Outcome of the sixth meeting of project for modernization of the pollution load compilation database (HELCOM PLUS )

Transcription

1 Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission Project on Development of a HELCOM Pollution Load User System Helsinki, Finland, 9-10 September 2014 PLUS Outcome of the sixth meeting of project for modernization of the pollution load compilation database (HELCOM PLUS ) Table of contents Introduction... 2 Agenda Item 1 Adoption of the Agenda... 2 Agenda Item 2 Information by Secretariat and Contracting Parties... 2 Agenda Item 3 Review of the first draft of PLC-6 Data reporting templates... 2 Agenda Item 4 Questions and comments from PLUS team to the latest draft of PLC-6 guidelines... 3 Agenda Item 5 List of Migration issues due to missing and inconsistent data... 3 Agenda Item 6 Preliminary prototype of PLUS application with implementation of data upload including QA level Agenda Item 7 Future work and coordination with national experts and project group... 4 Agenda Item 8 Any other business... 5 Agenda Item 9 Closing of the Meeting... 5 Annex 1 List of Participants... 6 Annex 2 Feedback on reporting templates... 7 Annex 3 Feedback on migration issues... 8 Page 1 of 10

2 Introduction In accordance with decisions of HELCOM PLUS 5/2014 (paragraph 6.3 of the Outcome of the Meeting) the 6 th Meeting of Project on Development of a HELCOM Pollution Load User System (HELCOM PLUS 6/2014) was held at the premises of the HELCOM Secretariat on 9-10 September The Meeting was attended by representatives from the Contracting Parties Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Russia, Sweden as well as project partners from the Finnish Environment Institute SYKE and Baltic Nest Institute BNI, Sweden. The list of participants is contained in Annex 1 to this Outcome. The main purpose of the Workshop was to allow national PLC data experts the possibility to provide input for the first version of PLC-6 reporting templates and to discuss and clarify the issues reported by the PLUS team during Database migration due to missing or inconsistent data sets. The Workshop also discussed the questions, comments and issues raised by the PLUS team related to the latest version of the PLC-6 Guidelines. The Workshop also considered a preliminary prototype of the PLUS application containing the implementation of QA level 0. Mr. Lars M. Svendsen, PLC-6 Project Manager, chaired the workshop and Ms. Minna Pyhälä, HELCOM Secretariat, and Mr. Sriram Sethuraman, PLUS Project Manager, acted as secretaries of the Meeting. Agenda Item 1 Documents: 1-1 Adoption of the Agenda 1.1 The Meeting adopted the provisional agenda as contained in document 1-1. Agenda Item 2 Documents: 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 Information by Secretariat and Contracting Parties 2.1 The Meeting took note of information provided by the Secretariat and Chairman about the on-going activities to streamline HELCOM and that after the meeting of HELCOM HOD (on September 2014), there should be more clarity about the LOAD work in the future. 2.2 The Meeting took note of progress with the PLUS project as presented by the Project Manager Mr. Sriram Sethuraman (document 2-1). Agenda Item 3 Documents: 3-1 Review of the first draft of PLC-6 Data reporting templates 3.1 The Meeting scrutinized the first draft of the PLC-6 data reporting templates for annual and periodic reporting (document 3-1) and provided feedback as contained in Annex The Meeting invited Contracting Parties (also those not present at the meetings) to provide further feedback on the templates (see also paragraph 6.5) to the Data Consultant SYKE (pekka.kotilainen@ymparisto.fi and antti.raike@ymparisto.fi) and the PLUS Project Manager (sriram.sethuraman@helcom.fi) by 19 September The Meeting was of the view that the old database should be maintained until the new database can be used for data reporting. The Meeting felt that it should be possible to report 2013 data into the new SQL database. The Meeting considered whether Contracting Parties could report their 2013 Page 2 of 10

