Docstoc

Group D - PowerPoint Presentatio

Document Sample
Group D - PowerPoint Presentatio Powered By Docstoc
					Presented by:
Felix CHOI Fuk Sing                   (1988221513)
Terence CHING Chun Ying               (2005920188)
David HO Ka Yan                       (2000264979)
Amanda NG Yu Yan                      (2005920243)
Picture source: http://www.pka.gov.my/Intro.htm
                                                     1
   Flow of presentation
• Background
• The risk assessment approaches
  – Retrospective risk assessment
  – Prospective risk assessment
  – Comparative risk and uncertainty
    assessment
• Assessment of socioeconomic drivers
• Recommendations and proposed
  actions                               2
Background
                         Introduction
      • Initial risk assessment – one of the
        component activities of the Port
        Klang Integrated Coastal
        Management (ICM) Project
      • Inter-agency,
        multi-disciplinary
        Technical Working
        Group
Picture Source: Port Klang Integrated Coastal
Management National Demonstration Project, 2005
                                                  4
            Objectives
• Evaluate the impacts of various
  pollutants
• Identify activities that contribute to
  pollution
• Identify gaps and uncertainties for a
  refined risk assessment

                                           5
• Make recommendations

• Identify significant agencies and
  institutions which can contribute to
  refined risk assessment and long-
  term management

• Identify priority concerns

                                         6
                              Study area
  • Project area:
    1,484.53 km2
  • Population:
    742,837 (Year 2000)
  • Population density:
    500 people/km2
  • Two main rivers
       – Sg. Klang
       – Sg. Langat
Picture Source: Port Klang Integrated Coastal
Management National Demonstration Project, 2005   7
• Huge land use conflicts

• Pollution from upstream sources

• Industrial and housing projects in
  the upstream areas



                                       8
The risk assessment approach
• A combination of retrospective and
  prospective approaches
  – To indicate the relative importance of
    different adverse effects and their
    causes
  – Lead to appropriate, cost-effective
    management programmes

                                             9
• Principles

  – Identify problems and causes based on
    systematic and transparent way

  – Can be justified by community and can
    be revisited when more information
    available


                                            10
• Key concept

  – Comparison between environmental
    conditions and threshold values likely
    to cause adverse effects in the targets
    under consideration




                                              11
     Retrospective Risk
        Assessment

“What evidence is there for harm being
 done to targets in the Port Klang”
Retrospective Risk Assessment ?
   • Ecological effects   Stressor (s)




    Significant                                      Land clearing for Ascribe
       effect                                          agriculture     causation
                          Extinction
Picture source: http://www.css.cornell.edu/ecf3/Web/new/AF/ASB_01.html
                http://www.rictus.com/viz/photos/nature/elephant.jpg
                                                                                   13
                             Aim
        Human activities                Damage
       (Suspected agents)              (Observed effects)
•   Overexploitation            • Decline in number of species
•   Land clearing/reclamation   • Decline in population of
•   Oil spillage                  selected species
•   Discharge organic wastes    • Extinction of specific species
•   Discharge inorganic wastes  • Increase in invader species
•   Use of pesticides



                                                
•   Discharge of heavy metals
•   Use of tributyltin (TBT)        Degradation & decline in
                                            biodiversity
                                                                   14
          Methodology
• Review various studies, reports &
  projects to collect relevant data on
  identified targets
• Problem formulation
• Conduct retrospective risk
  assessment

                                         15
   Problem Formulation
• Define targets
• Identify suspected (or known) agents
  that cause adverse effects on targets
• Evaluate linkage between agents and
  targets



