1

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

2

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

Background

4

Introduction• Initial risk assessment – one of the

component activities of the Port Klang Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) Project

• Inter-agency,

multi-disciplinary

Technical Working

GroupPicture Source: Port Klang Integrated Coastal Management National Demonstration Project, 2005

5

Objectives

• Evaluate the impacts of various pollutants

• Identify activities that contribute to pollution

• Identify gaps and uncertainties for a refined risk assessment

6

• Make recommendations

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

• Identify priority concerns

7

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

8

• Huge land use conflicts

• Pollution from upstream sources

• Industrial and housing projects in the upstream areas

9

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

10

• Principles

– Identify problems and causes based on systematic and transparent way

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

11

• Key concept

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

Retrospective Risk Assessment

“What evidence is there for harm being done to targets in the Port Klang”

13

Retrospective Risk Assessment ?• Ecological effects Stressor (s)

Extinction

Land clearing foragriculture

Significanteffect

Ascribecausation

Picture source: http://www.css.cornell.edu/ecf3/Web/new/AF/ASB_01.html http://www.rictus.com/viz/photos/nature/elephant.jpg

14

AimHuman activities

(Suspected agents)

• Overexploitation

• Land clearing/reclamation

• Oil spillage

• Discharge organic wastes

• Discharge inorganic wastes

• Use of pesticides

• Discharge of heavy metals

• Use of tributyltin (TBT)

Damage

(Observed effects)

• Decline in number of species

• Decline in population of selected species

• Extinction of specific species

• Increase in invader species

Degradation & decline in biodiversity

15

Methodology

• Review various studies, reports & projects to collect relevant data on identified targets

• Problem formulation

• Conduct retrospective risk assessment

16

Problem Formulation

• Define targets

• Identify suspected (or known) agents that cause adverse effects on targets

• Evaluate linkage between agents and targets

17

Agents Targets1. 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)?

18

Possible Answers

• Yes (Y)

• No (N)

• Maybe (M)

• Unknown (?)

• No Data (ND)

• Not Relevant (NR)

19

Likelihood of HarmBased 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

20

Decision Criteria Table1 2a 2b 3 4a 4b 5 6N N N U No correlationY Y Y ND ND ND ND ND P Just correlation

Y Y Y N UCorrelation but negative evidence for cause-effect

Y Y Y N U Spurious correlation

Y Y Y LCorrelation with some evidence of cause-effect

Y Y Y ND N PCorrelation but lack of evidence for cause-effect

Y Y Y Y Y N L

Correlation with evidence for cause-effect and recovery does not always happen

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y VLCorrelation with very strong evidence for cause-effect

Y Y Y Y Y Y VLcorrelation with strong evidence for cause-effect

Y Y Y Y M PCorrelation but scientific/logical justification lacking

ND Y ?

Cause-effect relationship known to be possible in principle, but no evidence in this case

QuestionResult Conclusion

Source: Pork Klang Initial Risk Assessment – Appendix 5

21

Decision Table

Mangroves of Klang Island

Sedi

men

tatio

n

TSS

Pollu

tion

Land

Rec

lam

atio

n

Oth

er A

ctiv

ities

1. Is the target exposed to any of the agents? M Y M Y Y2a. Was there any loss/es that occurred following exposure? M Y M Y Y2b. Was there any loss/es correlated through space? M ND M Y Y3. Does the exposure concentration exceed the threshold whereadverse effects start to happen? M Y M M M

4a. Do the results from controlled exposure in field experimentslead to the same effect? ND ND ND NR NR

4b. Will removal of the agent lead to amelioration? Y Y Y Y Y5. Is there specific evidence in the target as a result of exposure tothe agent? ND Y ND Y Y

6. Does it make sense (logically and scientifically)? Y Y N Y YLikelihood ? P ? L L

Source: Pork Klang Initial Risk Assessment – Table 4

22

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)

23

Limitations

• Insufficient quantitative data

• Agents Targets – not clearly defined

• Difficult to correlate between the agents and resources

24

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

25

Retrospective Risk Assessment

PRESENTPAST FUTURE

Observe

ECOLOGICALPROBLEMS

HARMFULACTIVITIES

Manage

HARMFULACTIVITIES

Reduce harm to

ECOLOGICALSYSTEM

Identify

Prospective Risk Assessment

27

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.

28

Start Point

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

29

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

30

• Study area– Water column contaminations– Air quality

• 3 types of RQs are constructed– RQmax

– RQmin

– RQave

31

Preliminary Study – Water Column

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

32

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.

33

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

34

Agents Studied

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

35

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

36

Risk from E. Coli

– Contamination to aquaculture products and risk to human health.

– Recreation in marine water poses human health risk.

37

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.

38

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.

39

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.

40

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.

41

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.

42

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.

43

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.

44

Result

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

45

Comparative Risk Comparative Risk AssessmentAssessment

46

Comparative Risk Assessment

Objective:• Compare RQs in

Prospective Risk Assessment

• Identify agents with highest risks

• Decide management priorityPicture source: http://www.entershanghai.info/country/Ci_20_set.htm

47

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

48

RQ

Agents0-1 1-10 10-100

DO

SS

Turbidity

Heavy Metals

E. Coli

Oil

Comparative Risk Assessment of Water-Borne Substance in Coastal Areas

0.8 1.3

1.4 7

0.3 8

0.50.02

1.8 34

1.6 5.5

Average Worst case

49

Comparative Risk Assessment of E. Coli in Coastal Areas

RQ

Site

0-1 1-10 10-100

Pantai Morib

Kuala Langat at Jugra

Kuala Klang

Kuala Langat

Selat Klang Utara

50

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

51

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.

52

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.

53

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

54

Uncertainty

• Differences between average & worst case

• Data gaps (e.g. lacks of MECs & local standards)

Socioeconomic DriversSocioeconomic Drivers

56

Socioeconomic Drivers for the changes

• Change of land-use policy

• Population increase

• Agricultural development

• Increased waste generation ratePicture source: http://www.foudroyan.com/fonds_ecran/port_01.html

57

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

58

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

59

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

60

Population increase

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1991 2000 2005

Klang

Kuala Langat

= More energy & resources needed!

61

Agricultural development• Mangrove in 1998

Klang: 12,301 ha 10,871 ha = 88% leftKapar: 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

62

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/mefiance-du-sud.htm

63

Increased waste generation rate

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1994 2001 2005

Klang

Kuala Langat

(tons/day)

Problem in landfill availability!

Recommendations & proposed actions

65

• 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

66

• 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

67

• 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

68

– 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

69

• 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

70

• 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