3 data using only the new annual reporting template to the new database if the reporting deadline is extended. The Meeting was of the view that this would save resources, especially to avoid duplicate work by the Data Manager and was of the opinion that no further new data should be entered in the old database. 3.4 The Meeting noted the preliminary willingness of Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany and Sweden to report 2013 data using the new reporting template provided that: the templates have been carefully reviewed and understood by the Contracting Parties. the reporting templates are ready six weeks before the reporting deadline, and the reporting deadline is extended to e.g. 31 December 2014 or 1 February 2015 (deadline to be decided once reporting templates are finalized). 3.5 The Meeting invited Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia to inform by 19 September 2014 of their possibilities to report using the new templates. 3.6 The Meeting mandated the LOAD core group to review the situation in the beginning of October 2014 and decide on how to proceed with reporting of 2013 data. 3.7 The Meeting suggested that a revised version of the templates should be scrutinized in an online meeting. Agenda Item 4 Documents: 4-1, 4-1-Rev1, 4-2 Questions and comments from PLUS team to the latest draft of PLC-6 guidelines 4.1 The Meeting considered and discussed the questions and comments to the PLC -6 Guidelines as raised by the PLUS project team (document 4-1). The Meeting provided feedback to the comments as contained in document 4-1-Rev The Meeting also updated the PLC-6 guidelines in accordance with the decisions of the Meeting (document 4-2). Agenda Item 5 Documents: 5-1 List of Migration issues due to missing and inconsistent data 5.1 The Meeting took note of and considered the issues that have come up during the migration of the PLC-Water database from MS Access to SQL as presented in document The Meeting considered the information related to data inconsistencies in load, flow and other tables presented in an Excel file and noted that these require checking and input also from Contracting Parties. The Meeting agreed that the Data Manager SYKE should clarify which information specifically should be checked and provided/corrected by Contracting Parties and invited SYKE to forward the relevant files (with sections that need checking clearly marked) for checking to the Contracting Parties by the end of September 2014 with the view that Contracting Parties should submit their corrections and/or missing information to the Data Consultant SYKE (pekka.kotilainen@ymparisto.fi and antti.raike@ymparisto.fi) by 20 October The Meeting recalled that some Contracting Parties are planning to resubmit all their PLC data (from 1994 onwards) and that this will help to fill in the data gaps. The Meeting stressed that Contracting Parties should use the new reporting templates for resubmitting data. Page 3 of 10

4 5.4 The Meeting recalled that there is a need to have a complete list of all possible methods used by Contracting Parties (including name of the method, purpose (estimation, calculation, retention, treatment, etc.)). The Meeting recalled that a list of methods already included in the database has been compiled and sent for checking to Contracting Parties on 14 August 2014 by the PLUS Project Manager and invited Contracting Parties to forward their comments and input to Mr. Sriram Sethuraman (sriram.sethuraman@helcom.fi) by 19 September The Meeting discussed the open issues and provided recommendations for resolving them as contained in Annex 3. Agenda Item 6 Documents: None Preliminary prototype of PLUS application with implementation of data upload including QA level The Meeting welcomed the presentation of a preliminary prototype of the PLUS application containing the implementation of QA level 0, as presented by the PLUS Application developer Mr. Alexander Sokolov (presentation 1), and felt that it is a promising start. 6.2 The Meeting also welcomed the information that it will be possible to start testing the application with the QA level 0 approximately 3 weeks after the reporting template has been finalized, and was of the opinion that it will be a good opportunity to also test the reporting template. 6.3 The Meeting discussed the uploading functionalities of the database and felt that it should be possible to update/report/upload data also separately, i.e. point sources, monitored vs. unmonitored areas, metadata etc. (not just uploaded as a complete country-wise dataset). 6.4 The Meeting also suggested that in order to minimize errors and to improve reporting efficiency, it might be useful to develop automatic procedures to generate codes for possible new entries (e.g. new point sources, stations etc.) into the database. 6.5 The Meeting invited Contracting Parties to consider data uploading possibilities about reporting template worksheets that should be possible to report separately (cf. paragraph 6.3) and to provide their ideas and preferences to the PLUS Project Manager (sriram.sethuraman@helcom.fi) by 19 September Agenda Item 7 Documents: None Future work and coordination with national experts and project group 7.1 The Meeting discussed how to ensure coordination with national experts from the Contracting Parties during the various phases of implementation of the PLUS project and the involvement of the project group/steering group, and expect tasks and inputs. The Meeting was satisfied that the PLUS project has kept Contracting Parties informed via the PLUS workshops and correspondence. 7.2 The Meeting discussed the future activities of the PLUS project and agreed that there is a need to have a ½- 1 day meeting to review the new reporting formats and test the preliminary prototype of the PLUS application. The Meeting reserved November 2014 for such a meeting, to be arranged via Skype or at the premises of the Secretariat. Page 4 of 10

