macrozoobenthos

5
1 Nutrients and Eutrophication

• Target
• A Wadden Sea which can be considered as a
  eutrophication non-problem area
• Evaluation criteria
• Decreased nutrient input concentrations
• Decreased chlorophyll levels
• Low occurrence of phytoplankton blooms
• Low occurrence of green macroalgae

6
Nutrients and Eutrophication contd.

• Reference values
• P- and N-concentrations as in the 1960s
• Chlorophyll levels ???
• Phytoplankton blooms ???
• Green macroalgae before 1980s
• Reference values based on long-term data

7
2 Hazardous substances

• Targets
• Natural micropollutants Background
  concentrations in water, sediment and indicator
  species
• Man-made substances Concentrations as resulting
  from zero discharges
• Evaluation criteria
• Concentrations as in proper reference data

8
3 Salt marshes

• Targets
• An increased area of natural salt marshes
• An increased natural morphology and dynamics,
  including natural drainage patterns, of
  artificial salt marshes, .
• An improved natural vegetation structure,
  including the pioneer zone, of artificial salt
  marshes

9
Salt marshes contd.

• Evaluation criteria
• Area of natural salt marshes hectares
• Natural morphology dynamics, ha without
  incl. natural drainage
  patterns artif.drainage
• Natural vegetation structure ???
• (alternative diverse vegetation) (TMAP
  typology)

10
4 Zostera fields

• Target
• An increased area of, and a more natural
  distribution and development of Zostera
  fields
• Evaluation criteria
• Increased area ha coverage
• More natural distribution . ??? (habitat maps)
• Reference historic data (by region)

11
5 Blue mussel beds

• Target
• An increased area of, and a more natural
  distribution and development of blue mussel
  beds
• Evaluation criteria
• Increased area ha (harmonized method)
• More natural distribution . ??? (habitat maps)
• Reference
• Intertidal beds historic data (range)
• Subtidal beds ???

12
6 Macrozoobenthos

• Targets
• A natural dynamic situation in the Tidal Area
• An increased area of geomorphologically and
  biologically undisturbed tidal flats and subtidal
  areas
• Favourable food availability for migrating and
  breeding birds
• Evaluation criteria ???

13
Conclusions (1)

• WSP Targets
• Defined in rather general terms
• Defined as directions (increase, decrease)
• Not well defined in terms of measurable
  parameters
• Not specified for different regions

14
Conclusions (2)

• Evaluation criteria
• Not always well defined
• Reference values
• Partly available from long-term monitoring
• Partly absent to be defined

15
The way ahead

• Ministerial Declaration, Esbjerg 2001
• Implementation of 81 to further optimize the
  TMAP for future requirements, in particular with
  regard to the Targets, the EU Habitats Directive
  and the EU Water Framework Directive
• TMAG three step approach

16
TMAG three step approach

• Definition of common monitoring objectives
• Combining requirements of EU Directives and
  Targets
• Development of common monitoring programme
• E.g., quantifiable monitoring objectives
• Streamlining of assessment reporting activities
• Multi-use of national, trilateral and
  EU-reporting