The Communication Sets out a Good Rationale for Cooperation at European Level

Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment

Conclusions from the conference working session on monitoring and assessment – how to streamline the generation, gathering and assessment of information

Rapporteur Gert Verreet

The Communication sets out a good rationale for cooperation at European level

• There is a large commonality in the types of problems experienced in the various sea areas around Europe. However, each sea has its own physical and biological characteristics that justify a differentiated regional application of common approaches to such typical problems.
• Existing monitoring and assessment programmes and the knowledge they have generated reveal a significant number of information gaps on the state of the marine environment, on the processes taking place in the marine ecosystem and on the effectiveness of the existing environmental protection measures.
• Common approaches to assessment and monitoring activities would allow countries and international organisations in the field to bring out the big picture, to operate more cost-effectively and to enhance the Pan-European understanding of the state of the marine environment in general and the further policy challenges that it poses.

Combining policy needs as drivers for assessment and monitoring with the scientific complexities of the marine environment

• The design of assessment and monitoring programmes should respond to policy needs and objectives. Although many organisations are currently moving in that direction, there is still a great scope for improvements and to exchange experiences and tools for meeting the challenge.
• The complexity of the marine environmental processes has to be taken into account when drawing up suitable monitoring and assessment programmes. Ideally one should combine a good choice of pressure and state indicators which are easy to understand and thus interesting to maintain the dialogue with policy makers, stakeholders and the public with more detailed measurements that are necessary to maintain the overall scientific validity of the programme. The latter improve the chances that one will remain able to assess, in a longer-term perspective, how the marine systems evolve. Policy makers should be aware that part of the recurrent monitoring and data handling expenditure is an investment for the future, which will deliver even greater returns if the assessment efforts are systematised further. Generally the scientific integrity of the assessments should be secured (e.g. role of ICES in scientific peer review; QA and agreed uniform data validation procedures).

Assessment and monitoring are to serve as marine environmental ´intelligence`

• Marine assessment and monitoring has a solid basis in marine science. An effective protection and conservation of the marine environment requires a good understanding of the ecological processes and of the ways in which human-induced changes and impacts propagate through the system.
• This link between research science and regular assessment and monitoring becomes even more important if policy developments will increasingly be directed through an ecosystem approach. The scientific community should thus be intensively involved in translating policy information needs into the design and implementation of monitoring programmes. At the same time mechanisms must be developed to make it possible to detect and identify emerging problems. If this is done well we will also be able to ´decode´ better the signals that we pick up through monitoring and assessment.
• This may imply that international marine monitoring programmes should be steered more from a perspective of large-scale ecosystem units, where appropriate using shared resources, rather than solely on the basis of contributions from national monitoring.
• At the cutting edge, scientific consensus tends to be weaker. Policy makers should be aware that complex new issues require time and effort to resolve.
• The Conference working session stressed the importance of Action 23 of the Communication in this respect.

• Ultimately Strategy partners will benefit from this strengthened ´intelligence` by conducting a review of progress of the marine Strategy in terms of state of the environment reporting, distance to target evaluation and policy effectiveness.

A general understanding of mutual benefit of cooperation between institutional actors makes it possible to move ahead on the basis of concrete cases and concrete steps

• There is general support by representatives of many institutional actors to mutually adjust in the common interest assessment and monitoring systems, together with their associated reporting. The Conference working session advocated to base and extend the mutual cooperation on the proven mechanisms of the existing relations. A pragmatic approach to co-operation would result in quicker synergies than reliance on legally binding arrangements.
• Some regional marine conventions are actively examining the necessary or possible adjustments of their monitoring systems to arrangements made for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive. Such processes should be encouraged.
• Cost-efficient solutions that may improve quality should be sought, e.g. such as by cross-border co-operation in sampling and analysis.
• One of the main platforms for communication and cooperation so far is the Interregional Forum (IRF) operated by the European Environment Agency for which the Conference working session suggested a continued but revised future role as a facilitating body (see box 1). Partners to the Marine Strategy should be invited to confirm their willingness to co-operate through such a facilitating body.

• Develop rules of procedure covering:

• The aim of the IRF
• Its membership / partnership
• The topics covered
• The general procedures and meeting schedule

• Confirm the continuation of the present permanent secretariat

• Establish a rotating chairmanship between members / partners.