5 Agenda Item 8 Documents: None Any other business 8.1 The Meeting took note of information on development of the OSPAR RID database modernization project as informed by the Chair of the OSPAR INPUT group Mr. Lars Sonesten. Sweden and Denmark have shared information about HELCOM PLUS activities in relevant OSPAR meetings but OSPAR is not ready to further develop the OSPAR RID database at this stage. Agenda Item 9 Documents: 9-1 Closing of the Meeting 9.1 The Meeting adopted the draft Outcome of the Meeting as contained in document 9-1. The final Outcome, together with the documents and presentations considered by the Meeting, will be available in the HELCOM Meeting Portal. Page 5 of 10

6 Annex 1 List of Participants Chair Lars M. Svendsen Denmark Danish Center for Environment and Energy, Aarhus University, lms@dmu.dk Denmark Contracting Parties Jytte Erfurt Denmark Aarhus University je@dmu.dk Peeter Ennet Estonia Estonian Environment Agency Peeter.Ennet@envir.ee Antti Räike Finland Finnish Environment Institute SYKE antti.raike@ymparisto.fi Dietmar Koch Germany German Federal Environment Agency dietmar.koch@uba.de Natalia Oblomkova Russia Saint-Petersburg Public Organization "Ecology and Business" oblomkova@helcom.ru (Via Skype) Lars Sonesten Sweden Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU Lars.Sonesten@slu.se Project Partners Bo Gustafsson Future Database Host Baltic Nest Institute, Sweden bo.gustafsson@su.se Alexander Sokolov Web Application developer Baltic Nest Institute, Sweden alexander.sokolov@su.se Marco Manzi Database expert Finnish Environment Institute SYKE marco.manzi@ymparisto.fi Secretariat Dmitry Frank-Kamenetsky Professional Secretary HELCOM Secretariat Dmitry.Frank-Kamenetsky@helcom.fi Minna Pyhälä Assisting Professional HELCOM Secretariat minna.pyhala@helcom.fi Secretary Sriram Sethuraman Project Manager HELCOM Secretariat sriram.sethuraman@helcom.fi Page 6 of 10

7 Annex 2 Feedback on reporting templates The Meeting scrutinized the first draft of the PLC-6 data reporting templates for annual and periodic reporting (document 3-1) and provided the following feedback: General comments 1. Rename FISH_FARM_PRODUCTION should be renamed to AQUACULTURE_PRODUCTION 2. In the worksheet names, change spaces to underscores 3. The POINT_SOURCE worksheet should be renamed POINT_SOURCE_BACKGROUND because it is for reporting the background information on all point sources (e.g. coordinates, size etc). 4. Row 1 should contain the header columns where there are headings in two rows (e.g. MWWTP Parameters) it would be preferable to include the heading in one cell 5. Make sure that the units to be reported should be included in the comments/instructions The reporting templates needs to be carefully cross-checked and updated with the latest version of chapters 13 and 14 of the PLC-6 guidelines Annual reporting template 1. In the SUBCATCHMENT sheet, the instruction in column J should be corrected to state reporting period rather than monitoring period. 2. In the SUBCATCHMENT worksheet, column R (Nr_Catchments) the description (comment) refers to coastal areas which are not included in the guidelines anymore 3. Column P (TRANSBOUNDARY) add unit km2 4. The worksheet SUBCATCHMENT_LOAD should be called SUBCATCHMENT_FLOW_LOAD 5. In the LOAD and concentration and POINT_SOURCE sheets, the columns entitled LOQ should be modified so that Contracting Parties can define whether they report LOQ or LOD 6. The List of catchment areas is missing a heading for column G 7. There are many columns and sheets in the annual reporting form which are included even though they don t need to be reported (they are only required for periodic reporting). It should be clearly marked (as obligatory/voluntary or coloured) so that CPs know they do not need to report the information annual. Concerning background information (i.e. PE) that CPs can update voluntarily as new information becomes available, it should be prefilled in as much as possible. 8. In the SUBCATCHMENT worksheet, it should not be necessary to create new unmonitored area codes every year (e.g. the examples in rows ). 9. Inputs from transboundary catchments should be reported in a separate worksheet (separate columns for source apportionment should be available for option report). 10. From the STATION worksheet, column G (IS_PRIMARY) should be removed and column K (STATION_TYPE) seems to be wrong (at least it is not in correspondence with the station code name) 11. Only DIRECT point sources are to be reported annually now the list includes all point sources. 12. In the POINT_SOURCE sheet the column headings ACTIVITY_START_DATE and ACTIVITY_END_DATA, the word Activity is misleading, because it could be interpreted as related to monitoring or the existence of the point source. What are these fields used for? It would make sense that for still active point sources, the end date should be blank. The start date is also unclear because some sources might have been active since many decades even 13. The fish farm codes (F) in the plant type and in the plant code name should be changed to A (aquaculture) 14. Remove the NA option in the SUBCATCHMENT_LOAD sheet for the column DATA_SOURCE_FLAG_ID. The options need to be revisited. Periodic reporting template The same changes as in the annual reporting template where relevant. Page 7 of 10

