BONUS SYNTHESIS: FUMARIFuture Marine Assessment and

Monitoring of the BalticKristian Meissner, SYKE

HELCOM State and Conservation May 2020Laura Uusitalo1, Harri Kuosa1, Timo Pyhälahti1, Jenni Attila1, Ani Koskinen1, Heini Hyvärinen1, Daniel Hering2,

Sebastian Birk2, Leoni Mack2, Maria Kahlert3, Leonard Sandin3, Antonia Liess4, Kari Eilola5, Lena Viktorsson5, Anna Willstrand Wranne5

The BONUS FUMARI project is designed to provide a proposal for a renewed monitoring system of the Baltic Sea marine environment” .

The renewed monitoring proposal will outline how the Baltic Sea (indicator) monitoring could be re-organized and supplemented with novel methods to enhance spatial coverage, comparability, sensitivity and cost effectiveness.

The BONUS FUMARI mission in a nutshell

WP1 Gaps + WP2 Novel methods = WP3 Renewed plan

Formula

WP1 GAPS

Identify gaps: WP 1

Gaps in relation to legislation Stakeholder analysis

Scientific literaturereview (>1000)

Review of Reports

Results are online

The Rashomon effect

Gaps in Baltic monitoring

Scientific articles

Reports

Gaps in Baltic monitoring

Scientific articles

Reports

Identify gaps: WP 1Stakeholders

Missing indicators Spatial coverage Indicators not operational yet Biodiversity monitoring Molecular monitoring Benthic habitats Marine litter Climate change Dumped munition

Gap ranking depends on thesource of information

→ PB + summarized in an upcoming manuscript

Novel monitoring methods: WP2

Novel monitoring methods: WP2

AIM: Identify, collect data on and rate novel sampling and analysis methods

Identification by:StakeholdersProject membersExternal researchersProject reports

Rating of methods by:CostsReliabilityAdded valueLimitationsRequired expertise

Data collection using: Scientific articlesProject reportsExpert knowledge

Novel methods to fill gaps in the monitoring

Gaps were identified regarding the following Descriptors:

Novel monitoring methods: WP2

Artificial Substrates, DNA metabarcoding

Biodiversity

DNA metabarcoding

Alien species

Remote Electronic Monitoring

Commercial fishing

Stable Isotope Analysis

Food webs

Moving Vessel Profiler, Remotely Operated Vehicle, Argo float, Glider, Ferrybox, HydroFIA® pH, Unmanned

Aerial Vehicle, Earth Observation,Citizen Observation

Eutrophication

Profiling/Smart Buoys

Hydrographicalconditions

Active Biomonitoring,Passive Samplers

Contaminants

Manta Trawl,GEMAX corer

Marine litter

Novel monitoring methods: WP2

Novel monitoring methods: WP2

Outputs:

1. FUMARI methods database: Description and rating of methods

2. Manuscript (submitted )

3. Policy brief

Renewed plan: WP3

Based on WP1 and WP2

Manuscript on evaluation of cost-efficiency of novel methods

Cooperate with BONUS SEAM→ joint Policy Brief

Novel method uptake process

international trials, TRL > 4

TRL > 6

Science

A draft adoption pipeline

international trialsprojects, HELCOM expertnetworks (TRL > 6)

Cooperation with CEN (TRL > 7)

Science

HELCOM expert networks

HELCOM ?

Necessary feedback loops

Observations and some ideas

Problems in adoption of novel methods

No predefined process/pipeline for novel method uptake

No predefined threshold or pass criteria * TRL Representativeness Sensitivity Precision Comparability Cost-effectiveness Environmental impact

Pushback/ procedural roadblocks

Possible solutions

Define novel method uptake process (HELCOM?)

Define minimal acceptance criteria (HELCOM?) Both general (TRL) and descriptor/ indicator specific

requirements Require standardization of methods and protocols (CEN/ISO)

Introduce two categories of methods (analogies to standardization) Binding, agreed by all ( like standards) Accepted by 3- 4 members, but non–binding (like technical

specifications)

*Hering et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.03.003

There are novel methods that can address and should be used to fill current gaps in Baltic Sea (indicator) monitoring

There is a need to improve the pipeline process for novel method adoption into Baltic monitoring (e.g. in HELCOM by S&C and GEAR)

There is a need to develop clear criteria for prospect method screening and theiracceptance into the pipeline (e.g. HELCOM expert networks or S&C)

Methods in the pipeline should require cooperation with CEN/ ISO

HELCOM would be perfectly suited to launch and maintain this pipeline process (as part of the BSAP)

HELCOM could promote wider adoption of novel methods and achieve higher overallimpact by using links to other regional Sea commissions (e.g. GEAR)

Recommendations

Thank you for your attention!