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 1.Nutrients & Eutrophication 2.Hazardous substances 3.Salt marshes 4.Zostera fields 5.Blue mussel beds 6.Macrozoobenthos

5. 1: Nu trients 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. S alt 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. 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