Internal meeting of WP2, WP3, WP5 and WP6 June 2016, Helsinki

From Opasnet
Jump to: navigation, search

Internal meeting of WP2, WP3, WP5 and WP6, June 2016, Helsinki

Time: June 15th 2016

Place: Ympäristötalo, University of Helsinki

Participants: Mia Pihlajamäki (UOulu), Timo P. Karjalainen (UOulu), Simo Sarkki (UOulu), Kirsi Hoviniemi (UOulu), Jouni Tuomisto (THL), Arja Asikainen (THL), Inari Helle (UH), Suvi Ignatius (UH), Päivi Haapasaari (UH), Annukka Lehikoinen (UH via Skype).

Aim of the meeting: Discuss the decision support model and particularly the linkage between the scenarios and the model.

Scenarios: Mia described the scenario building process done in WP3. The process is two-fold. Firstly, explorative scenarios for the Baltic Sea area in 2040 are built based on existing literature. This work will be structured around two identified key uncertainties that relate to governance and human impact. Secondly, these general scenarios are linked to the decision support model by using literature, consumer questionnaire and expert consultation.

Currently, the scenarios are not included in the decision support model, but they should provide input for different variables that are eutrophication, dioxin input, herring use and salmon policy in 2040. However, using eutrophication as a variable needs further elaboration, because based on literature review it seems that the salinity, temperature and oxygen are the main drivers behind the changes in the zooplankton and -benthos biomass while the role of eutrophication seems more uncertain.

Spatial and cultural variability is another issue that needs further discussion. Baltic herring has five stocks that different Baltic Sea countries fish with different strategies. It would be optimal to include all of them into the dioxin model (WP5), if the SLU team is able to provide dioxin content information needed. On the other hand, for Baltic salmon using one generic model might be beneficial to consider since their stocks are river based and because salmon adds only a little for the human intake of dioxins. It was acknowledged that the migration behavior of Baltic salmon needs further clarification.

Decision support model: Annukka gave a brief update on the work that has been done by the SLU team. Interfaces between the SLU model and the governance model were discussed. Spatial variability in the dioxin concentration in herring and management options for salmon are among the points for further consideration. For the dioxin model (WP5) 17 cm is the most important cutting point for the size of an individual herring. The dioxin concentration distribution in both salmon and herring should be as detailed as possible.

The structure of the decision support model was discussed. It was suggested that basin could be added as a decision node. Descriptions (states it can have, units that can be used, and the source of information) for each variable of the model should be added. It was decided that the most recent version of the model will be downloaded into Opasnet where it can be accessed by using password. Arja and Jouni will provide further instructions by email.

Next steps:

  • Contact researchers from the SLU team about their thoughts on the dynamics between eutrophication and zooplankton and -benthos and guidance for finding other relevant literature. Cc the correspondence to the meeting participants. (Responsibility: UOulu/Mia)
  • Consult Tapani Pakarinen from LUKE about the migration behavior of Baltic salmon.
  • The deadline for D3.2 online description of scenarios developed is the end of July. First draft of the description will be published in Opasnet before mid-summer by UOulu and participants of the meeting are informed and comments are invited.
  • In August 2016 the SLU team will have an internal workshop where they will define structure of the sub model that is integrated to the governance model.