                                          16
     Agents   Targets
1. Is the target exposed to any of the agents?
2. Was there any loss/es that occurred following
   exposure? Was there any loss/es correlated through
   space?
3. Does the exposure concentration exceed the threshold
   where adverse effects start to happen?
4. Do the results from controlled exposure in field
   experiments lead to the same effect? Will removal of
   the agent lead to amelioration?
5. Is there specific evidence in the target as a result of
   exposure to the agent?
6. Does it make sense (logically and scientifically)?
                                                             17
       Possible Answers
•   Yes (Y)
•   No (N)
•   Maybe (M)
•   Unknown (?)
•   No Data (ND)
•   Not Relevant (NR)
                          18
      Likelihood of Harm
Based on knowledge of exposure to the agent;
available information about exposure and effect
levels
•Likely (L) – agent is likely a cause of the decline
•Possibly (P) – agent cannot be excluded as a
cause of the decline
•Unlikely (U) – agent is unlikely to have caused
the decline
•Unknown (?) – Not enough information available
                                                       19
       Decision Criteria Table
                 Question
   1   2a   2b   3     4a   4b   5    6    Result               Conclusion
   N   N    N                                U    No correlation
   Y    Y    Y   ND   ND    ND   ND   ND     P    Just correlation
                                                  Correlation but negative evidence
   Y    Y    Y    N                          U    for cause-effect
   Y    Y    Y                        N      U    Spurious correlation
                                                  Correlation with some evidence of
   Y    Y    Y                               L    cause-effect
                                                  Correlation but lack of evidence for
   Y    Y    Y   ND    N                     P    cause-effect
                                                  Correlation with evidence for cause-
                                                  effect and recovery does not
   Y    Y    Y    Y    Y    N                L    always happen
                                                  Correlation with very strong
   Y    Y    Y    Y    Y         Y    Y     VL    evidence for cause-effect
                                                  correlation with strong evidence for
   Y    Y    Y    Y    Y         Y          VL    cause-effect
                                                  Correlation but scientific/logical
   Y    Y    Y    Y                   M      P    justification lacking
                                                  Cause-effect relationship known to
                                                  be possible in principle, but no
  ND                                  Y      ?    evidence in this case

Source: Pork Klang Initial Risk Assessment – Appendix 5
                                                                                         20
                      Decision Table




                                                                                                           Land Reclamation

                                                                                                                              Other Activities
                                                                         Sedimentation



                                                                                               Pollution
    Mangroves of Klang Island




                                                                                         TSS
1. Is the target exposed to any of the agents?                              M Y M                              Y                  Y
2a. Was there any loss/es that occurred following exposure?                 M Y M                              Y                  Y
2b. Was there any loss/es correlated through space?                         M ND M                             Y                  Y
3. Does the exposure concentration exceed the threshold where
                                                                            M            Y       M            M                  M
adverse effects start to happen?
4a. Do the results from controlled exposure in field experiments
                                                                         ND ND ND NR NR
lead to the same effect?
4b. Will removal of the agent lead to amelioration?                          Y           Y       Y             Y                  Y
5. Is there specific evidence in the target as a result of exposure to
                                                                         ND              Y     ND              Y                  Y
the agent?
6. Does it make sense (logically and scientifically)?                        Y           Y       N             Y                  Y
                                                            Likelihood       ?           P       ?             L                  L

Source: Pork Klang Initial Risk Assessment – Table 4
                                                                                                                                                 21
      Scope & Findings
• Resources – fisheries (?) &
  aquaculture (technology, water
  contamination and diseases)
• Habitat – mangroves (removal of
  forest reserve & land reclamation)
• Wildlife – mammals, birds, aquatic
  fauna (change in land use 
  loss/degradation of habitats)
                                       22
          Limitations
• Insufficient quantitative data
• Agents   Targets – not clearly
  defined
• Difficult to correlate between the
  agents and resources



                                       23
       Recommendations
• Conduct more comprehensive researches
• Allow sufficient time to detect changes in
  number of species/population
• Determine exposure, correlation &
  cause-effect relationships between
  potentially significant agents

                                               24
 Retrospective Risk Assessment
                Manage
              HARMFUL
              ACTIVITIES    Reduce harm to
HARMFUL
                           ECOLOGICAL
ACTIVITIES
                 Observe     SYSTEM
   Identify   ECOLOGICAL
               PROBLEMS

   PAST         PRESENT       FUTURE
                                             25
Prospective Risk
  Assessment
 Prospective risk assessment
• Involves predicting likely effects on targets
  from knowledge of a particular agent.
• Involves comparison of exposure and effect
  concentrations
• Aims to determine if measured or predicted
  levels of environmental parameters are
  likely to cause harm to targets of interest.