8 Annex 3 Feedback on migration issues Summary of relevant data inconsistency issues discovered during the Database migration process Important Note: This document includes the latest issues regarding the load, flow and other tables including areal definitions and related metadata as of August New Questions to be addressed by the Contracting Parties More specific details related to data inconsistencies in load, flow and other tables can be found in the following document: 58/Documents%20for%20CP%20commenting/Excluded_loads-migration-v xlsx LOAD, FLOW and other tables including SOURCE_APPORTIONMENT 1. Missing codes/period combinations for different load and flow tables E.g. Codes/period combinations which are in TBL_SUBCATCHMENT_LOAD but are missing in the SUBCATCHMENT table Proposed actions Data will be checked by Data Manager and requested from contracting parties 2. Double data reported with different values E.g. Different load values reported for same sub catchment id. Proposed actions Correct values will be requested from contracting parties and duplicate entries will be deleted 3. [NR_MEASUREMENTS] < [DETECTION_LIMIT_NUMBER] in many cases for different load tables Proposed actions Correct values can be requested from Contracting Parties. 4. PARAMETER_ID] NOT BETWEEN 1 AND 25 -> parameters with prefix '9' used (presumably only) for PLC-5.5 assessment Currently PLC 5.5 data is not migrated. Comment from the Meeting: The Data Manager SYKE should clarify which information specifically should be checked and provided/corrected by Contracting Parties. SYKE to forward the relevant files (with sections that need checking clearly marked) for checking to the Contracting Parties by the end of September 2014 with the view that Contracting Parties should submit their corrections and/or missing information to the Data Manager (pekka.kotilainen@ymparisto.fi) by 20 October Some Contracting Parties are planning to resubmit all their PLC data (from 1994 onwards) and this will help to fill in the data gaps. Contracting Parties should use the new reporting templates for resubmitting data. Pending migration issues discussed during SKYPE meeting on Complete List of all possible methods, including name of the method, purpose (estimation, calculation, retention, treatment, etc.) Contracting parties to comment and provide updated method list to the PLC-6 Guidelines annexure. Current list of methods available in the database has been provided to CP s by the PLUS team. Page 8 of 10