• Establish good links with the research science community

• On data management and reporting, the Conference working session welcomed the Chairman´s conclusions of the Conference, organised by the Danish Presidency in September 2002, on Environmental Reporting and Information Management. This Conference confirmed the need for international co-operation through a process of streamlining systems. The work on marine monitoring and assessment should take into account this ongoing and future work on the streamlining of reporting and information management, which includes among others:
• the upcoming proposal for a framework directive on reporting, that would include a provision for consultation of other international organisations when new Community environmental reporting systems are being established;
• the common implementation strategy of the WFD,
• the work of the EEA on a European Environment Information System,
• the development of indicators.

As regards in particular the IRF, it should - for its area of competence - take account and facilitate the follow-up process on international co-operation lead by the EEA, with involvement of key stakeholders.

• In addition to these organisational arrangements regarding the IRF, the Conference working party further selected three key subjects on the basis of a perceived general interest where ways and means of co-operation and mutual support could be examined and tested first. These are:
• the question of marine eutrophication (box 2),
• the question of the potential impact of selected hazardous substances through the marine system and food chain all the way to human health, for which initiatives could be initiated using agreed arrangements in HELCOM and taking into account also developments under the Stockholm POPs Convention by the UNEP Chemicals Division, AMAP, EMEP and by the Nordic Council;
• the question of the monitoring and assessment needs for marine protected areas (MPAs, box 3)

BOX 2 – FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE ON CO-OPERATION REGARDING ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING OF MARINE EUTROPHICATION

Policy context

Suggested first steps of process

• What assessment schemes and criteria exist (e.g. what are levels triggering policy responses) and at what geographical scale are they used;
• What associated monitoring takes place (determinands, scales);
• Who collects the data at the international level;
• How does the monitoring and assessment system handle the questions of natural sensitivity to eutrophication and risk of eutrophication from pressures
• Are the drivers (sectors, sources) included in the assessment and monitoring system;
• What are the assessment results;
• What regulatory frameworks apply;
• What research can contribute to these assessment and monitoring schemes,
• …

Step 3: The partners should forward the outcome of the workshop and associated proposals to the right forums to make synergy reality.

• The World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD, Johannesburg, 2002) set a specific target for a globally representative network of MPAs by 2012.
• The Regional Conventions all have provisions for habitat protection. OSPAR (Annex V) and HELCOM have entered into bilateral negotiations on a common framework.
• The Habitats and Birds Directives provide for the establishment of marine special areas for conservation (SACs) for a restricted number of site categories (e.g. sandbanks and reefs). There are only two proposed offshore (outside 12 nm but within the EEZ) SACs. [add time schedule]
• Non-EU Conventions including the Biodiversity Convention, Ramsar, MARPOL (SSPAs).
• Sub-regional agreements such as the Wadden Sea initiative.
• National strategies that pre-date the Habitats Directive or cover non-Member States (e.g. the Sula ridge, Norway).

• Clarity with definitions
• Clearer scientific base for designations
• Coherence of designations (too many overlaps, confusion for stakeholders)
• Establish a political process for designation (e.g. in transboundary cases) and management
• Stakeholder definition
• Methodology for measuring social and economic costs and benefits.

• Better scientific information for designation (based on assessment)
• Availability of information on pressures (e.g. pressure from bottom fishing gear)
• Monitoring for management and compliance
• Research needs (under Framework Programme 6)

1

[1] AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme)

Black Sea (Bucharest Convention)

HELCOM (Helsinki Commission)

OSPAR (OSPAR Commission)

UNEP/MAP (Mediterranean Action Plan)

ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea)

With regard to a mechanism to improve co-ordination this was discussed in session 1 and 3 and brought to the Plenary, which supported the following conclusion: With regard to a mechanism to improve co-ordination there was support for the setting up of a consultative body with representatives from the secretariats and at least one Contracting Party of all the regional seas conventions and representatives of EC, EEA, JRC, ICES. The participation of fisheries organisations would be desirable. Other interested stakeholders should also be associated to this process. The mandate of such a body would be comprehensive and cover all issues pertinent to the protection of the marine environment including policy, the development of an ecosystem approach and in particular, monitoring and assessment.