                                                  27
              Start Point
• a comparison of measured environmental
  concentrations (MECs) and predicted no-
  effect concentrations (PNECs) in order to
  obtain risk quotients (RQs).




                                              28
          Risk Quotient
• For ERA:
  RQ = MEC (or PEC) / PNEC
• For human health
  RQ = MEL (or PEL) / LOC
Where     RQ < 1 Low risk
          RQ >= 1 High risk


                              29
• Study area
  – Water column contaminations
  – Air quality


• 3 types of RQs are constructed
  – RQmax
  – RQmin
  – RQave



                                   30
        Preliminary Study
         – Water Column
–   Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
–   Ammoniacal nitrogen (AN),
–   Total suspended solid (TSS),
–   E. coli.,
–   Arsenic (As),
–   Mercury (Hg),
–   Oil and grease.


                                       31
      Preliminary Study
       – Water Quality
– Data analysis from the reports of DOE-Selangor
  with monthly monitoring observations from 24
  stations from 1990 – 2000 (Klang River, Klang
  River estuary and Straits of Klang).
– PNECs from Malaysia standards.
– Result: RQave > 1 (except As)
– Further investigation on 5 coastal zones.

                                                   32
       Further Investigation
• 5 coastal zones are identified
  –   Pantai Morib (recreation),
  –   Kuala Langat at Jugra (aquaculture),
  –   Kuala Langat,
  –   Kuala Klang,
  –   Selat Klang Utara.
• Data: DOE-Selangor
• PNECs: Malaysia / ASEAN standards

                                             33
           Agents Studied
–   Dissolved oxygen (DO),
–   Suspended solid (SS),
–   pH,
–   Turbidity (NTU),
–   As, Hg, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb,
–   E. Coli,
–   Oil and grease


                              34
               Findings
– RQave of E. Coli., suspended solid and oil and
  grease of 5 coastal zones are all over 1.
– RQave of pH, As, Hg, Cd, Cr, Cu and Pb of 5
  coastal zones are all below 1.
– RQave of NTU varied between 0.3-2.69
– RQave of DO varied between 0.8-1.25




                                                   35
       Risk from E. Coli

– Contamination to aquaculture products and risk
  to human health.

– Recreation in marine water poses human health
  risk.




                                                   36
Risk from Suspended Solid
– Affect aquaculture industry, especially shrimps
– Affect aesthetic nature and recreational use.
– Reduce light penetration and inhibit
  photosynthetic process
– Identified causes: land reclamation projects,
  aquaculture, agriculture, upland forestry,
  mining, discharge of wastes from various
  sources, dredging, trawling and mangrove
  conversion.

                                                    37
Risk from Oil & Grease Wastes
  – Adverse impacts on marine flora and fauna.
  – Lab. study shows that fish exposed to sublethal
    levels of petroleum experienced negative
    effects on reproductive, development,
    behaviour, subcellular structure, premature
    death.




                                                      38
 Sources of Uncertainties
– Data collected from each station at different
  periods were combined to provided single
  estimates of means and worse-case RQs.
– Use of standards and criteria from other
  locations might not be totally suitable for Port
  Klang.




                                                     39
      Further Investigation
• Further investigation was carried out for the
  water column of the Klang and Langat
  Rivers to confirm the risks identified in the
  risk assessment of coastal areas and the
  linkage with the major river systems.




                                                  40
         Priority Concerns
• The priority concerns identified in the risk
  assessment of Klang and Langat Rivers are
  consistent with the priority concerns for
  selected coastal areas, showing the strong
  influence of the two rivers on the water
  quality of these coastal areas.