9 For more details on migration issues due to inconsistency in areal definitions (subcatchments, point sources etc.), see the following documents: 58/Documents%20for%20CP%20commenting/Migration_issues_ docx 58/Documents%20for%20CP%20commenting/Migration_Issues_Summary_ xlsx Comment from the Meeting: There is a need to have a complete list of all possible methods used by Contracting Parties (including name of the method, purpose (estimation, calculation, retention, treatment, etc.)). The list of methods already included in the database has been compiled and sent for checking to Contracting Parties on 14 August 2014 by the PLUS Project Manager and Contracting Parties should forward their comments and input to Mr. Sriram Sethuraman (sriram.sethuraman@helcom.fi) by 19 September Decisions taken for migration issues during SKYPE meeting on Regarding the difference in surface areas of catchments between the ones provided by BNI in the database. Clarification regarding classification of Seleznevka river as transboundary Decisions & Actions PLUS team (Pekka) to provide a list of catchments and the surface areas whose values differ from the ones provided by BNI in the database to Contracting Parties. Contracting parties to comment and agree on the correct surface areas to use during the PLUS-6 workshop in September ( Ongoing ) Comment from the Meeting: The catchment areas should not be compared with the BNI dataset since there are many differences in catchment figures depending on the dataset used. The data consultant should forward a list of catchments with inconsistent surface areas to CPs for checking. The database should only include the latest (most correct) area of the catchment. However for transboundary area calculations, the area distribution % specified in the guidelines can be used and these can be prefilled in the reporting template area Note: It should be noted that the catchment area itself should not change often, but the unmonitored vs monitored areas will/may change regularly. Seleznevka river to be considered as transboundary according to Natalia. 2. Area size discrepancies and missing areas for subcatchments Decisions & Actions Data Manager will provide a list of subcatchments with issues + missing area sizes to CP and request for correction ( Ongoing ) Comment from the Meeting: See comment above. 3. Missing Coordinates and other information for stations Decisions & Actions Missing information for DE, RU and SE monitoring stations have been provided ( Completed ) Data Manager will request missing coordinates for stations from EE and FI (Ongoing ) 4. Inconsistent and empty data for point sources. Decisions & Actions Data Manager will provide a list of point sources with issues to CP and request for correction or deletion of the old ones ( Ongoing ) Page 9 of 10

10 5. RETENTION data inconsistencies Data Manager will clarify these with contracting parties and request for actions. ( Ongoing ) 6. REPORTING OF TOTAL vs. SOURCE APPORTIONED LOADS Data Manager can provide discrepancies between total loads and source apportioned loads. They can be flagged using the new QA system accordingly by the Load Core Group or National Quality Assurer Annex 1 List of corrections proposed for different data inconsistencies (Load, Flow, Source apportionment, Retention and Diffuse source tables) 1. Proposed to update value_status from E = Estimated to M = Measured where NR_MEASUREMENT >0 - OK 2. Proposed to update the NR_MEASUREMENT to -1 where [NR_MEASUREMENTS] IS NULL AND [VALUE_STATUS] IS NULL - OK 3. Proposed to update the METHOD to Unknown where Method id is wrong or not found. - OK 4. Proposed to change the number of measurements below LOQ to NULL in cases where the total number of measurements is unknown or not reported. No, and the data entry system should allow for submitting of data below LOQ even if the number of measurements is not available to report 5. Proposed to change the status to E = estimated, where [VALUE_STATUS] = 'M' AND [NR_MEASUREMENTS] = 0 OK and in the future it should be flagged at Q1 level for CPs to check/correct if necessary 6. Proposed to change PARAMETER_STATUS to 'TOT', where it is SUM as it's the only type to be reported for NATURAL BAGROUND LOSSES Yes, it should be TOT 7. Proposed to change to m3/a in cases where unit is wrongly reported as m3/s or m3/d No. This should be flagged and CPs should be asked to check and correct. If it is obvious that in one year the wrong units have been reported (by comparing to other years), then it is OK to make the change (Data manager to check). 8. Correct wrong unit to % ('mg/l' used instead of '%' for N and P removal %) CPs should be asked to re-report as % 9. Correct TREATMENT_STATUS to U instead of TREATMENT_STATUS = 'T' (treated) where TREATMENT_METHOD is reported as Untreated and vice versa, where TREATMENT methods have been reported. No. This needs to be checked with CPs and in the future it should be flagged at Q1 level for CPs to check/correct if necessary 10. Corrections to MONITORING_STATUS parameter in case of different inconsistencies. This needs to be checked with CPs and in the future it should be flagged at Q1 level for CPs to check/correct if necessary Page 10 of 10