                                                 41
           Air Pollution
– Risk assessment: suspended particulate (PM10),
  sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
  carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3).
– Primarily due to automobiles, industrial
  activities, domestic combustion and thermal
  power plant operations.




                                                   42
           Data Sources
• Data collected from database of Sekolah
  Menengah Perempuan Raja Zarina station.
• PEC data are average data collected from
  Dec. 1996 – Mar. 2000.
• PNECs are based on air quality standards
  recommended by DOE Malaysia.



                                             43
                  Result
• The result of the initial risk assessment
  show that except for CO, all worse-case
  RQs exceed 1




                                              44
Comparative Risk
  Assessment




                   45
     Comparative Risk Assessment
   Objective:
   • Compare RQs in
     Prospective Risk
     Assessment
   • Identify agents with
     highest risks
   • Decide management priority
Picture source: http://www.entershanghai.info/country/Ci_20_set.htm
                                                                      46
Assessed areas:
   1. Coastal water
   2. Klang River & Langat River
   3. Sediment
   4. Ambient air
Methodology:
 - Compare between RQAve (average) & RQMax (worst
   case)
- List all RQs in a summary table
- Make a bar chart to compare the RQAve & RQMax


                                                    47
       Comparative Risk Assessment of Water-Borne
       Substance in Coastal Areas
Average                                                 Worst
                                                        case
       RQ       0-1           1-10             10-100
 Agents
 DO                    0.8     1.3
 SS                          1.4      7
 Turbidity      0.3                        8
 Heavy
         0.02         0.5
 Metals
 E. Coli                     1.8                  34
 Oil                         1.6     5.5
                                                            48
   Comparative Risk Assessment of E. Coli in
               Coastal Areas

        RQ     0-1       1-10        10-100
Site
Pantai Morib
Kuala Langat
at Jugra
Kuala Klang
Kuala Langat
Selat Klang
Utara
                                               49
                   Findings
1. Coastal water
   - high risk agents: E. coli, oil, SS, turbidity & DO
   - high risk sites:
      SS – Kuala Langat
      E.coli – Kuala Klang, Pantai Morib, Langat
      Oil – Jugra, Selat Klang Utara, Pantai Morib




                                                          50
2a. Klang River
  - Higher organics (BO, BOD, COD), nutrient
  (NH3) & iron at middle stretch & estuarine of
  the river.

  - Higher nutrient P & metal As at the middle
  stretch.

  - E. Coli extremely high (RQ = 300 -2,000)
  along the river including catchment area

  - Immediate management is needed starting
  from catchment area.
                                                  51
2b. Langat River

  - Higher organics (BO, BOD, COD), SS,
  turbidity, NH3 at middle stretch & estuarine of
  the river.

  - E. Coli higher at the catchment area than the
  estuarine area

  - Immediate management is needed starting
  from catchment area.

                                                    52
3. Sediment
  - Port Klang: Highest RQ (28-235) in Oil
  & grease.

4. Air Quality

 - RQAve are all lower than 1
 - But mean API = 1.08
 - Forest fire in 1997, leads to haze
 phenomenon & high PM10

                                             53
              Uncertainty

• Differences between average & worst
  case
• Data gaps (e.g. lacks of MECs & local
  standards)




                                          54
Socioeconomic Drivers
    Socioeconomic Drivers
       for the changes

•   Change of land-use policy
•   Population increase
•   Agricultural development
•   Increased waste generation rate
Picture source: http://www.foudroyan.com/fonds_ecran/port_01.html


                                                                    56
Change of land-use policy
                                        •    State Government
                                             policy to develop as
                                             a developed state
                                        • Rapid changes of
                                          land use
                                        • Mangroves & peat
                                          swamp forests 
                                          other land uses
 Picture source: http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidbiotech/ag
                                                                    57
Illegal forest clearing leads to forest fires
           - Slash (cut) & burn!




   Picture source: http://www.css.cornell.edu/ecf3/Web/new/AF/ASB_01.html
   http://www.the-human-race.com/pages/toc.htm
   http://www.biology.duke.edu/bio217/2005/tnb/anthropogenic.html
   http://www.hibdonhardwood.com/Ecology/BlzEco02.html                      58
Impacts of land use change
• Shrinkage of mangroves
  & peat swamps
• Habitat loss
• Loss of shoreline
  protection
• Increase sedimentation
  rates
• Reduced biodiversity
   Picture source: http://www.nri.org/InTheField/bolivia_s_b.htm
                                                                   59
         Population increase
900000
800000
700000
600000
500000
                       = More      Klang
400000                 energy &    Kuala Langat
300000                 resources
200000
100000
                       needed!
     0
         1991   2000   2005
                                                  60
Agricultural development
• Mangrove in 1998

 Klang: 12,301 ha  10,871 ha = 88% left
 Kapar: 4,865 ha 410 ha = only 8% left!




  Picture source: http://veganimal.info/article_imprime.php3?id_article=18
  http://www.peninsulaflyfishers.org/Fishing_Tales/castingEyeBahamas02
                                                                             61
Agricultural activities bring ecological
stress by…
• Use of pesticides & fertilizers
• Generation of wastes
• Illegal clearing of forest (forest fire!)

 …which lead to:
   • Air pollution
   • Habitat loss
   • Reduced biodiversity
Picture source:
http://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/en/background/bi_FM3_Intro_e.php
http://www.inapg.inra.fr/ens_rech/bio/biotech/textes/societe/economie/ogm/mefia
nce-du-sud.htm
                                                                                  62
Increased waste generation rate
 (tons/day)
 700
 600
 500
 400                           Klang
 300                           Kuala Langat
Problem in landfill availability!
 200
 100
   0
        1994   2001   2005


                                              63
Recommendations & proposed
         actions
• Socioeconomic drivers
  – Wastes; industrial activities; agriculture;
    land use
  – Further assessment is needed, especially
    their linkage to the environment


• Human health
  – Determine risks from consumption of
    contaminated aquatic food products and
    exposure to contaminated coastal waters

                                                  65
• Quality of water, sediment and aquatic
  food products

  – A comprehensive control programme to
    prevent wastes discharges
  – Collecting data on heavy metals and
    tributyltin (TBT)
  – Extend risk assessment throughout the
    whole river basin
  – Wider application of the RQ approach
  – Review of the interim marine water quality
    standard


                                                 66
• Resources and habitats
  – Fisheries
     • Get the data for the indicators of fisheries
       conditions
          – E.g. Catch per unit of effort (CPUE), stock density,
            demersal biomass, changes in catch composition,
            maximum sustainable yield (MSY)
     • Evaluation of the fisheries management
       framework
  – Aquaculture
     •   Deliberately use of indicators
     •   Evaluate existing aquaculture practices
     •   Develop management guidelines
     •   Designate coastal aquaculture zones
                                                                   67
– Mangroves
   • Assess the ecological, economic and social effects
     of the degradation of mangrove ecosystems by
     using a systematic studies
   • Benefit-cost analysis of proposed development
     plan
   • Mangrove reforestation


– Wildlife
   • Comprehensive researches and cause-effect
     studies are needed



                                                          68
• Air quality
  – More detailed assessment for all existing
    parameters
  – Include other potentially-important
    parameters


• Data gaps
  – Verify identified concerns
  – Fill the data gaps by primary data collection
     • E.g. sediment load study; toxicology study


                                                    69
• Risk management
  – Develop long-term strategies and action
    programmes
    • Integrated land and water-use zoning
    • Large financial investments and technological
      resources are needed for environmental services,
      facilities, and clean technologies
    • Integrated environmental monitoring
      programme (IEMP)
    • Collaboration of stakeholders
    • Institutional arrangement



                                                         70

				
DOCUMENT INFO